2883 GI/2019
(4443)
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- 26]
ubZ fnYyh] twu 23—twu 29] 2019] 'kfuokj@ vk"kk<+ 2—vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
No. 26]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 23—JUNE 29, 2019, SATURDAY/ ASADHA 2— ASADHA—8, 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)
िवदेश
िवदेश
िवदेश
िवदेश मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
नई दली, 18 फरवरी, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ.1065
1065
1065
1065.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एतारा, क सरकार भारत के उायोग दारेसलाम म डॉ. शुभम $ीवातव, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को
दनांक 18 फरवरी 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा' के िनव)हन के िलए +ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/06/2018]
+काश च/ द, िनदेशक (क सुलर)
4444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 18th February, 2019
S.O.1065.— Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. SHUBHAM
SRIVASTAVA, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Dar-es-Salaam to
perform the Consular services with effect from 18 February, 2019.
[No. T-4330/06/2018]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
नई द ली, 26 अ+ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1066
1066
1066
1066.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एतारा, क सरकार भारत के राज दूतावास, बहरीन म $ी अिभषेक कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को
दनांक 26 अ+ैल 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा' के िनव)हन के िलए +ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/01/2017]
+काश च/द, िनदेशक (क सुलर)
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2019
S.O.1066.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Abhishek Kumar, ASO
in Embassy of India, Bahrain to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 26 April
2019.
[No. T-4330/01/2017]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
नई द ली, 30 अ+ैल, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ.1067
1067
1067
1067.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एतारा, क सरकार भारत के राज दूतावास, >ूिनस म $ी िवनोद शमा), सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक
30 अ+ैल 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा' के िनव)हन के िलए +ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/01/2017]
+काश च/द, िनदेशक (क सुलर)
New Delhi, the 30th April 2019
S.O.1067.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vinod Sharma, Assistant
Section Officer in Embassy of India, Tunis to perform consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from
30 April, 2019.
[No. T-4330/01/2017]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4445
नई द ली, 30 अ+ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1068
1068
1068
1068.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एतारा, क सरकार भारत के राज दूतावास, रे@यािवक म $ी अिनल कुमार राठी, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को
दनांक 30 अ+ैल 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा' के िनव)हन के िलए +ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]
+काश च/द, िनदेशक (क सुलर)
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2019
S.O.1068.—Statutory Order: In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anil Kumar Rathee,
Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Reykjavik to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular
Officer with effect from 30 April 2019.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
नई द ली, 8 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1069
1069
1069
1069.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एतारा, क सरकार भारत के राज दूताबास टो@ यो, म $ी संदीप Dसह, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक
08 मई 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा' के िनव)हन के िलए +ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/02/2018]
टी. अजुFGला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2019
S.O.1069.—Statutory Order : In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sandeep Singh, Assistant
Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Tokyo to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect
from 08 May 2019.
[No.T-4330/02/2018]
T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)
4446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 28 नवH बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1070
1070
1070
1070 .—भारतीय आयुJवKान पLरषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)
Nारा +दO त शि@ तय का +योग करते Pए के/ सरकार, भारतीय आयुJवKान पLरषद से परामश) करके उR अिधिनयम क
+थम अनुसूची म, िनSिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथा)त्:-
उR +थम अनुसूची म
(i)
‘मा/यता +ाW आयुJवKान अह)ता’ शीष)क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “कालीकट
िवXिवYालय/केरल वा[य िवKान िवXिवYालय, तृ\शूर” के सामने अंितम +िवि] के प^ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए
संि_िWकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत +िवि] के संबंध म िनSिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया
जाएगा. अथा)त्:-
(2)
(3)
“िड`लोमा इन रेिडयो-थेरेपी”
डीएमआरटी
(यह एक मा/यता +ाW आयुJवKान अह)ता होगी जब यह
गवन)मट मेिडकल कॉलेज, कोिझकोड म अकादिमक सa
2014-15 तक म +िव] छाa के संबंध म कालीकट
िवXिवYालय/केरल वा[य िवKान िवXिवYालय,
तृ\शूर Nारा +दc होगी।
[सं. जेड-20015/94/2018-एमई-I]
डी. वी. के. राव, संयुR सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 28th November, 2018
S.O.1070.—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 —
a)
against “University of Calicut/ 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:-
(2)
(3)
“Diploma in Radio-Therapy”
DMRT
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by University of Calicut/ Kerala
University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in
respect of students admitted at Government
Medical College, Kozhikode till the academic
session 2014-15).
[No. Z-20015/94/2018-ME-I]
D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4447
पेोिलयम
पेोिलयम
पेोिलयम
पेोिलयम और
और
और
और ाकृितक
ाकृितक
ाकृितक
ाकृितक गैस
गैस
गैस
गैस मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई दली, 18 जून, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ.1071
1071
1071
1071.—कीय सरकार को ऐसा +तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आव\यक है क आंd +देश राeय म
पेfोिलयम उOपाद के पLरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना के gया/वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड Nारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के +योजन के िलए यह आव\यक +तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म जो इस से
उपाबi अनुसूची म वJणत है, और िजसम उR पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का +ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के/ीय सरकार, पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ/स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज)न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी kिR, जो उR अनुसूची म वJणत भूिम म िहतबi है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म युR भारत के
राजपa क +ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती ह, इnस (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब/ध म $ी बी वकटेसु, स_म +ािधकारी (आंd +देश), इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ/स +भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एने@सी
भवन, िथnना (डायमंड पाक)) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉHपले@स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आंd +देश राeय को िलिखत
oप से आ_ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला : िविजयानगरम राय : आँ देश
मंडल का नाम
ाम का नाम
सव नबर
ेफल
हेटेयर
एयर
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)
गुला)
सदानंदापुरम
73/5P
00
00
12
गुला)
नगलावलसा
86/15
00
00
11
87/16
00
00
76
84/29
00
01
39
84/27
00
01
76
84/24
00
00
11
83/5
00
00
26
83/4
00
00
20
42/10
00
03
31
42/5
00
00
66
41/12P
00
01
48
41/6
00
00
46
41/1P
00
01
26
4448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
40/23
00
00
39
40/16
00
00
56
40/15
00
00
52
40/9
00
00
98
40/8
00
00
99
39/11
00
00
24
39/22
00
00
36
39/23
00
00
28
39/13
00
02
86
39/14
00
00
12
39/3P
00
00
84
37/24
00
00
66
37/13
00
00
19
34/15
00
01
35
34/13
00
00
83
34/10
00
00
47
34/9
00
00
51
65/1
00
02
05
65/8
00
01
48
65/2
00
03
71
29/10
00
03
52
29/13
00
02
04
66/2P
00
00
58
66/3P
00
01
19
66/4
00
02
74
87/13
00
00
11
40/26
00
03
04
19/93
00
00
41
85/P
00
02
03
34/18
00
01
52
34/7
00
00
11
29/4
00
00
21
29/5
00
04
56
66/5
00
00
41
66/17
00
01
02
गुला)
जHमु
88/11
00
00
27
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4449
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
90/3
00
00
99
90/4
00
00
21
90/7
00
01
57
93/12
00
03
30
93/13
00
01
91
93/11
00
00
12
93/7
00
02
70
93/5
00
00
38
93/6
00
04
56
97/23
00
02
03
97/21
00
00
36
97/15
00
03
37
275/3
00
03
17
275/10P
00
09
90
270/26
00
02
25
269/12
00
01
62
269/14
00
01
30
269/10
00
01
96
269/8
00
00
11
269/5
00
00
67
112/5
00
00
54
111/1
00
00
52
111/3
00
02
82
109/5
00
01
93
109/13
00
00
55
110/1
00
00
40
108/14
00
01
35
108/18
00
02
05
108/19
00
00
44
108/12
00
00
31
108/24
00
01
53
108/25
00
01
65
117/2
00
08
92
119/1
00
04
37
126/9
00
00
60
123/5
00
00
13
4450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
123/2
00
01
22
151/11
00
00
63
151/15
00
00
82
151/10
00
01
64
182/27
00
00
36
182/18
00
00
46
182/17
00
02
89
183/22
00
02
26
183/23
00
01
30
183/4
00
00
51
183/2
00
00
41
179/12
00
01
70
179/11
00
00
49
179/10
00
01
99
179/2
00
00
39
178/3
00
00
37
176/31
00
00
71
176/1
00
01
06
175/23
00
12
10
197/19
00
06
58
197/20
00
00
68
197/30
00
00
73
197/29
00
00
83
197/28
00
00
29
197/27
00
00
94
196/20
00
00
36
196/24
00
10
33
196/23
00
00
67
196/22
00
00
27
211/19
00
00
12
211/7
00
00
23
211/8
00
00
73
211/10
00
02
86
211/15
00
04
26
211/14
00
02
43
216/4
00
02
44
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4451
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
216/3
00
05
94
151/13
00
00
39
176/2
00
02
64
216/2
00
06
08
214/1
00
00
11
89
00
00
51
93/3
00
00
11
95/25
00
00
81
97/20
00
00
71
97/19
00
03
04
97/18
00
04
15
97/17
00
02
94
97/16
00
01
93
275/5
00
01
22
275/4
00
02
03
275/4
00
02
64
111/4
00
00
21
109/12
00
00
30
108/16
00
02
64
117/3
00
00
41
126/37
04
24
94
126/33
00
02
84
151/16
00
00
41
151/4
00
01
83
151/8
00
00
31
185/1
00
00
11
182/28
00
00
11
95/2
00
02
03
95/1
00
00
41
275/5P
00
00
11
275/7
00
00
71
275/12
00
00
51
270/29P
00
03
04
270/29P
00
01
93
20/96
00
60
71
269/6
00
01
12
4452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
109/6
00
00
81
184/1
00
00
81
97/24
00
07
29
गुला)
गLरड़ा
3/4
00
00
45
99/23
00
02
72
99/24
00
01
57
99/27
00
00
71
99/15
00
00
72
76/7
00
00
47
75/14
00
02
22
75/12
00
00
64
79/15
00
00
71
79/12
00
01
91
80/12
00
07
02
80/4
00
02
76
80/2
00
01
79
31/7
00
01
40
32/19
00
02
33
32/18
00
01
07
32/17
00
03
42
30/15
00
00
26
30/6
00
00
23
30/5
00
00
26
30/4
00
00
31
30/03
00
00
67
34/34
00
02
46
34/22
00
00
61
34/25
00
00
41
34/14
00
00
29
34/16
00
00
62
34/09
00
00
30
34/4
00
00
52
34/02
00
00
75
34/03
00
03
13
35/5
00
00
27
35/08
00
00
94
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4453
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
35/07
00
00
60
35/34
00
00
22
12/12
00
01
73
12/13
00
03
14
12/11
00
00
26
12/09
00
00
85
7/23
00
00
63
7/22
00
00
90
7/21
00
01
48
7/20
00
02
99
7/19
00
01
41
7/14
00
01
93
6/21
00
02
64
3/3
00
08
10
3/5
00
01
25
2/12
00
05
98
3/2
00
02
03
12
00
06
58
75/15
00
00
41
गुला)
गोला)पेटा जगqाधपुरम
23/21
00
02
10
23/18
00
06
86
23/17
00
01
39
23/10
00
00
13
23/11
00
00
94
23/9
00
00
31
22/12
00
03
45
22/25
00
01
40
18/23
00
02
94
18/22
00
08
00
14/8
00
02
16
14/3
00
05
96
15/1
00
00
43
11/16
00
03
40
गुला)
गोषाड़ा
57/4
00
00
92
24/8
00
01
09
24/10
00
00
48
4454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
21/10
00
00
22
20/10
00
00
44
15/15
00
00
56
15/14
00
00
44
57/6
00
00
45
57/9
00
00
96
64/2
00
00
14
66/4
00
01
79
66/5
00
00
54
66/15
00
00
93
66/13
00
01
82
68/9
00
01
28
68/7
00
01
14
68/4
00
00
32
64/1
00
00
21
68/16
00
03
75
15/11
00
01
12
66
00
00
81
57/5
00
03
35
गुला)
कलवाचेला)
60/11
00
01
33
62/5
00
00
42
62/9
00
05
74
29/14
00
03
30
29/12
00
00
26
29/10
00
01
54
29/9
00
01
30
29/8
00
06
58
29/33
00
02
64
29/2
00
00
16
28/2
00
04
01
28/1
00
02
77
32/9
00
01
40
32/11
00
01
71
32/12
00
01
22
34/1
00
01
23
39/6
00
07
73
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4455
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
39/3
00
00
52
2/6
00
00
30
2/4
00
02
03
2/5
00
03
04
41/30
00
06
28
41/29
00
01
83
39/1
00
00
41
41/27
00
00
21
41/31
00
02
43
39/2
00
02
64
39/4
00
01
02
40/6
00
00
41
40/7
00
00
41
40/22
00
01
32
64/1
00
03
44
60/12
00
00
81
40/2
00
02
03
28/3
00
02
03
40/3
00
02
64
40/1
00
01
62
गुला)
कोटागंrेड़s
92/2
00
00
41
92/1
00
02
37
88/14
00
00
18
88/12
00
00
30
88/2
00
01
52
86/2
00
00
35
64/19
00
03
55
64/16
00
01
35
67/16
00
01
17
65/6
00
00
27
59/8
00
00
77
31/24
00
02
28
92/3
00
00
64
86/1
00
00
50
63/7
00
04
48
63/9
00
04
85
4456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
64/22
00
00
49
64/21
00
00
13
64/5
00
02
04
64/2
00
01
26
48/17
00
02
54
48/3
00
00
53
48/1
00
02
47
31/11
00
00
13
31/25
00
03
68
31/9
00
01
91
31/10
00
01
34
31/4
00
00
12
34/4
00
00
15
34/2
00
00
18
34/1
00
00
74
31/32
00
03
04
31/28
00
04
05
64/11
00
00
11
64/10
00
04
36
48/7
00
01
42
48/8
00
01
22
गुला)
आनंदपुरम एंड िबट
194/3
00
00
69
194/1
00
02
73
195/3
00
00
27
195/6
00
00
40
195/7
00
00
33
195/2
00
00
46
197/19
00
01
18
197/13
00
00
40
197/6
00
00
56
197/8
00
00
40
200/4
00
05
88
199/12
00
00
14
199/9
00
00
41
195/14
00
04
56
195/15
00
00
21
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4457
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
गुला)
केला
8/22
00
01
79
8/18
00
01
53
8/24
00
03
79
8/20
00
00
44
8/19
00
05
79
13/23
00
02
33
13/21
00
00
55
13/17
00
01
63
13/16
00
03
90
347/20
00
00
11
346/7
00
04
01
346/6
00
02
03
346/8
00
03
36
14/10
00
01
63
12/1
00
04
76
12
00
00
21
नेिलमला)
बूरड़ापेटा
121/58
00
01
68
121/57
00
00
11
121/49
00
00
38
119/23
00
02
49
119/26
00
00
97
119/25
00
00
10
119/12
00
00
43
114/24
00
01
46
84/36
00
01
99
84/35
00
00
53
84/34
00
02
44
113/6
00
00
45
85/22
00
01
19
85/13
00
00
81
85/8
00
00
50
85/6
00
00
41
86/36
00
01
95
86/23
00
00
82
73/35
00
00
30
73/28
00
02
95
4458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
73/24
00
01
12
73/8
00
00
16
73/9
00
00
58
73/10
00
01
79
73/6
00
00
61
71/10
00
00
20
71/19
00
00
60
71/15
00
01
02
71/16
00
00
44
70/27
00
00
21
70/19
00
00
10
70/20
00
00
11
70/6
00
00
36
70/2
00
00
10
70/7
00
00
31
70/1
00
01
56
66/52
00
00
11
64/14
00
01
171
64/12
00
01
10
64/02
00
00
22
63/6
00
00
31
63/4
00
01
42
63/03
00
00
23
63/02
00
00
20
58/69
00
00
18
58/17
00
07
42
58/60
00
00
77
58/59
00
00
10
58/42
00
00
75
57/23
00
01
55
57/21
00
00
25
57/18
00
00
29
57/19
00
00
10
57/15
00
01
12
54/19
00
00
31
54/16
00
00
18
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4459
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
54/37
00
00
76
52/16
00
04
72
52/14
00
00
35
52/11
00
00
31
52/8
00
00
38
52/5
00
00
45
52/2
00
00
13
09/02
00
00
16
09/01
00
00
96
08/02
00
13
83
01/33
00
01
57
01/32
00
00
93
03/25
00
00
34
03/24
00
00
36
03/04
00
00
36
02/12
00
00
21
02/18
00
00
22
02/19
00
00
24
2/20
00
00
12
2/21
00
00
26
02/23
00
00
57
02/27
00
00
58
84/18
00
01
42
89/3
00
01
62
86/34
00
01
93
85/17
00
00
21
89/20
00
00
81
89/5
00
00
81
89/4
00
01
12
85
00
00
21
121/16
00
01
22
121/15
00
00
71
121/14
00
00
51
नेिलमला)
पारासाम
271/21
00
00
10
ब डापिल
िबलालावलसा
128/20
00
01
26
129/6
00
00
13
4460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
129/5
00
01
01
129/3
00
00
69
129/2
00
01
29
129/1
00
00
95
124/13
00
00
40
124/10
00
00
96
124/8
00
01
67
123/5
00
02
65
120/17
00
00
54
120/9
00
01
80
120/8
00
01
98
89/10
00
03
17
88/12
00
00
61
88/10
00
00
27
88/13
00
00
48
81/30
00
01
28
85/4
00
01
18
85/3
00
00
53
85/1
00
07
06
48/2
00
00
12
48/3
00
00
58
48/4
00
00
43
49/13
00
03
88
49/22
00
00
61
49/23
00
00
45
49/24
00
00
31
52/15
00
01
06
52/14
00
00
59
47/1
00
02
44
37/7
00
00
10
36/11
00
01
19
36/4
00
03
14
23/16
00
01
08
26/3
00
00
11
4/2
00
00
29
122/18
00
00
21
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4461
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
122/14
00
00
41
120/20
00
01
62
120/19
00
00
11
120/18
00
00
11
37/4
00
01
12
124/12
00
00
81
88/5
00
03
24
ब डापिल
ब डापिल
720/9
00
00
10
720/17
00
00
44
ब डापिल
गtड़ािबिल
52/1
00
03
06
47/3
00
05
61
47/10
00
00
67
44/3
00
05
31
42/3
00
00
26
43/11
00
01
12
39/11
00
01
53
39/1
00
00
32
37/20
00
01
59
37/14
00
01
76
19/6
00
00
31
17/24
00
00
88
16/6
00
01
39
15/17
00
01
69
148/6
00
00
18
148/8
00
00
91
149/1
00
01
93
172/14
00
01
25
171/8
00
00
90
171/9
00
00
37
170/11
00
02
45
170/12
00
00
39
170/10
00
00
18
170/19
00
00
44
170/22
00
00
22
174/11
00
00
62
178/3
00
01
01
4462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
176/5
00
03
96
176/4
00
00
12
176/3
00
00
79
156/1
00
03
63
170/15
00
00
41
172/15
00
00
21
36/33
00
00
21
36/34
00
01
62
178/12
00
03
04
ब डापिल
केराटाम
17/16
00
01
17
17/9
00
00
41
18/6
00
01
79
18/5
00
00
45
22/15
00
01
25
22/16
00
01
03
22/17
00
00
21
24/19
00
00
34
24/5
00
00
49
24/1
00
18
95
30/18
00
00
59
30/14
00
00
79
30/15
00
00
50
30/9
00
01
22
30/2
00
00
27
30/10
00
00
10
36/17
00
01
13
36/2
00
01
07
54/22
00
00
10
54/5
00
00
12
53/22
00
00
93
53/21
00
00
32
53/18
00
01
12
52/25
00
00
10
52/20
00
01
53
52/15
00
00
10
52/7
00
00
47
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4463
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
56/18
00
00
18
56/9
00
00
29
49/3
00
01
80
77/1
00
03
80
24/17
00
00
45
30/20
00
00
74
30/8
00
00
47
36/15
00
01
25
36/9
00
01
83
36/7
00
00
97
54/6
00
00
63
52/19
00
00
53
52/4
00
00
91
56/2
00
00
71
50/57
00
00
92
50/34
00
01
70
50/24
00
00
10
50/33
00
00
32
49/18
00
02
67
49/2
00
01
79
80/6
00
00
31
77/3
00
01
68
22/18
00
12
55
52/24
00
01
52
24/27
00
00
21
24/10
00
02
03
24/11
00
01
72
ब डापिल
क डाuकडाम
49/21
00
04
48
49/19
00
07
24
52/34
00
00
68
52/38
00
00
58
52/33
00
00
24
52/30
00
00
41
52/27
00
00
27
52/28
00
00
29
52/11
00
00
19
4464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
52/9
00
00
43
52/10
00
00
57
54/3
00
00
51
45/11
00
00
11
45/4
00
00
19
37/35
00
01
33
5/4
00
00
10
4/15
00
00
13
4/14
00
01
39
4/22
00
02
96
37/36
00
01
72
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला : "ीकाकुलम राय : आँ देश
मंडल का नाम
ाम का नाम
सव नबर
ेफल
हेटेयर
एयर
वग मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
प%दू'
तोलािप
95/2
00
00
41
लावे'
अदापाका
51/1
00
04
05
111/15
00
01
32
113/12
00
00
31
67/19
00
01
02
67/23
00
02
03
111/8
00
04
45
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शा/ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2019
S.O.1071.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-
Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil 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 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
Pipelines (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 therein;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4465
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to
Shri. B.Venkatesu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip
Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex,
Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
GURLA
SADANANDAPURAM
73/5P
00
00
12
GURLA
NAGALLAVALASA
86/15
00
00
11
87/16
00
00
76
84/29
00
01
39
84/27
00
01
76
84/24
00
00
11
83/5
00
00
26
83/4
00
00
20
42/10
00
03
31
42/5
00
00
66
41/12P
00
01
48
41/6
00
00
46
41/1P
00
01
26
40/23
00
00
39
40/16
00
00
56
40/15
00
00
52
40/9
00
00
98
40/8
00
00
99
39/11
00
00
24
39/22
00
00
36
39/23
00
00
28
39/13
00
02
86
39/14
00
00
12
39/3P
00
00
84
37/24
00
00
66
37/13
00
00
19
34/15
00
01
35
34/13
00
00
83
34/10
00
00
47
34/9
00
00
51
65/1
00
02
05
65/8
00
01
48
65/2
00
03
71
29/10
00
03
52
29/13
00
02
04
66/2P
00
00
58
66/3P
00
01
19
66/4
00
02
74
87/13
00
00
11
40/26
00
03
04
19/93
00
00
41
85/P
00
02
03
34/18
00
01
52
34/7
00
00
11
29/4
00
00
21
29/5
00
04
56
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT :VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
4466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
66/5
00
00
41
66/17
00
01
02
GURLA
JAMMU
88/11
00
00
27
90/3
00
00
99
90/4
00
00
21
90/7
00
01
57
93/12
00
03
30
93/13
00
01
91
93/11
00
00
12
93/7
00
02
70
93/5
00
00
38
93/6
00
04
56
97/23
00
02
03
97/21
00
00
36
97/15
00
03
37
275/3
00
03
17
275/10P
00
09
90
270/26
00
02
25
269/12
00
01
62
269/14
00
01
30
269/10
00
01
96
269/8
00
00
11
269/5
00
00
67
112/5
00
00
54
111/1
00
00
52
111/3
00
02
82
109/5
00
01
93
109/13
00
00
55
110/1
00
00
40
108/14
00
01
35
108/18
00
02
05
108/19
00
00
44
108/12
00
00
31
108/24
00
01
53
108/25
00
01
65
117/2
00
08
92
119/1
00
04
37
126/9
00
00
60
123/5
00
00
13
123/2
00
01
22
151/11
00
00
63
151/15
00
00
82
151/10
00
01
64
182/27
00
00
36
182/18
00
00
46
182/17
00
02
89
183/22
00
02
26
183/23
00
01
30
183/4
00
00
51
183/2
00
00
41
179/12
00
01
70
179/11
00
00
49
179/10
00
01
99
179/2
00
00
39
178/3
00
00
37
176/31
00
00
71
176/1
00
01
06
175/23
00
12
10
197/19
00
06
58
197/20
00
00
68
197/30
00
00
73
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4467
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
197/29
00
00
83
197/28
00
00
29
197/27
00
00
94
196/20
00
00
36
196/24
00
10
33
196/23
00
00
67
196/22
00
00
27
211/19
00
00
12
211/7
00
00
23
211/8
00
00
73
211/10
00
02
86
211/15
00
04
26
211/14
00
02
43
216/4
00
02
44
216/3
00
05
94
151/13
00
00
39
176/2
00
02
64
216/2
00
06
08
89
00
00
51
93/3
00
00
11
95/25
00
00
81
97/20
00
00
71
97/19
00
03
04
97/18
00
04
15
97/17
00
02
94
97/16
00
01
93
275/5
00
01
22
275/4
00
02
03
275/4
00
02
64
111/4
00
00
21
109/12
00
00
30
108/16
00
02
64
117/3
00
00
41
126/37
04
24
94
126/33
00
02
84
151/16
00
00
41
151/4
00
01
83
151/8
00
00
31
185/1
00
00
11
182/28
00
00
11
95/2
00
02
03
95/1
00
00
41
275/5P
00
00
11
275/7
00
00
71
275/12
00
00
51
270/29P
00
03
04
270/29P
00
01
93
20/96
00
60
71
269/6
00
01
12
109/6
00
00
81
184/1
00
00
81
97/24
00
07
29
GURLA
GARIDA
3/4
00
00
45
99/23
00
02
72
99/24
00
01
57
99/27
00
00
71
99/15
00
00
72
76/7
00
00
47
75/14
00
02
22
75/12
00
00
64
79/15
00
00
71
4468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
79/12
00
01
91
80/12
00
07
02
80/4
00
02
76
80/2
00
01
79
31/7
00
01
40
32/19
00
02
33
32/18
00
01
07
32/17
00
03
42
30/15
00
00
26
30/6
00
00
23
30/5
00
00
26
30/4
00
00
31
30/03
00
00
67
34/34
00
02
46
34/22
00
00
61
34/25
00
00
41
34/14
00
00
29
34/16
00
00
62
34/09
00
00
30
34/4
00
00
52
34/02
00
00
75
34/03
00
03
13
35/5
00
00
27
35/08
00
00
94
35/07
00
00
60
35/34
00
00
22
12/12
00
01
73
12/13
00
03
14
12/11
00
00
26
12/09
00
00
85
7/23
00
00
63
7/22
00
00
90
7/21
00
01
48
7/20
00
02
99
7/19
00
01
41
7/14
00
01
93
6/21
00
02
64
3/3
00
08
10
3/5
00
01
25
2/12
00
05
98
3/2
00
02
03
12
00
06
58
75/15
00
00
41
GURLA
GORLAPETA_JAGANADHAPURAM
23/21
00
02
10
23/18
00
06
86
23/17
00
01
39
23/10
00
00
13
23/11
00
00
94
23/9
00
00
31
22/12
00
03
45
22/25
00
01
40
18/23
00
02
94
18/22
00
08
00
14/8
00
02
16
14/3
00
05
96
15/1
00
00
43
11/16
00
03
40
GURLA
GOSADA
57/4
00
00
92
24/8
00
01
09
24/10
00
00
48
21/10
00
00
22
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4469
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
20/10
00
00
44
15/15
00
00
56
15/14
00
00
44
57/6
00
00
45
57/9
00
00
96
64/2
00
00
14
66/4
00
01
79
66/5
00
00
54
66/15
00
00
93
66/13
00
01
82
68/9
00
01
28
68/7
00
01
14
68/4
00
00
32
64/1
00
00
21
68/16
00
03
75
15/11
00
01
12
66
00
00
81
57/5
00
03
35
GURLA
KALAVACHERLA
60/11
00
01
33
62/5
00
00
42
62/9
00
05
74
29/14
00
03
30
29/12
00
00
26
29/10
00
01
54
29/9
00
01
30
29/8
00
06
58
29/33
00
02
64
29/2
00
00
16
28/2
00
04
01
28/1
00
02
77
32/9
00
01
40
32/11
00
01
71
32/12
00
01
22
34/1
00
01
23
39/6
00
07
73
39/3
00
00
52
2/6
00
00
30
2/4
00
02
03
2/5
00
03
04
41/30
00
06
28
41/29
00
01
83
39/1
00
00
41
41/27
00
00
21
41/31
00
02
43
39/2
00
02
64
39/4
00
01
02
40/6
00
00
41
40/7
00
00
41
40/22
00
01
32
64/1
00
03
44
60/12
00
00
81
40/2
00
02
03
28/3
00
02
03
40/3
00
02
64
40/1
00
01
62
GURLA
KOTTA GANDREDU
92/2
00
00
41
92/1
00
02
37
88/14
00
00
18
88/12
00
00
30
88/2
00
01
52
86/2
00
00
35
4470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
64/19
00
03
55
64/16
00
01
35
67/16
00
01
17
65/6
00
00
27
59/8
00
00
77
31/24
00
02
28
92/3
00
00
64
86/1
00
00
50
63/7
00
04
48
63/9
00
04
85
64/22
00
00
49
64/21
00
00
13
64/5
00
02
04
64/2
00
01
26
48/17
00
02
54
48/3
00
00
53
48/1
00
02
47
31/11
00
00
13
31/25
00
03
68
31/9
00
01
91
31/10
00
01
34
31/4
00
00
12
34/4
00
00
15
34/2
00
00
18
34/1
00
00
74
31/32
00
03
04
31/28
00
04
05
64/11
00
00
11
64/10
00
04
36
48/7
00
01
42
48/8
00
01
22
GURLA
ANANDAPURAM END BIT
194/3
00
00
69
194/1
00
02
73
195/3
00
00
27
195/6
00
00
40
195/7
00
00
33
195/2
00
00
46
197/19
00
01
18
197/13
00
00
40
197/6
00
00
56
197/8
00
00
40
200/4
00
05
88
199/12
00
00
14
199/9
00
00
41
195/14
00
04
56
195/15
00
00
21
GURLA
KELLA
8/22
00
01
79
8/18
00
01
53
8/24
00
03
79
8/20
00
00
44
8/19
00
05
79
13/23
00
02
33
13/21
00
00
55
13/17
00
01
63
13/16
00
03
90
347/20
00
00
11
346/7
00
04
01
346/6
00
02
03
346/8
00
03
36
14/10
00
01
63
12/1
12
00
00
04
00
76
21
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4471
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
NELLIMARLA
BURUDUPETA
121/58
00
01
68
121/57
00
00
11
121/49
00
00
38
119/23
00
02
49
119/26
00
00
97
119/25
00
00
10
119/12
00
00
43
114/24
00
01
46
84/36
00
01
99
84/35
00
00
53
84/34
00
02
44
113/6
00
00
45
85/22
00
01
19
85/13
00
00
81
85/8
00
00
50
85/6
00
00
41
86/36
00
01
95
86/23
00
00
82
73/35
00
00
30
73/28
00
02
95
73/24
00
01
12
73/8
00
00
16
73/9
00
00
58
73/10
00
01
79
73/6
00
00
61
71/10
00
00
20
71/19
00
00
60
71/15
00
01
02
71/16
00
00
44
70/27
00
00
21
70/19
00
00
10
70/20
00
00
11
70/6
00
00
36
70/2
00
00
10
70/7
00
00
31
70/1
00
01
56
66/52
00
00
11
64/14
00
01
171
64/12
00
01
10
64/02
00
00
22
63/6
00
00
31
63/4
00
01
42
63/03
00
00
23
63/02
00
00
20
58/69
00
00
18
58/17
00
07
42
58/60
00
00
77
58/59
00
00
10
58/42
00
00
75
57/23
00
01
55
57/21
00
00
25
57/18
00
00
29
57/19
00
00
10
57/15
00
01
12
54/19
00
00
31
54/16
00
00
18
54/37
00
00
76
52/16
00
04
72
52/14
00
00
35
52/11
00
00
31
52/8
00
00
38
4472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
52/5
00
00
45
52/2
00
00
13
09/02
00
00
16
09/01
00
00
96
08/02
00
13
83
01/33
00
01
57
01/32
00
00
93
03/25
00
00
34
03/24
00
00
36
03/04
00
00
36
02/12
00
00
21
02/18
00
00
22
02/19
00
00
24
2/20
00
00
12
2/21
00
00
26
02/23
00
00
57
02/27
00
00
58
84/18
00
01
42
89/3
00
01
62
86/34
00
01
93
85/17
00
00
21
89/20
00
00
81
89/5
00
00
81
89/4
00
01
12
85
00
00
21
121/16
00
01
22
121/15
00
00
71
121/14
00
00
51
NELLIMARLA
PARASAM
271/21
00
00
10
BONDAPALLI
BILLALAVALASA
128/20
00
01
26
129/6
00
00
13
129/5
00
01
01
129/3
00
00
69
129/2
00
01
29
129/1
00
00
95
124/13
00
00
40
124/10
00
00
96
124/8
00
01
67
123/5
00
02
65
120/17
00
00
54
120/9
00
01
80
120/8
00
01
98
89/10
00
03
17
88/12
00
00
61
88/10
00
00
27
88/13
00
00
48
81/30
00
01
28
85/4
00
01
18
85/3
00
00
53
85/1
00
07
06
48/2
00
00
12
48/3
00
00
58
48/4
00
00
43
49/13
00
03
88
49/22
00
00
61
49/23
00
00
45
49/24
00
00
31
52/15
00
01
06
52/14
00
00
59
47/1
00
02
44
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4473
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
37/7
00
00
10
36/11
00
01
19
36/4
00
03
14
23/16
00
01
08
26/3
00
00
11
4/2
00
00
29
122/18
00
00
21
122/14
00
00
41
120/20
00
01
62
120/19
00
00
11
120/18
00
00
11
37/4
00
01
12
124/12
00
00
81
88/5
00
03
24
BONDAPALLI
BONDAPALLE
720/9
00
00
10
720/17
00
00
44
BONDAPALLI
GARUDABILLI
52/1
00
03
06
47/3
00
05
61
47/10
00
00
67
44/3
00
05
31
42/3
00
00
26
43/11
00
01
12
39/11
00
01
53
39/1
00
00
32
37/20
00
01
59
37/14
00
01
76
19/6
00
00
31
17/24
00
00
88
16/6
00
01
39
15/17
00
01
69
148/6
00
00
18
148/8
00
00
91
149/1
00
01
93
172/14
00
01
25
171/8
00
00
90
171/9
00
00
37
170/11
00
02
45
170/12
00
00
39
170/10
00
00
18
170/19
00
00
44
170/22
00
00
22
174/11
00
00
62
178/3
00
01
01
176/5
00
03
96
176/4
00
00
12
176/3
00
00
79
156/1
00
03
63
170/15
00
00
41
172/15
00
00
21
36/33
00
00
21
36/34
00
01
62
178/12
00
03
04
BONDAPALLI
KARATAM
17/16
00
01
17
17/9
00
00
41
18/6
00
01
79
18/5
00
00
45
22/15
00
01
25
22/16
00
01
03
22/17
00
00
21
24/19
00
00
34
4474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
24/5
00
00
49
24/1
00
18
95
30/18
00
00
59
30/14
00
00
79
30/15
00
00
50
30/9
00
01
22
30/2
00
00
27
30/10
00
00
10
36/17
00
01
13
36/2
00
01
07
54/22
00
00
10
54/5
00
00
12
53/22
00
00
93
53/21
00
00
32
53/18
00
01
12
52/25
00
00
10
52/20
00
01
53
52/15
00
00
10
52/7
00
00
47
56/18
00
00
18
56/9
00
00
29
49/3
00
01
80
77/1
00
03
80
24/17
00
00
45
30/20
00
00
74
30/8
00
00
47
36/15
00
01
25
36/9
00
01
83
36/7
00
00
97
54/6
00
00
63
52/19
00
00
53
52/4
00
00
91
56/2
00
00
71
50/57
00
00
92
50/34
00
01
70
50/24
00
00
10
50/33
00
00
32
49/18
00
02
67
49/2
00
01
79
80/6
00
00
31
77/3
00
01
68
22/18
00
12
55
52/24
00
01
52
24/27
00
00
21
24/10
00
02
03
24/11
00
01
72
BONDAPALLI
KONDAKINDAM
49/21
00
04
48
49/19
00
07
24
52/34
00
00
68
52/38
00
00
58
52/33
00
00
24
52/30
00
00
41
52/27
00
00
27
52/28
00
00
29
52/11
00
00
19
52/9
00
00
43
52/10
00
00
57
54/3
00
00
51
45/11
00
00
11
45/4
00
00
19
37/35
00
01
33
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4475
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
5/4
00
00
10
4/15
00
00
13
4/14
00
01
39
4/22
00
02
96
37/36
00
01
72
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
PONDURU
TOLAPI
95/2
00
00
41
LAVERU
ADAPAKA
51/1
00
04
05
111/15
00
01
32
113/12
00
00
31
67/19
00
01
02
67/23
00
02
03
111/8
00
04
45
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 18 जून, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.1072
1072
1072
1072.—के/ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके प^ात उR अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के
अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेfोिलयम और +ाकृितक गैस मंaालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. 1144 तारीख
26.07.2018 िजसका +काशन भारत के राजपa संyया 30, भाग II, खzड 3, उप खzड (ii) तारीख 29.07.2018 से
04.08.2018 का.आ. 1357 तारीख 05.09.2018 िजसका +काशन भारत के राजपa संyया 36, भाग II, खzड 3, उप
खzड (ii) तारीख 09.09.2018 से 15.09.2018 म कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म संल{ अनुसूची म िविन|द] आंd
+देश राeय के िजला िवशाखापटनम के मंडल : मुनगापाका, एस. रायवरम, नnापिल और पायाकरावुपेटा क भूिम म,
ओडीशा राeय म पारादीप से तेलंगाना राeय म हैदराबाद तक पेfोिलयम उOपाद के पLरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉप~रेशन िलिमटेड के Nारा gयाि/वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना” के संबंध म पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के +योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी:
और उR राजपa अिधसूचना क +ितयाँ जनता को उपलmध करा दी गई थ। और उR अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा
(1) के अनुसरण म स_म +ािधकारी न के/ीय सरकार को अपनी Lरपोट) दे दी है।
और के/ीय सरकार ने उR Lरपोट) पर िवचार करने के प^ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उR भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेि_त है, उसम उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न करने का िविन\ चय कया है:
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
4476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अतः अब, के/ीय सरकार उR अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए एतद् Nारा
घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल{ अनुसूिच म िविन|द] भूिम म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार
अJजत कया जाए:
और के/ीय सरकार उR अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए, यह िनद~श देती है
क उR भूिम म उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के +काशन क तारीख से के/ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी
िबलंगम से मुR होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप~रेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला : िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
सव नबर
सव नबर
सव नबर
सव नबर
!ेफल
!ेफल
!ेफल
!ेफल
हे$टेयर
हे$टेयर
हे$टेयर
हे$टेयर
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)
मुनगापाका
टी.िसरसपली
50
00
30
25
52
00
01
40
76
00
29
21
75
00
17
95
78
00
03
97
79
00
00
57
मुनगापाका
काकरपली
184
00
35
55
186
00
00
49
185
00
79
97
192
00
13
84
194
00
07
59
193
00
29
58
198
00
13
96
197
00
15
92
204
00
46
57
206
00
44
26
210
00
20
52
211
00
40
87
मुनगापाका
नागावरम
206
00
23
21
मुनगापाका
नागावरम
351
00
34
75
एस.रायवरम
पेनुगोलु
299
00
00
10
नnापिल
गोिड़चरला
337
00
89
17
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4477
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
336
00
18
09
335
00
06
44
365
00
13
28
364
00
12
39
366
00
00
37
367
00
19
70
360
00
06
43
361
00
35
45
368
00
15
04
357
00
20
42
356
00
13
63
374
00
01
62
375
00
11
93
376
00
28
07
377
00
04
84
318
00
06
30
317
00
28
09
316
00
50
01
313
00
21
24
310
00
01
67
314
00
00
19
311
00
00
10
312
00
00
10
नnापिल
उंडापुरम
18
00
19
45
19
00
10
76
17
00
04
40
16
00
21
57
8
00
39
80
7
00
15
79
6
00
09
64
5
00
22
82
4
00
15
88
3
00
14
41
4478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
पायाकरावुपेटा
अरटलाकोटा
92/3
00
09
63
107
00
19
95
92/4
00
16
16
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शा( तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2019
S.O.1072.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.30 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 29.07.2018 to 04.08.2018 vide
S.O.No. 1144 dated 26.07.2018 and No.36 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 09.09.2018 to 15.09.2018 vide
S.O.No. 1357 dated 05.09.2018 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 situated in Mandal: Munagapaka, S.Rayavaram,
Nakkapalli and Payakaraopeta of Visakhapatnam District in Andhra Pradesh State, specified in the schedule appended to
that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State
of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telangana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–
Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has
under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of 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 the 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
MUNAGAPAKA
T.SIRASAPALLI
50
00
30
25
52
00
01
40
76
00
29
21
75
00
17
95
78
00
03
97
79
00
00
57
MUNAGAPAKA
KAKARAPALLI
184
00
35
55
186
00
00
49
185
00
79
97
192
00
13
84
194
00
07
59
193
00
29
58
198
00
13
96
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4479
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
197
00
15
92
204
00
46
57
206
00
44
26
210
00
20
52
211
00
40
87
MUNAGAPAKA
NAGAVARAM
206
00
23
21
MUNAGAPAKA
NAGAVARAM
351
00
34
75
S.RAYAVARAM
PENUGOLLU
299
00
00
10
NAKKAPALLI
GODICHERLA
337
00
89
17
336
00
18
09
335
00
06
44
365
00
13
28
364
00
12
39
366
00
00
37
367
00
19
70
360
00
06
43
361
00
35
45
368
00
15
04
357
00
20
42
356
00
13
63
374
00
01
62
375
00
11
93
376
00
28
07
377
00
04
84
318
00
06
30
317
00
28
09
316
00
50
01
313
00
21
24
310
00
01
67
314
00
00
19
311
00
00
10
312
00
00
10
NAKKAPALLI
UDDANDAPURAM
18
00
19
45
19
00
10
76
17
00
04
40
16
00
21
57
8
00
39
80
7
00
15
79
6
00
09
64
5
00
22
82
4
00
15
88
3
00
14
41
PAYAKARAOPETA
ARATLAKOTA
92/3
00
09
63
107
00
19
95
92/4
00
16
16
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
4480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 18 जून, 2019
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ.1073
1073
1073
1073.—कीय सरकार को ऐसा +तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आव\यक है क आंd +देश राeय म
पेfोिलयम उOपाद के पLरवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना के gया/वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड Nारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के +योजन के िलए यह आव\यक +तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म जो इस से
ऊपाबi अनुसूची म वJणत है, और िजसम उR पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का +ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के/ीय सरकार, पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ/स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज)न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी kिR, जो उR अनुसूची म वJणत भूिम म िहतबi है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म युR भारत के
राजपa क +ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती ह, इnस (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब/ध म $ी बी. वकटेशु, स_म +ािधकारी (आंd +देश), इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ/स +भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना,चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एने@सी
भवन, िथnना (डायमंड पाक)) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉHपले@स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004,आंd +देश राeय को
िलिखत oप से आ_ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला : िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
सव" न#बर
सव" न#बर
सव" न#बर
सव" न#बर
%ेफल
%ेफल
%ेफल
%ेफल
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
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)
नnापिल
िचनारामाभापुरम
146
00
00
36
149
00
04
35
नnापिल
बोडुगलम
163/8
00
00
04
163/9
00
00
66
163/10
00
00
36
163/16
00
00
16
153/15
00
00
07
154/3
00
00
15
154/5
00
00
45
146/22
00
00
50
145/16
00
00
79
145/9
00
00
28
130/1A
00
00
09
130/1H
00
00
57
130/2D
00
00
59
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4481
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
131/4D
00
01
22
133/1
00
02
20
133/2
00
02
61
133/3
00
01
73
133/5
00
00
84
132/13
00
01
66
132/11
00
02
07
103/2
00
01
94
134/6C
00
00
21
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शा/ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2019
S.O.1073.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-
Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil 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 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
Pipelines (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 therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri.
B.Venkatesu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip
Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex,
Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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
DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
NAKKAPALLI
CHINARAMABHADRAPURAM
146
00
00
36
149
00
04
35
NAKKAPALLI
BODUGALLAM
163/8
00
00
04
163/9
00
00
66
163/10
00
00
36
163/16
00
00
16
153/15
00
00
07
4482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
154/3
00
00
15
154/5
00
00
45
146/22
00
00
50
145/16
00
00
79
145/9
00
00
28
130/1A
00
00
09
130/1H
00
00
57
130/2D
00
00
59
131/4D
00
01
22
133/1
00
02
20
133/2
00
02
61
133/3
00
01
73
133/5
00
00
84
132/13
00
01
66
132/11
00
02
07
103/2
00
01
94
134/6C
00
00
21
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 18 जून, 2019
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ.1074
1074
1074
1074.—कीय सरकार को ऐसा +तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आव\यक है क आंd +देश राeय म
पेfोिलयम उOपाद के पLरवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना के gया/वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड Nारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के +योजन के िलए यह आव\यक +तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म जो इस से
ऊपाबi अनुसूची म वJणत है, और िजसम उR पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का +ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के/ीय सरकार, पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ/स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज)न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी kिR, जो उR अनुसूची म वJणत भूिम म िहतबi है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म युR भारत के
राजपa क +ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती ह, इnस (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब/ध म $ी बी. वकटेशु, स_म +ािधकारी (आंd +देश), इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ/स +भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एने@सी
भवन, िथnना (डायमंड पाक)) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉHपले@स के पास, िवशाखापटनम – 530004 ,आंd +देश राeय को िलिखत
oप से आ_ेप भेज सकेगा।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4483
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला : िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
राय : आँ देश
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
सव नबर
सव नबर
सव नबर
सव नबर
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे#टेयर
हे#टेयर
हे#टेयर
हे#टेयर
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)
पायाकरावुपेटा
अरटलाकोटा
151/7A
00
00
03
151/4
00
00
55
151/3B
00
00
09
142/5
00
01
64
142/4B
00
05
82
107
00
00
29
92/3
00
01
30
85/1
00
01
25
40/2
00
01
29
40/5C
00
01
16
40/6B
00
00
50
46/1
00
00
80
45/25
00
00
29
45/26
00
00
42
45/27
00
00
71
49
00
01
41
पायाकरावुपेटा
पेदारामाभापुरम
8/7
00
00
64
7/2
00
02
66
18
00
03
24
29/4
00
01
19
29/5
00
01
29
27/5
00
00
17
27/2
00
00
71
108/2
00
01
01
109/2
00
02
01
111/2
00
00
03
115/1
00
00
68
120/2
00
04
33
122/1
00
03
38
पायाकरावुपेटा
पायाकरावुपेटा
221/3
00
12
41
221/4
00
01
11
4484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
222/5
00
00
71
220/4
00
02
33
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओ आर-I/ई-21033]
शा( तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2019
S.O.1074.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-
Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil 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 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
Pipelines (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 therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri.
B.Venkatesu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip
Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex,
Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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
DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
PAYAKARAOPETA
ARATLAKOTA
151/7A
00
00
03
151/4
00
00
55
151/3B
00
00
09
142/5
00
01
64
142/4B
00
05
82
107
00
00
29
92/3
00
01
30
85/1
00
01
25
40/2
00
01
29
40/5C
00
01
16
40/6B
00
00
50
46/1
00
00
80
45/25
00
00
29
45/26
00
00
42
45/27
00
00
71
49
00
01
41
PAYAKARAOPETA
PEDARAMABHADRAPURAM
8/7
00
00
64
7/2
00
02
66
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4485
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
18
00
03
24
29/4
00
01
19
29/5
00
01
29
27/5
00
00
17
27/2
00
00
71
108/2
00
01
01
109/2
00
02
01
111/2
00
00
03
115/1
00
00
68
120/2
00
04
33
122/1
00
03
38
PAYAKARAOPETA
PAYAKARAOPETA
221/3
00
12
41
221/4
00
01
11
222/5
00
00
71
220/4
00
02
33
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 18 जून, 2019
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ.1075
1075
1075
1075.—कीय सरकार को ऐसा +तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आव\यक है क आंd +देश राeय म
पेfोिलयम उOपाद के पLरवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना के gया/वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड Nारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के +योजन के िलए यह आव\यक +तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम म जो इस से
ऊपाबi अनुसूची म वJणत है, और िजसम उR पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का +ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के/ीय सरकार, पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ/स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज)न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी kिR, जो उR अनुसूची म वJणत भूिम म िहतबi है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म युR भारत के
राजपa क +ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती ह, इnस (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब/ध म $ी के. ए. एस जेिqसन, स_म +ािधकारी (आंd +देश), इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन +भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना, `लॉटसंyया 33, कनका दुगा)
ऑफसर कॉलोनी, गुtनानक नगर मेन रोड िवजयवाड़ा-520008, आंd +देश राeय को िलिखत oप से आ_ेप भेज सकेगा|
4486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला:
िजला:
िजला:
िजला: वेट
वेट
वेट
वेट गोदावरी
गोदावरी
गोदावरी
गोदावरी
राय: आ-
राय: आ-
राय: आ-
राय: आ- देश
देश
देश
देश
मंडल
मंडल
मंडल
मंडल का नाम
का नाम
का नाम
का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
ाम का नाम
सव" न#बर
सव" न#बर
सव" न#बर
सव" न#बर
%े
%े
%े
%ेफल
फल
फल
फल
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
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)
Dचतलापूड़ी
+गड़ावरम
1281/3
00
09
36
248/2
00
16
19
224/1
00
14
57
217/2A
00
09
71
210/6
00
17
00
159
00
30
76
टी. नरसापुरम
कृणारावुपालेम
4
00
65
57
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओ आर-I/ई-21033]
शा/ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2019
S.O.1075.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-
Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil 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 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
Pipelines (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 therein;
Any person, who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. K.A.S
Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip
Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer’s Colony, Gurunanak Nagar Main Road, Vijayawada -
520008 within twenty one (21) 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
District : West Godavari
State : Andhra Pradesh
Name of Mandal
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Chintalapudi
Pragadavaram
1281/3
00
09
36
248/2
00
16
19
224/1
00
14
57
217/2A
00
09
71
210/6
00
17
00
159
00
30
76
T Narsapuarm
Krishnaraopalem
4
00
65
57
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4487
नई द ली, 18 जून, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.1076
1076
1076
1076.—कीय सरकार को ऐसा +तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आव\यक है क आंd +देश राeय म
पेfोिलयम उOपाद के पLरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना के gया/वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड Nारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के +योजन के िलए यह आव\यक +तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम म जो इस से
ऊपाबi अनुसूची म वJणत है, और िजसम उR पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का +ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के/ीय सरकार, पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ/स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज)न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Nारा +दc शिRय का +योग करते Pए उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज)न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी kिR, जो उR अनुसूची म वJणत भूिम म िहतबi है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म युR भारत के
राजपa क +ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती ह, इnस (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब/ध म $ी बी. वकटेशु, स_म +ािधकारी (आंd +देश), इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपhरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ/स +भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पLरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एने@सी भवन, िथnना (डायमंड पाक)) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉHपले@स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004,आंd +देश राeय को
िलिखत oप से आ_ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला : िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
िवशाखापटनम
राय
राय
राय
राय
:
देश
देश
देश
देश
आँ
आँ
आँ
आँ
मंडल
मंडल
मंडल
मंडल का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
ाम
ाम
ाम
ाम का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
सव"
सव"
सव"
सव" न#बर
न#बर
न#बर
न#बर
%ेफल
%ेफल
%ेफल
%ेफल
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
हे(टेयर
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)
एसरायवरम
िचनागुHमुलूt
363/1
00
00
76
360/8
00
01
19
360/7
00
00
85
318
00
05
39
302/5
00
10
09
303/4
00
00
47
303/1
00
00
53
303/2
00
00
98
298/12
00
00
61
298/11
00
00
41
298/5
00
00
67
298/3
00
01
45
295/15
00
00
15
295/8
00
00
77
295/5
00
00
18
296/1
00
00
02
4488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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)
293/4
00
00
73
278/6
00
01
50
278/9
00
02
59
275/1
00
00
05
274/5
00
06
45
274/3
00
02
51
एसरायवरम
पेदागुHमालूt
296
00
00
17
292
00
09
64
291
00
00
82
59/1
00
01
15
59/2
00
00
61
56/3
00
00
41
48/13
00
00
05
48/12
00
00
47
48/6
00
00
17
48/7
00
01
87
48/11
00
00
17
45/10
00
00
78
32/18
00
00
11
32/15
00
00
57
32/5
00
00
04
32/6
00
00
05
32/1
00
00
02
22/5
00
01
74
22/6
00
00
02
21/4
00
03
65
21/1
00
01
39
2/4
00
02
42
2/3
00
08
06
4/3
00
00
12
4/2
00
00
06
एसरायवरम
पेटुगोलापिल
125/7
00
00
31
126/3
00
02
11
129/2
00
00
04
129/8
00
00
10
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4489
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
130/11
00
00
03
130/14
00
00
13
एसरायवरम
िभमावरम
423
00
00
10
403
00
20
30
379
00
00
15
एसरायवरम
पेटासूदपुरम्
48
00
02
43
113
00
00
21
121/2
00
06
38
325/2B
00
00
61
एसरायवरम
वेमािगLर
138
00
00
51
126
00
00
41
43/1
00
00
21
144
00
02
84
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओ आर-I/ई-21033]
शा/ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2019
S.O.1076.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-
Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil 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 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
Pipelines (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 therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri.
B.Venkatesu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip
Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex,
Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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
DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
S.RAYAVARAM
CHINAGUMMULURU
363/1
00
00
76
360/8
00
01
19
360/7
00
00
85
318
00
05
39
302/5
00
10
09
303/4
00
00
47
303/1
00
00
53
303/2
00
00
98
298/12
00
00
61
4490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
298/11
00
00
41
298/5
00
00
67
298/3
00
01
45
295/15
00
00
15
295/8
00
00
77
295/5
00
00
18
296/1
00
00
02
293/4
00
00
73
278/6
00
01
50
278/9
00
02
59
275/1
00
00
05
274/5
00
06
45
274/3
00
02
51
S.RAYAVARAM
PEDAGUMMALORU
296
00
00
17
292
00
09
64
291
00
00
82
59/1
00
01
15
59/2
00
00
61
56/3
00
00
41
48/13
00
00
05
48/12
00
00
47
48/6
00
00
17
48/7
00
01
87
48/11
00
00
17
45/10
00
00
78
32/18
00
00
11
32/15
00
00
57
32/5
00
00
04
32/6
00
00
05
32/1
00
00
02
22/5
00
01
74
22/6
00
00
02
21/4
00
03
65
21/1
00
01
39
2/4
00
02
42
2/3
00
08
06
4/3
00
00
12
4/2
00
00
06
S.RAYAVARAM
PETTUGOLLAPALLI
125/7
00
00
31
126/3
00
02
11
129/2
00
00
04
129/8
00
00
10
130/11
00
00
03
130/14
00
00
13
S.RAYAVARAM
BHIMAVARAM
423
00
00
10
403
00
20
30
379
00
00
15
S.RAYAVARAM
PETASUDIPURAM
48
00
02
43
113
00
00
21
121/2
00
06
38
325/2B
00
00
61
S.RAYAVARAM
VEMAGIRI
138
00
00
51
126
00
00
41
43/1
00
00
21
144
00
02
84
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4491
.म एवं रोजगार मंालय
.म एवं रोजगार मंालय
.म एवं रोजगार मंालय
.म एवं रोजगार मंालय
नई दली, 14 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1077
1077
1077
1077.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) महासिचव, भारत सरकार D+टग +ेस, सैफाबाद, हैदराबाद और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के संबi
िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म
/यायालय, 1 हैदराबाद,के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 84/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 23.01.19 को
+ाW Pए थे ।
[सं. एल-16011/01/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2019
S.O.1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General
Secretary, Government of India Security Printing Press, Saifabad, Hyderabad and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 23.01.19.
[No. L-16011/01/2013-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 20th day of December, 2018
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 84/2013
Between:
The General Secretary,
Government of India Security Printing Press,
Employees Union, Mint Compound,
Saifabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
…Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Government of India Security Printing Press,
Mint Compound, Saifabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
… Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. V. Govinda Raju & A.V. Rama Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent :
Sri P. Bhakthavatsal, Advocate
4492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide
order No.L- 16011/01/2013 –IR(DU) dated 11.7.2013 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute i.e.,
“Whether the action of the Management of Security Printing Press, Hyderabad in denying the benefits of
payment of Enhanced Special Allowance to the Govt. Optees is justified? What relief the workmen of Govt.
Optees are entitled to?’’
After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No. 84/2013 in this Tribunal and notices were
issued to both the parties and procured their presence.
2.
The case is posted for filing of counter and documents by the Respondent management. At such stage, the
General Secretary of the Petitioners’ Union filed an application to withdraw the present case and accordingly, the copy of
the application was served to the Respondent.
3.
In view of the application filed by the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union and at the consent of the
Respondent, the application is accepted and the case is allowed to be withdrawn by the Petitioner Union.
The reference is answered accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 20th day of
December, 2018.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1078
1078
1078
1078.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय
सरकार मेसस) काय)कारी अिभयंता, सीपीडmयूडी, देहरादून और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के संबi िनयोजक
और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म /यायालय-
2, नई दली, के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 59/2011) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 09.05.2019 को +ाW Pए
थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/25/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2011) 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 & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
09.05.2019.
[No. L-42011/25/2011-IR (DU)]
V. K . THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4493
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. 59/2011
Date of Passing Award- 26th March, 2019.
Between:
Shri Prem Shankar Saxena,
All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan,
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- 42011/25/2011(IR(DU) dated 06.09.2011
to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD, in denying benefits of second ACP, in-situ promotion and
other consequential benefits to Shri Badri Prasad, Beldar, is legal and justified ? 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
Beldar in the year 1969 and superannuated from service on 31.01.2006 while serving on the same post. During his tenure
of his service he reached the maximum of the pay scale i.e. Rs. 750/- to 950/- in the year 1990. 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 after his superannuation on 31.01.2006 by an arbitrary order dated 19.09.2006 the
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 19.09.2006. 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 19.09.2006 withdrawing the in-situ promotion
alongwith to consequential benefits.
4494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Beldar 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, in denying benefits of second ACP, in-situ promotion and
other consequential benefits to Shri Badri Prasad, Beldar, is legal and justified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether the relationship of employer and employee exists between management and workman? If so its effect?
3.
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.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1
Admitted facts are that the workman was initially appointed as Beldar 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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4495
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
नई +द, ली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1079
1079
1079
1079.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) िडवीजनल इंजीिनयर टेलीकॉम, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के संबi िनयोजक
और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म /यायालय-
1 अहमदाबाद, के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 1151/2004) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 22.05.19 को +ाW Pए
थे ।
[सं.एल-40012/73/1998-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1151/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Divisional Engineer Telecom, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 22.05.19.
[No. L-40012/73/1998-IR(DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 1151/2004
The Divisional Engineer Telecom,
Optical Fibre (P) Dn. I,
3rd Floor, Microwave Bldg., Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Saurashtra Employees Union,
Umesh Commercial Complex, Office No. 213, 2nd Floor,
Near Chaudhary High School,
Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri N.K. Trivedi
For the Second Party
: Shri M.H. Sanghariyat
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/73/98–IR(DU)
dated 18.02.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of D.E.T., Ahmedabad Telephones, Ahmedabad in terminating the
services of Shri A.K. Vankar on 01.08.1985 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 18.02.1999 and received on 08.03.1999 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 on 16.08.1999 and
the first party submitted the written statement on 25.04.2000.
3.
The second party union has alleged that the second party workman was initially engaged as casual labour by the
Divisional Engineer Telecom, Optical Fibre (P) Dn. I, 3rd Floor, Microwave Bldg., Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, hereinafter
referred to as ‘first party’ on 01.07.1983 and he was allowed to work till 01.08.1985 the date on which his services were
terminated orally. His details of working days are as under:
From
To
Book No./MR No.
Total Days
Worked under
01.07.1983
31.08.1983
59-22
62
DET
Coaxial
Cable
Project, Ahmedabad
01.09.1983
30.11.1983
26
91
-
Do -
01.12.1983
29.02.1984
11, 22-2
91
-
Do -
01.03.1984
31.05.1984
21-23-9-8
92
-
Do -
01.06.1984
31.07.1984
13-22-25
61
-
Do -
01.08.1984
01.09.1984
107
61
-
Do -
01.11.1984
31.01.1985
164-168
92
-
Do -
01.02.1985
30.04.1985
168-172-2
89
-
Do -
01.05.1985
31.08.1985
177-314
123
-
Do -
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4497
Thus he has worked for more than 240 days in preceding calendar year but his services were terminated retaining the
junior casual labours, thus in violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus he has prayed for
reinstatement with back wages.
4.
The first party in his written statement denied the averments made in the statement of claim submitted that the
workman was engaged purely on daily and temporary basis as causal labour. He did not work for more than 240 days in
the preceding calendar year. He left service on 01.08.1985 out of his own will. Therefore, there was no violation of
Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5.
The workman has submitted the documents vide list Ex. 24.
6.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the management of D.E.T., Ahmedabad Telephones, Ahmedabad in terminating the
services of Shri A.K. Vankar on 01.08.1985 is legal and justified?
ii.
To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?
7.
Issue No. 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 workman who submitted his affidavit reiterating the averments made in the statement of
claim. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was engaged as daily wager from 01.07.1983 to 31.08.1985. He did
work for more than 240 days in every calendar year. He never applied for regularisation in the department but he never
left the job out of his own will. No daily wager junior to him was retained. He is still unemployed having with a liability
of 7 family members.
8.
The first party has not lead any evidence and failed to prove that the second party workman never worked for
240 days in preceding calendar year.
9.
It is noteworthy that the first party has failed to prove that the workman left the employment out of his own will
but the workman was retrenched on 31.08.1985 and raised the dispute after 19 years in the year 2004, therefore, it would
be appropriate to award a lump-sum amount of Rs.50000/- to the second party workman as compensation. Thus both the
issues are decided accordingly.
10.
The first party is directed to pay Rs. 50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the second party workman
A. K. Vankar within 60 days from the publication of the award.
11.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1080
1080
1080
1080.— औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) चीफ पो टमा टर जनरल टेलीकॉम चगलपटटू, चे/ नई और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के संबi िनयोजक
और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म /यायालय,
चेqई के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 302/2001) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 27.03.2019 को +ाW Pए थे ।
[सं. एल- 40012/381/2000- आईआर(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O.1080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 302/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court CGIT Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Chief Postmaster General Telecom Chengalpattu, Chenni and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 27.03.2019.
[No. L-40012/381/2000-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 18th March, 2019
Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 302/2001
( In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947 )
BETWEEN :
Sri C. Ravi
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chief Postmaster General
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Telecom
Chengalpattu
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Sri N. Ramaswamy, DE (Legal),
Authorized Representative
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-40012/381/2000/IR (DU) dated
17.11.2000 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the termination and non-regularization of Sri C. Ravi by the management of General Manager,
Telecom is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the order dated 18.07.2017 of the Hon’ble Court in WP No. 22699/2003, the instant case in ID
302/2001 is re-opened. The Hon’ble Court while adjudicated the Writ Petition directed this Tribunal to adjudicate the
matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by giving opportunity to the
petitioner.
3.
The Industrial Dispute being referred by the appropriate government, the Government of India, the dispute was
registered in ID 302/2001. After hearing the case the matter in dispute was adjudicated by this Tribunal vide its order
dated 29.07.2002 passed an Award against the workman which reads as follows:
“In the result an Award is passed holding that the First Party / Workman, Sri C. Ravi is not entitled to any
relief”.
4.
Being aggrieved with the Award, the First Party Workman viz. C. Ravi approached the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras in WP No. 22699 of 2003. The Hon’ble Court while parting with the Writ Petition remanded the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh hearing and to adjudicate by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties. The fact of receipt of the order
of the Hon’ble Court though mentioned on 22.09.2017 notice were issued to the parties, the matter could not be taken up
as the post of Presiding Officer was lying vacant for a substantial period till the joining of the incumbent Presiding
Officer to this Tribunal. For this obvious reason, the matter could not be disposed within six months from the receipt of
the copy of the order as targeted by the Hon’ble Court in the Writ Petition (supra). A letter of request was addressed to
Registrar General, High Court to place the matter before the Hon’ble Court to accord extension of time for six months for
disposal of the case. With this backdrop, the case is posted to several dates i.e. on 28.12.2018, 08.01.2019, 29.01.2019,
04.03.2019, 05.03.2019, 11.03.2019 and 13.03.2019.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4499
5.
Despite of such adjournments since the petitioner did not turn up, no progress could be made. The Petitioner
found to have dragged the proceeding deliberately till the date. In obedience to the Hon’ble Court’s direction, even
though sufficient opportunities were made available, the petitioner failed to appear before this Tribunal to adduce further
evidence or to produce any document in support of his claim. The very attitude of the petitioner withholding himself
from the dock clearly discloses that he has no mind to proceed with the case. It further appears that even though the
original case was disposed of by this Tribunal on 29.07.2002, the Hon’ble Court sympathetically considered the
submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner and remanded the dispute for fresh hearing. The case was re-opened even
after a period of 17 years and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by this Tribunal by virtue of the order of
the Hon’ble Court. The non-cooperation of the petitioner deems that he has no mind to proceed with the case.
In view of the discussion held (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
The reference is answered and an Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
(Dictated and transcribed by PA and
corrected and pronounced in the open
court on this day the 18th March 2019)
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
_______________Nil___________________________
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
_______________Nil___________________________
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1081
1081
1081
1081.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) दली मेfो पLरयोजना-, बाराखंभा, नई दली और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के संबi िनयोजक और
उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म /यायालय-2,
नई दली, के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 34/2019) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ
था ।
[सं. एल- 42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2019) 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 Delhi
Metro Project- , Barakhamba, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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. 34/2019
Date of Passing Award- 23rd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Harish Prasad,
S/o Shri Bacchi Ram,
Through Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
B-239, Karampura, New Delhi-15.
… Workman
Versus
1.
Delhi Metro Project- CC-34
Metro Bhawan, Road Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba,
New Delhi- 110001.
2.
M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. (HCC- Samsung JV),
DDA Park Behind- Hilton Hotel, Police Station Road,
District Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3.
M/s. Surjeet Security
108, Pocket-7, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85.
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Ajit, (A/R)
For the Workman
None for the management No.1
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2
Shri Abhishek, (A/R)
For the Management No.3.
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the management No.1, 2 and 3 praying a
direction to the management to reinstate the workman to service with full back wages and all other consequential
benefits.
The workman has alleged in the claim petition that he was working as a security guard in the establishment of
management No.1 being appointed by management No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. However the management
No.1 and 2 were the principal employer. During the tenure of service he was discharging his duties sincerely leaving no
scope for compliant. The management had not issued letter of appointment nor extending the benefits of EPF, ESI annual
increment and HRA to him. He was often making complaint about the same to the management. The management was
also not allowing him the statutory leave. Being annoyed by his demands on 01.12.17 the management No.3 illegally
terminated the service of the workman. While doing so the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act was not
followed. Finding no other way the workman had approached the Central Labour Commissioner where a conciliation
proceeding was taken up being attended by the workman and the management. After several sittings between the parties
and conciliation officer no settlement could be arrived. Hence, a failure report was communicated to the workman which
led to the filing of the present petition.
On receipt of the notice the management No.1 and 2 did not appear. Management No.3 filed written statement refuting
the claim of the workman. It is the plea of the management No.3 that the workman was engaged for a particular time
period and on completion of the period his service was terminated on payment of all his dues towards full and final
settlement.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4501
At this juncture the workman and the management No.3 filed a joint petition enclosing the memorandum of settlement
arrived between him and management No.3 stating therein that he has no claim against the management No.1, 2 and 3
since management No.3 has finally settled his dues.
Having regard to the settlement arrived and the contention of the parties it is held that there remains no claim of the
workman to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim of the workman be and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstance without cost. Send a copy of this award
to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1082
1082
1082
1082.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) दली मेfो पLरयोजना-, बाराखंभा, नई दली और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के संबi िनयोजक और
उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म /यायालय-2,
नई दली, के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 35/2019) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ
था ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2019) 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 Delhi
Metro Project- , Barakhamba, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 10.06.2019.
[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. 35/2019
Date of Passing Award- 23rd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Mahipal,
S/o Shri Matru Lal,
Through Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
B-239, Karampura, New Delhi-15.
… Workman
Versus
1.
Delhi Metro Project- CC-34
Metro Bhawan, Road Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba,
New Delhi- 110001.
4502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. (HCC- Samsung JV),
DDA Park Behind- Hilton Hotel, Police Station Road,
District Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3.
M/s Surjeet Security
108, Pocket-7, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Ajit, (A/R)
For the Workman.
None for the management No.1
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2
Shri Abhishek, (A/R)
For the Management No.3.
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the management No.1, 2 and 3 praying a
direction to the management to reinstate the workman to service with full back wages and all other consequential
benefits.
The workman has alleged in the claim petition that he was working as a security guard in the establishment of
management No.1 being appointed by management No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. However the management
No.1 and 2 were the principal employer. During the tenure of service he was discharging his duties sincerely leaving no
scope for compliant. The management had not issued letter of appointment nor extending the benefits of EPF, ESI annual
increment and HRA to him. He was often making complaint about the same to the management. The management was
also not allowing him the statutory leave. Being annoyed by his demands on 01.12.17 the management No.3 illegally
terminated the service of the workman. While doing so the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act was not
followed. Finding no other way the workman had approached the Central Labour Commissioner where a conciliation
proceeding was taken up being attended by the workman and the management. After several sittings between the parties
and conciliation officer no settlement could be arrived. Hence, a failure report was communicated to the workman which
led to the filing of the present petition.
On receipt of the notice the management No.1 and 2 did not appear. Management No.3 filed written statement refuting
the claim of the workman. It is the plea of the management No.3 that the workman was engaged for a particular time
period and on completion of the period his service was terminated on payment of all his dues towards full and final
settlement.
At this juncture the workman and the management No.3 filed a joint petition enclosing the memorandum of settlement
arrived between him and management No.3 stating therein that he has no claim against the management No.1, 2 and 3
since management No.3 has finally settled his dues.
Having regard to the settlement arrived and the contention of the parties it is held that there remains no claim of the
workman to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim of the workman be and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstance without cost. Send a copy of this award
to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID Act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.108
108
108
1083.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4503
$म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 76/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 10.06.2019
को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/07/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/07/2013-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. 76/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Gagan Tyagi,
S/o Shri Ajay Tyagi,
Vill. & PO Sarsohedi, PO Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Shri Ram Enterprises,
Near Old Post Office,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (A/R)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)
For the Managements
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/07/2013
IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Shri Ram
Enterprises, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Gagan Tyagi S/o Shri Ajay Tyagi, DG Set Operator,
4504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 1st May, 2008 as a DG Set Operator
against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 17.04.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for
work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 16.04.2012 by filing
an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 16.04.12 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has
stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between
management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for
employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Shri Ram
Enterprises, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Gagan Tyagi, S/o Shri Ajay Tyagi, DG Set
Operator w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified?
If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4505
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 25th Aug, 2001
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at
last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced
by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 4 years. This
has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1.
The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1
has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal
right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management
No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to
examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the
oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an
employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best
& Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
4506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee
relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different
factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also
no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on
whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative
control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the
factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an
employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i) Who appoints the workers;
(ii) Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of
salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the
authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that
he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the
admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding
completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with
management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4507
prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate
pass issued by the management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not
suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat
referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the
workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court
directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with
regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act
were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of
last come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman
was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management
No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 12.01.2012 in violation of provision of section
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
4508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1084
1084
1084
1084.— औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं
$म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 80/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को 10.06.2019
को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/06/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/06/2013-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. 80/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Rajkumar,
Vill. Salpa & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
2.
M/s. Mahadev Electricals,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (A/R)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)
For the Managements
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4509
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/06/2013
(IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Mahadev Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Rajkumar, DG Set Operator, w.e.f.
12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 14th April 2006 as a DG Set
Operator against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for
more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often
demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the
management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from
the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner
Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on 12.02.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At
the time of termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor
the notice pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the
management praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and
other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not
following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by
filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of
Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 though had entered appearance initially did not file any written statement. The said
management has also not cross-examined the witness examined by the claimant to rebut the stand taken. On account of
this the claim of the workman that he was never employed by management No.2 and the contract between management
No.1 and 2 was sham and remained unchallenged.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has
stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between
management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for
employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
4510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Mahadev
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shri Rajkumar, DG Set
Operator w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified?
If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in
a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by
the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for
management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and
reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its
officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has
filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on
21.08.2001 to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on
contractual basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which
gets renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management
No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding
and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence
adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 4
years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the
management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit
WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective
control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the
contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced
by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely
no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as
WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his
legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for
management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a
government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any
person is appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various
works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was
inducted as a contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4511
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to
examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the
oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an
employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best
& Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely
no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the
supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has
admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect
has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee
relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different
factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to
hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also
no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC
407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company
on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative
control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the
factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an
employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii) Who pays the salary/remuneration;
4512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(iv) whether there is continuity of service; and
(v) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of
salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the
authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that
he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the
admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding
completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with
management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to
prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate
pass issued by the management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not
suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat
referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the
workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court
directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with
regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID
Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle
of last come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman
was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management
No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him
of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an
explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the
allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as
MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no
reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument
submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been
done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before
the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld.
A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of
the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 12.01.2012 in violation of provision of
section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of
the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to
make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4513
retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1085
1085
1085
1085.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.)और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 108/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/26/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2013) 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 Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U. P.) and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/26/2013-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. 108/2013
Date of Passing Award- 21st May, 2019
Between:
Shri Ishwarpal,
S/o Shri Kabool Singh,
Vill. & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements
4514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/26/2013
IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ishwarpal S/o Shri Kabool Singh, Helper, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in
violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 10.02.2009 as a Helper against a
permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 10.09.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for work by
the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 18.09.2012 by filing an
affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 18.09.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has stated
that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the employee
of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management No.1 and
2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4515
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ishwar Pal Singh, S/o Shri Kabool Singh, Helper w.e.f.
08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug 2007
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at last
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced by
the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 3 years. This has
not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1. The
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1 has
stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal right
the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management No.1
and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine
if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the oral
testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an employee
of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best &
Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
4516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the workman
by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on
record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also no evidence
that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on whose
premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative control.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory and
the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer
employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(iv) whether there is continuity of service; and
(v)
extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4517
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal employer
respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of salary by
management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the authority
of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the admission
of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding completion
of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its
employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship
with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the
management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of
proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by
the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by
the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work
being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre.
But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act were
not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was
not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management No.1.
In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of section
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
4518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1086
1086
1086
1086.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 97/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/16/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/16/2013-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. 97/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Onkar Singh,
S/o Shri Jai Singh,
Vill. & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4519
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/16/2013
IR(DU) dated 29.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Onkar Singh S/o Shri Jai Singh, Electrician, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in
violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 2007 as an Electrician against a
permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for work by
the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 09.10.2012 by filing an
affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 09.10.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has stated
that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the employee
of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management No.1 and
2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
4520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Onkar Singh, S/o Shri Jai Singh, Electrician w.e.f. 08.10.2012,
in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 26thApril, 2007
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at last
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced by
the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 5 years. This has
not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1. The
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1 has
stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal right
the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management No.1
and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine
if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the oral
testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an employee
of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best &
Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4521
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the workman
by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on
record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also no evidence
that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on whose
premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative control.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory and
the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer
employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii) Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
4522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal employer
respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of salary by
management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the authority
of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the admission
of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding completion
of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its
employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship
with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the
management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of
proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by
the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by
the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work
being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre.
But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act were
not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was
not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management No.1.
In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of section
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4523
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1087
1087
1087
1087.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 105/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/23/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/23/2013-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. 105/2013
Date of Passing Award- 28th May, 2019
Between:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Baleshwar Sharma,
Vill., & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements.
4524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/23/2013-
IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Baleshwar Sharma, Helper, w.e.f.
08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 10.06.2007 as a Helper against a
permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for work by
the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 08.10.2012 by filing an
affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman stated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has stated
that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the employee
of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management No.1 and
2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shri Baleshwar Sharma,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4525
Helper w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If
so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at last
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced by
the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 5 years. This has
not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1. The
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1 has
stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal right
the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management No.1
and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine
if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the oral
testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an employee
of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best &
Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
4526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the workman
by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on
record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also no evidence
that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company
on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete
administrative control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee
relationship between the factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into
consideration to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii)
who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv)
who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi)
extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal employer
respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of salary by
management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the authority
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4527
of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the admission
of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding completion
of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its
employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship
with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the
management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of
proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by
the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by
the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work
being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre.
But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act were
not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was
not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management No.1.
In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of section
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
4528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई +द, ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1088.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 98/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/17/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 98/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/17/2013-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. 98/2013
Date of Passing Award- 27th May, 2019
Between:
Shri Yashpal Singh,
S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh,
Vill. Balvantpur, PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4529
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/17/2013-
IR(DU) dated 29.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Yashpal Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, Electrician, w.e.f.
08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 01.12.2007 as an Electrician against a
permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for work by
the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 08.10.2012 by filing an
affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has stated
that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the employee
of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management No.1 and
2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
4530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Yashpal Singh, S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, Electrician w.e.f.
08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at last
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced by
the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 5 years. This has
not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1. The
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1 has
stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal right
the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management No.1
and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine
if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the oral
testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an employee
of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best &
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4531
Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the workman
by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on
record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also no evidence
that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on whose
premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative control.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory and
the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer
employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
4532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal employer
respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of salary by
management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the authority
of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the admission
of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding completion
of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its
employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship
with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the
management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of
proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by
the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by
the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work
being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre.
But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act were
not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was
not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management No.1.
In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of section
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4533
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1089
1089
1089
1089.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.)और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 103/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/20/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/20/2013-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. 103/2013
Date of Passing Award- 21st May, 2019
Between:
Shri Sandeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Rampal Singh,
Vill. & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
4534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/20/2013-
IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Ram Pal Singh, Electrician, w.e.f.
08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 20.11.2008 as an Electrician
against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and
other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not
following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by
filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of
Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for
work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 08.10.2012 by filing
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4535
an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has
stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between
management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for
employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Sandeep Kumar, S/o Shri Rampal Singh,
Electrician w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified?
If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in
a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by
the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for
management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and
reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its
officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has
filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on
24th Aug 2007 to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on
contractual basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which
gets renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management
No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding
and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence
adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 4
years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the
management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit
WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective
control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the
contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced
by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely
no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
4536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as
WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his
legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for
management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a
government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any
person is appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various
works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was
inducted as a contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to
examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the
oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an
employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best
& Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely
no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the
supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has
admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect
has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee
relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different
factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to
hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4537
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also
no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC
407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company
on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative
control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the
factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an
employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of
salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the
authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that
he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the
admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding
completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with
management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to
prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate
pass issued by the management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not
suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat
referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the
workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court
directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with
regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID
Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle
of last come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman
was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management
No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him
of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an
explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the
allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as
MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no
reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument
submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been
done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before
the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld.
4538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of
the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of
section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of
the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to
make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ.1090
1090
1090
1090.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 87/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/05/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/05/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4539
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. 87/2013
Date of Passing Award- 28th May, 2019
Between:
Shri Pramod Kumar,
S/o Shri Sadhu Ram,
Vill. Sapla & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Mahadev Electricals,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements.
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/05/2013
(IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Mahadev Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Sadhuram, DG Set Operator, w.e.f.
12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 01.10.2010 as a DG Set
Operator against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for
more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often
demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the
management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from
the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner
Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on 12.01.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At
the time of termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor
the notice pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the
management praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and
other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not
following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by
filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of
Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
4540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management no.2 on receipt of notice though had appeared on later date remained absent and did not file
written statement. Hence, by order dated 17.01.2014 he was proceeded ex-parte.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has
stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between
management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for
employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Mahadev
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar, S/o Shri Sadhuram, DG Set
Operator w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so
its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in
a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by
the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for
management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and
reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its
officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has
filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on
21.08.2001 to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on
contractual basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which
gets renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management
No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding
and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence
adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 1
year. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the
management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit
WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective
control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the
contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced
by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely
no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4541
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as
WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his
legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for
management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a
government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any
person is appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various
works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was
inducted as a contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to
examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the
oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an
employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best
& Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely
no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the
supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has
admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect
has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee
relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different
factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to
hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
4542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also
no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC
407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company
on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete
administrative control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee
relationship between the factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into
consideration to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.’’
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(iv) whether there is continuity of service; and
(v)
extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of
salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the
authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that
he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the
admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding
completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with
management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to
prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate
pass issued by the management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not
suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat
referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the
workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court
directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with
regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID
Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle
of last come first go was followed. In reply the management nO.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman
was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management
No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him
of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an
explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the
allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as
MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no
reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument
submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been
done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4543
the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld.
A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 who has not controverted the pleading of the claimant and management No.1 to
the effect that it is the employer of the workman and has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment is liable and shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the
workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of
the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 12.01.2012 in violation of provision of
section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of
the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to
make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1091
1091
1091
1091.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण एवं
$म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 81/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pए थे ।
[सं. एल-14012/12/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/12/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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. 81/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Shiv Kumar,
S/o Shri Jai Singh,
Vill. Sarsohedi & PO Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Shri Ram Enterprises,
Near Old Post Office,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (A/R)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)
For the Managements
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/12/2013
(IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s. Ram Enterprises,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Jai Singh, Pump Operator, w.e.f.
30.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 13th May, 2008 as a Pump Operator
against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 31.01.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4545
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 though had entered appearance initially did not file any written statement. The said management
has also not cross-examined the witness examined by the claimant to rebut the stand taken. On account of this the claim
of the workman that he was never employed by management No.2 and the contract between management No.1 and 2 was
sham and remained unchallenged.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has stated
that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the employee
of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management No.1 and
2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Ram Enterprises,
Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Kumar, S/o Shri Jai Singh, Pump Operator w.e.f.
30.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 25th Aug, 2001
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at last
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced by
the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 4 years. This has
not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1. The
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
4546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1 has
stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal right
the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management No.1
and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine
if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the oral
testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an employee
of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best &
Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the workman
by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4547
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on
record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also no evidence
that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on whose
premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative control.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory and
the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer
employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal employer
respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of salary by
management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the authority
of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the admission
of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding completion
of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its
employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship
with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the
management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of
proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by
the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by
the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work
being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre.
But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act were
not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management No.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was
not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management No.1.
In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
4548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management No.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 30.01.2012 in violation of provision of section
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ.1092
1092
1092
1092.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबंi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 104/2013) क +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/22/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 104/2013) 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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4549
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/22/2013-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. 104/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Raj Kumar,
S/o Shri Jeeram,
Vill. Telipur & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (A/R)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)
For the Managements
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/22/2013
(IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar, S/o Shri Jeeram, Helper, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in
violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 20.10.2009 as a Helper against a
permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
4550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and other
persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not following
the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by filing the
present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian
Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for work by
the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 08.10.2012 by filing an
affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has stated
that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the employee
of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management No.1 and
2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar, S/o Shri Jeeram, Helper w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in
violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in a series
of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for management
No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and reply thereto
marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its officers as
management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy
of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007
to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual
basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets
renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding and at last
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence adduced by
the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 2 years. This has
not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management No.1. The
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4551
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as WW1 has
stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his legal right
the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for management No.1
and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a government
department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is
appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various works done
through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a
contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine
if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the oral
testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an employee
of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best &
Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted
that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been
filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
4552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the workman
by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs.
Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the
legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to hold
that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on
record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also no evidence
that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on whose
premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete administrative control.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory and
the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer
employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal employer
respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of salary by
management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the authority
of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the admission
of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding completion
of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its
employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship
with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the
management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of
proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by
the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by
the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work
being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre.
But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID Act were
not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management No.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was
not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management No.1.
In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4553
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him of the
legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an explanation
that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the allegation of
sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This
contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of
disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the
contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the
workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour
commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R
doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of section
25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID
Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to make the
payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till
the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this
award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ.1093
1093
1093
1093.— औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय
सरकार मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के
+बंधतंa के संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक
अिधकरण एवं $म /यायालय-2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 83/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/09/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/09/2013-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. 83/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Jai Singh,
Vill. Sarsohedi, PO Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Management
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (A/R)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)
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 Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/09/2013 (IR)
(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Mahadev Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Jai Singh, DG Set Operator, w.e.f.
12.01.2012 in violation of provisions of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 10.04.2003 as a DG Set
Operator against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for
more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often
demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the
management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from
the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4555
Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on 12.02.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At
the time of termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor
the notice pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the
management praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and
other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not
following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by
filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee relationship
between the workman and the management. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of Indian Army
discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial Dispute Act.
It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for satisfying human
wants. The further stand of the management is that the claimant might had been engaged by the contractor awarded with
contract for carrying out different acts for the management. Hence, the claim petition against management is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the
case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management has stated that the workman since engaged as contractual
worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity with other regular
employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has its own recruitment rules and
the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The management has also stated that the contractor
awarded a contract and the workman might have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract
through proper tender calling. Challenging the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management
this management has pleaded for dismissal of the same.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management and contractor are guilty of suppressing the truth. He
has stated that respondent is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of the contractor. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between management
and contractor was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for employment and
reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa, Sharanpur in
terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar, S/o Shri Jai Singh, DG Set Operator w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in
violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent and workman? If so its effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in
a series of WW1/1 to WW1/6. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by
the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for
management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and
reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management examined one of its
officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management. It has filed the
copy of notice of tender and the related contract between management and contractor entered on 21.08.2001 to prove that
the contractor being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to time. The
present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management.
The contractor though has been referred to in the reference received from the Appropriate Government has not
been made a party in this proceeding.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence
adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management continuously for more than 8 years.
This has not been disputed by management except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the management. The
Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management and the contractor proved as exhibit MW1/1 is a sham
document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide
the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
4556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On the contrary the management through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced by the
claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely no
evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management. It was
further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in
view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as
WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his
legal right the management had created a sham contract with the contractor. Infact he was working for management and
never an employee of the contractor. The management inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict
rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the
due procedure of public employment. The management has various works done through contractors and it has a proper
tendering procedure. In such procedure the contractor was inducted and the said contractor engages several persons to
execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there
exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the contractor is not a
party in this proceeding.
For the admission and denial of management about the status of the workman it is now necessary to examine if
there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management and the workman. In the oral testimony
the workman has stated to be an employee of management which has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management.
The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd.
Vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A
No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen
so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same
as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management is not authorized to for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide labourers on
contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called
contract between management and the contractor being a camouflage cannot be taken into consideration and the
consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management. He also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported
in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the
management and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on
record to show that the workman was an employee of management and his service deserves to be regularized with
management.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the supervision
and control of management. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has admitted that
during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect has been filed.
Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary
evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no
point of time the workman was getting salary from the management nor he was discharging his duty under the effective
control of the management. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management and contractor, Mr.
Bhradwaj submitted that the contractor as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for carrying out the work
specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons deployed by the contractor have no
relationship with the management. The witness examined on behalf of the management has also stated that the contractor
was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management. The Ld. A/R for the management has placed reliance in several pronouncements of the
Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee relationship between the
parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different factors. He also submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
Vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to
hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4557
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management. There is also no
evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC
407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company
on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete
administrative control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee
relationship between the factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into
consideration to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer i.e. the respondent, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management and payment of salary
by management has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management had the authority of
taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that he had
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent no document is forthcoming. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and
employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management and recommendation letter issued
by the officer of management will not suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in
Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then
terminated. Thus the Court directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be absorbed
permanently and treated at par with regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment
of the workman by management.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID
Act were not followed by the management as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle of last
come first go was followed. In reply the management has taken a stand that when the service of the workman was not
under the disposal of management there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management. In view of the
finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the management it is held
that the management cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have
taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the
workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management and contractor only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it
with contractor. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call
notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this
contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the
4558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum
wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance
of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham
transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the management and contractor
also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In this case the only prayer of the workman is that the management violated the provision of section 25-F of the
Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1
and 2, it has been held that management is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was
terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management for the relief sought for.
This issue is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered against the workman. It is held that the service of the
workman was not terminated by the management, in violation of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The workman
is held not entitled to the relief sought for. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record
room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई +द, ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1094
1094
1094
1094.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 73/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/03/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U. .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/03/2013-IR (DU)]
V..K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4559
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. 73/2013
Date of Passing Award- 22nd May, 2019
Between:
Shri Shashi Kant Sharma,
S/o Nathi Ram Sharma,
Vill. Beritaga, P/O Hasanpur,
Saharanpur (U. P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Mahadev Electricals.
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (A/R)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)
For the Management No.1 and
For Management No.2
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/03/2013
(IR(DU) dated 03.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Mahadev Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Electrician, w.e.f. 16.11.2011in violation of
provisions of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 05.01.2002 as an Electrician
against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 16.11.2011 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and
other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not
following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by
filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
4560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of
Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 though had entered appearance initially did not file any written statement. The said
management has also not cross-examined the witness examined by the claimant to rebut the stand taken. On account of
this the claim of the workman that he was never employed by management No.2 and the contract between management
No.1 and 2 was sham and remained unchallenged.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has
stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between
management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for
employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s. Mahadev
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Electrician w.e.f.
16.11.2011, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in
a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by
the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for
management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and
reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its
officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has
filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on
21.08.2001 to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on
contractual basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which
gets renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management
No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding
and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence
adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 9
years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the
management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit
WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective
control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the
contractor.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4561
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced
by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely
no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as
WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his
legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for
management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a
government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any
person is appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various
works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was
inducted as a contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to
examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the
oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an
employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best
& Crompton Industries Ltd. Vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely
no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the
supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has
admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect
has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee
4562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different
factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
Vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to
hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also
no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC
407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company
on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete
administrative control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee
relationship between the factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into
consideration to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.’’
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of
salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the
authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that
he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the
admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding
completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with
management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to
prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate
pass issued by the management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not
suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat
referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the
workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court
directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with
regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID
Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle
of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no.1 has taken a stand that when the service of the workman
was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by management
No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the workman and the
management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the statutory
provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two issues are
accordingly answered against the workman.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4563
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him
of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an
explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the
allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as
MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no
reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument
submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been
done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before
the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld.
A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of
the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 16.11.2011 in violation of provision of
section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of
the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to
make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.1095
1095
1095
1095.—औYोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के/ीय सरकार
मेसस) गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अ/य एवं उनके कम)चारी के +बंधतंa के
संबi िनयोजक और उनके कम)कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन|द] औYोिगक िववाद म के/ीय सरकार औYोिगक अिधकरण
एवं $म /यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ) संyया 101/2013) को +कािशत करती है जो के/ीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को +ाW Pआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/21/2013 आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O.1095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U. .P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/21/2013-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. 101/2013
Date of Passing Award- 28th May, 2019
Between:
Shri Manoj Kumar,
S/o Shri Mahender Singh,
Vill. Bansa & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2.
M/s. Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Managements
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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- 14012/21/2013
(IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga Electricals,
Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Mahender Singh, Helper, w.e.f.
08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 01.11.2011 as a Helper against
a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the employment he was
discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed work for more than 1 year and
240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the workman was often demanding appointment
letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay
heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4565
Finding no other way the workman had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being
aggrieved, the management on 08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of
termination the statutory provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in nature and
other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus guilty of not
following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not adhered to. Hence by
filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is a part of
Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under the fold of Industrial
Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production, supply and service meant for
satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the claimant might had been engaged by
respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out different acts for the management No.1. Hence,
the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the
Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has
stated that the workman since engaged as contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for
regularization or for seeking parity with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a
government department has its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent
vacancy. The management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might
have engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging the
loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded for
dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was engaged for
work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on 08.10.2012 by filing
an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on contractual basis for respondent
No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were received from respondent No.1 regarding
the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of the management No.2. On account of this the
claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the
workman has been denied by management No.2 who also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the truth. He has
stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he has denied to be the
employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract existing between
management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights for
employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s. Bagga
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Mahender Singh, Helper
w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its
effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its
effect?
3.
Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its effect?
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked those in
a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the order passed by
the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was working for
management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the legal notice served and
reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the management No.1 examined one of its
officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was never an employee of management No.1. It has
filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on
24th Aug, 2007 to prove that the management No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman
4566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on contractual basis and the persons so employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days
which gets renewed from time to time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of
management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the proceeding
and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral evidence
adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously for more than 1
year. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in the payroll of the
management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit
WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal rights. While arguing on the effective
control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted that the workman was never the employee of the
contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence adduced
by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties. There is absolutely
no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective control of management No.1.
While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management No.1 argued that when management
No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It
was further argued that the management No.1 being a government department strictly follows the recruitment rules
keeping in view the constitutional mandate of public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman examined as
WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and to deprive him of his
legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact he was working for
management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1 inter-alia pleaded that it is a
government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for contractual employment nor any
person is appointed without following the due procedure of public employment. The management No.1 has various
works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was
inducted as a contractor and the said management had engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This
claimant/workman might have been engaged through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. At the cost of repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered
appearance and filed a written statement admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did
not participate in the proceeding. In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was
appointed by him and out of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now necessary to
examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1 and the workman. In the
oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which has been denied by MW1 an
employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing reliance in the case of Workmen of Best
& Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985
ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not
holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the
management itself. Describing the same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case
the management No.1 had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2
was not authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be
taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary Municipal
Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the workman who was allowed to
work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice.
He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary
evidence need to be brought on record to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service
deserves to be regularized with management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is absolutely
no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working under the
supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the workman wherein he has
admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of MES but no document to that effect
has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4567
documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly
stated that at no point of time the workman was getting salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his
duty under the effective control of the management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between
management No.1 and 2, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to
deploy manpower for carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the
persons deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might have been
paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of the
workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer employee
relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same basing upon different
factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for reinstatement of the workman came to
hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether there exist any employer employee relationship
between the first respondent and the workman. To determine whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the
principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down two well recognized tests such as- (I) Whether principal
employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II) whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some
instruction to the employee of the contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1. There is also
no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC
407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees of the factory or company on
whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme Court must apply the test of complete
administrative control. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that there exists an employer employee
relationship between the factory and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into
consideration to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the principal
employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1 and payment of
salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that management No.1 had the
authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the oral evidence of the workman that
he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no document is forthcoming. Having the
admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was employed by him the only evidence regarding
completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management No.1 shall not establish his relationship with
management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on record it is held that the workman having the burden to
prove his relationship with management No.1 as employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate
pass issued by the management No.1 and recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not
suffice the standard of proof required for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat
referred supra & relied by the workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the
workmen were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court
directed that the nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with
regular employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
4568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the ID
Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor the principle
of last come first go was followed. In reply the management No. 1 has taken a stand that when the service of the
workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of these provisions by
management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee relationship between the
workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held liable for non compliance of the
statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of termination against the workman. These two
issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive him
of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman with an
explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management No.1 has denied the
allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has been filed and exhibited as
MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms of contract. This tribunal finds no
reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of argument
submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to be paid to the workman. That having not been
done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before
the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld.
A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non
enforceable, but would not grade the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham
contract entered between the management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief from
management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of the Act and he
should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering issue No.1 and 2, it has
been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of the workman was terminated by
the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management No.1 for the relief sought for. However it
is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the employer of the workman since has not adduced any
rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment
shall pay the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the service of
the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation of provision of
section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of
the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would become enforceable alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment. The management No. 2 if would fail to
make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4569
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1096
1096
1096
1096.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय
सरकार मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के
बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 99/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/18/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2013) 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 Garrison
Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14012/18/2013-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. 99/2013
Date of Passing Award-27th May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Ravindra Kumar,
…Workman
S/o Shri Satpal Singh,
Vill. & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2. M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
For the Workman
(Advocate)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
For the Managements
(Advocate)
4570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/18/2013 (IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri
Satpal Singh, Helper, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID
Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 16.02.2010 as a
Helper against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was
engaged for work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on
08.10.2012 by filing an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on
contractual basis for respondent No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were
received from respondent No.1 regarding the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of
the management No.2. On account of this the claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an
affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the workman has been denied by management No.2 who
also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4571
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Bagga
Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar, S/o Shri Satpal Singh,
Helper w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in
unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If
so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug 2007 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 2 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
4572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that
when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working
for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same as unfair
labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1 had no license for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide
labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition
Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be taken into
consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary
Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the
workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally,
became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record to show that the
workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with management
No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4573
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii)
who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv)
who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi)
extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
4574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government
for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1097
1097
1097
1097.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय -2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 85/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/13/2013-आईआर-डीयू]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1097.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2013) 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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4575
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14012/13/2013-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. 85/2013
Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Rakesh Kumar,
...Workman
S/o Nathi Ram,
Vill. Telipur & PO Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
2. M/s Shri Ram Enterprises,
Near Old Post Office,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
...Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
For the Workman.
(A/R)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
For the Management No.1
(A/R)
For Management No.2
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/13/2013 (IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Mahadev Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri
Nath Ram, Electrician, w.e.f. 30.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID
Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since November 2010 as an
Electrician against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
4576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
31.01.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was
engaged for work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on
11.04.2012 by filing an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on
contractual basis for respondent No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were
received from respondent No.1 regarding the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of
the management No.2. On account of this the claimant voluntarily quit the job on 11.04.12 by giving an
affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the workman has been denied by management No.2 who
also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Mahadev Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar, S/o Shri
Nath Ram, Electrician w.e.f. 30.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID
Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and
workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4577
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 25th Aug, 2001 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 2 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that
when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working
for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same as unfair
labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1 had no license for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide
labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition
Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be taken into
consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary
Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the
workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally,
4578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record to show that the
workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with management
No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)Who appoints the workers;
(ii)Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii)who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv)who can take disciplinary action;
(v)whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi)extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4579
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
4580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 30.01.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government
for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1098
1098
1098
1098.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 107/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/25/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1098.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/2013) 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 Garrison
Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 10/06/2019
[No. L-14012/25/2013-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. 107/2013
Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Chandrapal,
…Workman
S/o Shri Rathi Ram,
Vill. Sarsohedi, PO Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4581
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
2. M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
…For the Workman.
(Advocate)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
…For the Managements.
(Advocate)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/25/2013 (IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Chandra Pal S/o Shri Rathi
Ram, Electrician, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act,
1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 15.06.2000 as an
Electrician against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
4582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was
engaged for work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on
08.10.2012 by filing an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on
contractual basis for respondent No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were
received from respondent No.1 regarding the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of
the management No.2. On account of this the claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an
affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the workman has been denied by management No.2 who
also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Chandra Pal, S/o Shri Rathi
Ram, Electrician w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act,
1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and
workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 12 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4583
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. Vs. Management of Best &
Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983
submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so
engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the
same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1
had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not
authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage
cannot be taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the
management No.1. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram
Panchayat Vs. Secretary Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298
and argued that the workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later
driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record
to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with
management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
4584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)Who appoints the workers;
(ii)Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii)who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv)who can take disciplinary action;
(v)whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi)extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4585
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government
for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1099
1099
1099
1099.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 100/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/19/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1099.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14012/19/2013-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. 100/2013
Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Sukhbeer Singh,
…Workman
S/o Shri Faggu Singh,
Vill., & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
2. M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
…For the Workman.
(Advocate)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
...For the Managements.
(Advocate)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/19/2013 (IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Sukhbeer Singh S/o Shri
Faggu Singh, Electrician, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of
ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 10.10.1995 as an
Electrician against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4587
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak Vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was
engaged for work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on
08.10.2012 by filing an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on
contractual basis for respondent No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were
received from respondent No.1 regarding the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of
the management No.2. On account of this the claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an
affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the workman has been denied by management No.2 who
also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Sukhbeer Singh, S/o Shri
Faggu Singh, Electrician w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of
ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and
workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
4588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 17 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. Vs. Management of Best &
Crompton Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983
submitted that when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so
engaged working for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the
same as unfair labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1
had no license for engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not
authorized to provide labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of
Contract Labour Abolition Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage
cannot be taken into consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the
management No.1. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram
Panchayat Vs. Secretary Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298
and argued that the workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later
driven out illegally, became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record
to show that the workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with
management No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4589
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
4590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government
for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4591
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1100
1100
1100
1100.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस र5ा लेखा िनयं$क, आम7 वेट क9टीन, क9ट।, मेरठ (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के संब%
िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म
यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 31/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/06/2019 को
ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14011/13/2012-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1100.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2013) 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
Controller of Defence Accounts, Army Wet Canteen,Cantt.,Meerut (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14011/13/2012-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. 31/2013
Date of Passing Award-29th May, 2019.
Between:
General Secretary,
…Workman
All India Central Govt. Employees Association
F-48, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi-110030.
Versus
Controller of Defence Accounts,
Army Wet Canteen,
Cantt.,
Meerut (U.P.)
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Love Sharma,
…For the Workman.
(A/R)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
…For the Management
(A/R)
4592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Army Wet Canteen, 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-14011/13/2012 (IR(DU) dated 07.03.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of CDA, Army Wet Canteen, Meerut Cantt
terminated the services of Shri Shripal, Washboy, S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal w.e.f. 17.12.2009 in
violation of provisions of the ID Act 1947 is unjustified? If so, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
The workman has stated in the claim petition that since 01.07.2006 he was working as a washboy in the
Wet Canteen of CDA Army Meerut Cantonment. He was so inducted to work as a casual worker and no
payment was made for holidays like Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. On several occasions the workman
submitted a representation to the management for grant of temporary status but the same was turned down by
the management. Being aggrieved the management by an oral order terminated the service of the workman
w.e.f. 17.12.2019. A demand notice was served by the workman on the management and at last he approached
the Assistant Labour Commissioner through the General Secretary of All India Central Government Canteen
Employees Association. The Assistant Labour Commissioner noticed the management and started a conciliation
proceeding. The management appeared and participated. During course of conciliation proceeding the
management did not agree to reinstate the workman as a result of which a failure report was submitted by the
conciliating officer and the Appropriate government referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
Being noticed the management appeared and filed WS denying the stand of the workman. While
challenging the maintainability of the proceeding it has stated that the management is a government department
and subordinate office of the ministry of defence. It is discharging the sovereign function of the state and never
engaged in trade, business, manufacturing and production of good and service to satisfy human need. Thus, it is
not an industry in terms of ID Act. It has been further stated that the claimant was never an employee of the
management though the management sometimes engages casual workers on need basis for discharging different
works like cleaning of office premises, cleaning of wet canteen and other casual works. These are not routine
work and persons are hired on daily wage basis for specified days with the prior permission of the Competent
Authority. The applicant/workman was hired for the first time on 29.08.2006 and not on 01.07.2006 as claimed
by him. Alongwith him many other persons were also hired on different dates and their remuneration was paid
on daily wage basis. In the year 2006 he was hired only for 9 days between 29.08.2006 to 10.10.2006. Thereby
the management has stated that the workman was never employed by the management either as a casual or a
regular employee and thus, the question of termination doesn’t arise. Citing the case of Secretary State of
Karnatak Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4)SCALE 197 and various other judgments the management has
stated that intermittent engagement of the workman cannot confer a right for regularization and absorption
against a permanent vacancy. It is the further stand of the management that in the year 2008 the management
had entered into a contract with one M/s Anu Enterprises for engagement of daily wage labourers and as such
the averment of the workman that he was employed and terminated by the management is not tenable in the eye
of law. With this the management has prayed for dismissal of the claim.
The workman filed rejoinder denying the stand taken by the management and further added that the
nature of work discharged by the workman was perennial in nature and management after the termination of the
workman has employed other persons in his place. The management is guilty of not following the rule of last
come first go. The provision of section 25 of the Id Act was not followed by the management at the time of
termination. Thereby he has prayed for reinstatement with all back wages.
On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of CDA, Army Wet Canteen, Meerut Cantt terminating
the services of Shri Shripal, Wash boy w.e.f. 17.12.2009 in violation of provisions of the ID
Act 1947 is unjustified? If so its effect?
2. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
The workman examined himself as WW1 but proved no documents. However he filed photocopies of
the Attendance Register, as secondary evidence. The management examined its officer Gitika Singh Battu as
MW1 who proved 2 documents marked as MW1/1 (Colly) and MW1/2 (Colly) to disprove the stand taken by
the workman.
On 27.01.2015 the workman had filed a petition calling the management to produce certain documents
from its custody including the attendance Register and salary paid register in original for the year 2006, 2007
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4593
and 2008 alongwith the memorandum of understanding between the contactor and the management certain daily
voucher the vacancy position in the Wet Canteen, the letter issued by the DOPT in year 1998 relating to lifting
of ban on creation and filing up of post in non statutory departmental canteen. But the management by filing a
written reply denied possession of these documents stating thereby that for casual labour no documents are
maintained by the management. At that point of time the workman through the General Secretary of Union
representing him intimated the tribunal expressing its intention not to press the application filed u/s 11(3) of the
Id Act and the tribunal by order dated 29.03.2016 rejected the said petition and proceeded with the hearing.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1
For deciding the issue no.1 relating to legality of the alleged order of termination of service of the
workman it is necessary to adjudicate the relationship between the management and the workman. It is the
specific stand of the workman that he was working from 01.07.2006 to 17.12.2009 as the washboy in the Wet
Canteen and the nature of work was perennial and discharged on regular basis. He was getting the remuneration
at the end of the month. The workman testified himself as WW1. But no document has been filed by him to
prove that he was an employee in the monthly payroll of the management. During cross-examination when
called upon to file any document to prove his employee status with the management he replied in negative and
also stated that no such documents can be filed. The Ld. A/R for the management on the contrary argued that at
one point of time the workman had applied to the management for supply of the copy of the wage register
attendance register etc and by a letter dated 05.02.2010 the management intimated that no records regarding the
attendance of the workman Shri Sripal is available since he was a casual labour and such documents are
maintained in respect of regular employees only. In the said letter the management has replied that no document
is available regarding payment to Sripal the workman. During the proceeding the workman adduced oral
evidence that he is attendance was being noted in the proper register and payments were made at the end of the
month. But not a single scrap of paper to prove the same has been filed. Some photocopies of the attendance
register have been filed by the workman but the said document do not contain endorsement of authenticity to
believe that the said register was maintained at the behest of the management during regular course of it’s
official business.
On the other hand the management has filed a series of documents through its witness MW1 who also
stated that the workman had in the past made several representations requesting temporary status of the
employment and the management turned down the request. These documents have not been disputed by the
workman in any manner. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to presume that the workman was an employee
of the management. At the same time it is pertinent to mention here that the workman has not adduced any
evidence except his own oral testimony that his service was terminated. The copy of the failure report on
conciliation submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner was taken on record which also reveals that the
management at that stage had denied the status of the workman as its employee and no rebuttal evidence during
this proceeding has been adduced. Thus, it is concluded that the management had never terminated the service
of the workman a casual worker and the relationship as employer and employee has not been proved.
Now it is to be seen if the workman as a casual worker had rendered a continuous service for the
management exceeding one year and during this period preceding to his termination had completed work for
more than 240 days. The Ld. A/R for the management argued that the burden lies on the workman to prove that
he had rendered service for 240 days in a calendar year and the workman has failed to discharge the burden. In
the case of Municipal Council Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar reported in 2006 SCC(LS) 967 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held
“ Section 25-F and 25-B-completion of requisite statutory period of service-onus to
prove. Held-lies on the workman. It is not for the management to prove the contrary. The
burden of proof to establish completion of 240 days of work within a period of 12 months
preceding the termination lies on the workman.”
In this case there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the workman to prove this aspect of the claim.
Hence, it is concluded that the service of the workman was not terminated by the management in violation of the
provision of section 25-F and 25-B of the ID Act. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE No.2
In view of the finding of issue no.1 it is held that the workman is not entitled to the relief sought for
and the claim is liable to be dismissed. Hence, ordered.
4594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The claim be and the same is dismissed on contest and it is held that the workman is not entitle to relief
sought in the claim petition. The reference is accordingly answered against workman. Send a copy of this award
to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1101
1101
1101
1101.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 110/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/15/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1101.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110/2013) 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
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14012/15/2013-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. 110/2013
Date of Passing Award-28th May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Sandeep Kumar,
…Workman
S/o Shri Balbeer Singh,
Vill., & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
2. M/s Bagga Electricals,
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
…Managements
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4595
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
…For the Workman.
(Advocate)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
…For the Managements.
(Advocate)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/15/2013 (IR(DU) dated 29.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri
Balbeer Singh, Helper, w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID
Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 10.02.2011 as a
Helper against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was
engaged for work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on
08.10.2012 by filing an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on
contractual basis for respondent No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were
received from respondent No.1 regarding the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of
the management No.2. On account of this the claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an
affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the workman has been denied by management No.2 who
also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
4596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Sandeep Kumar, S/o Shri
Balbeer Singh, Helper w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID
Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and
workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 1 year. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4597
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that
when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working
for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same as unfair
labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1 had no license for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide
labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition
Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be taken into
consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary
Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the
workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally,
became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record to show that the
workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with management
No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhardwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
4598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4599
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08.10.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government
for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1102
1102
1102
1102.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.)और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 86/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/10/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 86/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court New Delhi -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14012/10/2013-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.
4600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 86/2013
Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
Workman
S/o Shri Ram Pal Singh,
Vill. & PO Sorana,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
2. M/s Mahadev Electricals,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
For the Workman.
(A/R)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
For the Managements
(A/R)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/10/2013 (IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Mahadev Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri
Ram Pal Singh, DG Set Operator, w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-
F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 1st October 2008 as a
DG Set Operator against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure
of the employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had
completed work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination.
Though the workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits
including periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that
the salary will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman
had raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
12.01.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4601
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 though had entered appearance initially did not file any written statement. The
said management has also not cross-examined the witness examined by the claimant to rebut the stand taken. On
account of this the claim of the workman that he was never employed by management No.2 and the contract
between management No.1 and 2 was sham and remained unchallenged.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Mahadev Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shri
Ram Pal Singh, DG Set Operator w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-
F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and
workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 21.08.2001 to prove that the management No.2
being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 4 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
4602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that
when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working
for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same as unfair
labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1 had no license for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide
labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition
Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be taken into
consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary
Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the
workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally,
became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record to show that the
workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with management
No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4603
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
4604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 12.01.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government
for notification as required under section 17 of the ID Act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1103
1103
1103
1103.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.)और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 88/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/12/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1103.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/2013) 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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4605
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10.06.2019.
[No. L-14012/12/2013-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. 88/2013
Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Shekhar Kumar,
Workman
S/o Shri Ram Pal Singh,
Mohd. Afganan Purvi, Nakud Road,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
2. M/s Shri Ram Enterprises
Near Old Post Office,
Gill Colony,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
…For the Workman.
(A/R)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
…For the Managements
(A/R)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/14/2013 (IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Shri Ram Enterprises, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Shekhar Kumar,
S/o
4606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Rampal Singh, Pump Operator, w.e.f.30.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-
F,G,H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 01st May, 2008 as a
Pump Operator against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of
the employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
31.01.2012
by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 though had entered appearance initially did not file any written statement. The
said management has also not cross-examined the witness examined by the claimant to rebut the stand taken. On
account of this the claim of the workman that he was never employed by management No.2 and the contract
between management No.1 and 2 was sham and remained unchallenged.
In his rejoinder the workman sated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s Shri
Ram Enterprises, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Shekhar Kumar, S/o Shri Rampal
Singh, Pump Operator w.e.f. 30.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act,
1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and workman? If
so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4607
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 25th Aug, 2001 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 6 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that
when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working
for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same as unfair
labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1 had no license for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide
4608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition
Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be taken into
consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary
Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the
workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally,
became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record to show that the
workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with management
No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii)
who has the authority to dismiss;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4609
(iv)
who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi)
extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
4610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 30.01.2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate
Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1104
1104
1104
1104.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस गैरीसन इंजीिनयर, वायु सेना, एमईएस, सरसावा, सहारनपुर (यू.पी.)और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के
संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं +म यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 106/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/24/2013-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1104.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 106/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court New Delhi -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers, Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, Saharanpur (U .P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-14012/24/2013-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. 106/2013
Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Naveen Kumar,
…Workman
S/o Shri Rameshwar Dutt Sharma,
Vill. Maheshpur, PO Badgaon Distt.,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
Versus
1. M/s Garrison Engineers,
Air Force, MES, Sarsawa,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4611
2. M/s Bagga Electricals
Sharda Nagar,
Saharanpur (U.P.)-
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar,
…For the Workman.
(A/R)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj,
…For the Managements
(A/R)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Air Force, MES, Sarsawa, 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-14012/24/2013-IR(DU) dated 30.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Naveen Kumar S/o Shri
Rameshwar Dutt, Electrician w.e.f. 08/10/2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H
of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
The claimant/workman has stated that he was working for the management since 10.04.2005 as an
Electrician against a permanent vacancy being directly appointed by the management. During the tenure of the
employment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the management and had completed
work for more than 1 year and 240 days in a calendar year preceding the order of termination. Though the
workman was often demanding appointment letter minimum wage and all other service benefits including
periodical increment in salary the management did not pay heed to the same and avoided saying that the salary
will be increased on getting approval from the higher authorities. Finding no other way the workman had raised
a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner Dehradun. Being aggrieved, the management on
08.10.2012 by an oral order terminated the service of the workman. At the time of termination the statutory
provision of ID Act was not complied. Neither he was given termination notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. The workman made representation to the higher authorities of the management
praying reinstatement to service with back wages and all other service benefits.
It has also been stated by the workman that the nature of work discharged by him was perennial in
nature and other persons junior to him are working in the said post for the management. The management is thus
guilty of not following the provisions of section 25-G of the ID Act as the rule of last come first go was not
adhered to. Hence by filing the present claim petition the workman has sought for the redress.
The management No.1 Garrison Engineers (AF) filed written statement denying employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1. It has been stated that the Garrison engineering is
a part of Indian Army discharging sovereign function of the government and never an industry to come under
the fold of Industrial Dispute Act. It never carries out trade or business or any activity relating to production,
supply and service meant for satisfying human wants. The further stand of the management No.1 is that the
claimant might had been engaged by respondent No.2 the contractor awarded with contract for carrying out
different acts for the management No.1. Hence, the claim petition against management No.1 is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court passed by the Constitution Bench in the case
of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the management No.1 has stated that the workman since engaged as
contractual worker under the contractor cannot claim any right either for regularization or for seeking parity
with other regular employees. It has also been stated that the management being a government department has
its own recruitment rules and the workman cannot be regularized against a permanent vacancy. The
management No.1 has also stated that the management No.2 awarded a contract and the workman might have
engaged by the said contractor who was awarded with the contract through proper tender calling. Challenging
the loco-standni of the workman to initiate a proceeding against management No.1 this management has pleaded
for dismissal of the same.
The management No.2 has filed separate written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was
engaged for work by the management No.2. He out of his own volition left the job of the management No.2 on
08.10.2012 by filing an affidavit. He was not a reliable person nor obedient. He was an electrician working on
contractual basis for respondent No.1and not for respondent No.2. On several occasions oral complaints were
received from respondent No.1 regarding the manner of work of the claimant which led to the dissatisfaction of
the management No.2. On account of this the claimant voluntarily quit the job on 08.10.2012 by giving an
4612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affidavit to that effect. All other allegation leveled by the workman has been denied by management No.2 who
also pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.
In his rejoinder the workman stated that both management No.1 and 2 are guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has stated that respondent No.1 is an industry, since discharging some activity for profit. However he
has denied to be the employee of management No.2. The other stand taken by the workman is that, any contract
existing between management No.1 and 2 was sham and camouflage designed to deprive the workman of his
legitimate rights for employment and reinstatement.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for consideration.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s
Bagga Electricals, Sharanpur in terminating the services of Shri Naveen Kumar, S/o Shri
Rameshwar Dutt, Electrician w.e.f. 08.10.2012, in violation of provision of section 25-F,G,H
of ID Act, 1947 in unjustified? If so its effect?
2. Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent No.1 and
workman? If so its effect?
3. Whether contract between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was camouflage? If So its
effect?
4. What relief the workman is entitled to?
During the proceeding the workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents and Marked
those in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the copy of the temporary pass the copy of the
order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, 1 RTI information obtained to prove that the workman was
working for management No.1 and the order of renewal of his entry pass etc. He has also filed a copy of the
legal notice served and reply thereto marked as WW1/7 and WW1/6 respectively. On the other hand the
management No.1 examined one of its officers as management witness No.1 to testify that the workman was
never an employee of management No.1. It has filed the copy of notice of tender and the related contract
between management No.1 and management No. 2 entered on 24th Aug, 2007 to prove that the management
No.2 being the awardee of the contract might have engaged the workman on contractual basis and the persons so
employed through the contactor are usually issued with gate pass for 30 days which gets renewed from time to
time. The present workman was neither under the payroll nor employment of management No.1.
Management No.2 though had filed written statement remained absent during the later part of the
proceeding and at last did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that the document and oral
evidence adduced by the workman clearly proves that he was working for the management No.1 continuously
for more than 9 years. This has not been disputed by management No.1 except for the fact that he was never in
the payroll of the management No.1. The Ld. A/R further argued that the contract between the management
No.1 and 2 proved as exhibit WW1/1 is a sham document created only to deprive the workman of his legal
rights. While arguing on the effective control test to decide the employer employee relationship he submitted
that the workman was never the employee of the contractor.
On the contrary the management No.1 through it’s A/R argued that the oral or documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant are not sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship between the parties.
There is absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary to prove that he was working under the effective
control of management No.1. While referring to written statement filed by management No. 2 this management
No.1 argued that when management No. 2 has admitted himself to be the employer of the workman no
responsibility can be fixed on the management No.1. It was further argued that the management No.1 being a
government department strictly follows the recruitment rules keeping in view the constitutional mandate of
public employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1 and 2
These 2 issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman
examined as WW1 has stated that he was a contractual employee of Garrison Engineers Air Force, Sarsawa and
to deprive him of his legal right the management had created a sham contract with the management No.2. Infact
he was working for management No.1 and never an employee of management No. 2. The management no.1
inter-alia pleaded that it is a government department having strict rule of employment. There is no provision for
contractual employment nor any person is appointed without following the due procedure of public
employment. The management No.1 has various works done through contractors and it has a proper tendering
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4613
procedure. In such procedure the management No.2 was inducted as a contractor and the said management had
engaged several persons to execute the work of contract. This claimant/workman might have been engaged
through the contractor and thus, there exists no employer employee relationship between them. At the cost of
repetition be it stated here the management No.2 had initially entered appearance and filed a written statement
admitting the workman to be his employee. Later on the management No.2 did not participate in the proceeding.
In the written statement the management No. 2 clearly admitted that the workman was appointed by him and out
of his own volition he resigned from service as his performance was not satisfactory.
For the admission and denial of management No.1 and 2 about the status of the workman it is now
necessary to examine if there existed any relationship as employer and employee between management No.1
and the workman. In the oral testimony the workman has stated to be an employee of management No.1 which
has been denied by MW1 an employee of Management No.1. The Ld. Counsel for the workman by placing
reliance in the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. vs. Management of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 ILJ Madras decided in W.A No. 341 of 1983 submitted that
when the workmen was engaged by a contractor not holding a valid license, the workmen so engaged working
for the management would be treated as a workman by the management itself. Describing the same as unfair
labour practice the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that in this case the management No.1 had no license for
engaging contract labourers. Not only that the contractor management No. 2 was not authorized to provide
labourers on contract to the management No.1 too, in compliance to the provision of Contract Labour Abolition
Act. The so called contract between management No.1 and 2 being a camouflage cannot be taken into
consideration and the consequence thereof is that the workman was an employee of the management No.1. He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary
Municipal Employees Union & Ors. reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) Page 298 and argued that the
workman who was allowed to work for a long time for the management No.1 and later driven out illegally,
became a victim of unfair labour practice. He also argued that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Umrala Gram Panchayat, no documentary evidence need to be brought on record to show that the
workman was an employee of management No.1 and his service deserves to be regularized with management
No.1.
The Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for Management No.1 submitted that in this case there is
absolutely no evidence brought on record to believe that at any point of time the present workman was working
under the supervision and control of management No.1. He pointed out the cross-examination part of the
workman wherein he has admitted that during the tenure of his service he was getting his salary from J.E of
MES but no document to that effect has been filed. Similarly during cross-examination though he admitted
about interview conducted by the J.E of MES no documentary evidence to that effect has been put on record. On
the contrary MW1 the Assistant Engineer has clearly stated that at no point of time the workman was getting
salary from the management No.1 nor he was discharging his duty under the effective control of the
management No.1. By filing a photocopy of the contract entered between management No.1 and 2, Mr.
Bhradwaj submitted that the management No.2 as per the terms of the contract had to deploy manpower for
carrying out the work specified in the contract. The said contract was a fixed term contract and the persons
deployed by the contractor have no relationship with the management No.1. The witness examined on behalf of
the management has also stated that the contractor was being paid the remuneration for the work who might
have been paying to the workman.
There is absolutely no evidence on record about the payment of wage subscription of PF and Insurance of
the workman by the management No.1. The Ld. A/R for the management No.1 has placed reliance in several
pronouncements of the Supreme Court to argue that when there is no direct evidence regarding the employer
employee relationship between the parties the court and the Tribunal has to draw an inference on the same
basing upon different factors. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have evolved certain test for
drawing such inference.
To support his contention he has placed reliance in the case of General Manager Bengal Nagpur
Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another reported in (2011)1 SCC 635. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the legality of the direction given by the Labour Court to the first respondent for
reinstatement of the workman came to hold that for directing reinstatement it is first of all to be decided whether
there exist any employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the workman. To determine
whether the contract labourer is a direct employee of the principal employer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down two well recognized tests such as-(I) Whether principal employer pay salary instead of the contractor (II)
whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that merely because officers of principal employer gave some instruction to the employee of the
contractor that would not make him an employee of the Principal Employer.
The Ld. Counsel for the management No.1 on the basis of this judgment submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence on record except the oral statement of WW1 that he was being paid salary by management No.1.
4614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
There is also no evidence that the workman was working under the supervision and control of management
No.1.
In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another vs. Air India Limited and Others reported in (2014) 9
SCC 407 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“To ascertain whether the workers of the contractor can be treated as the employees
of the factory or company on whose premises they run the said statutory canteen, the Supreme
Court must apply the test of complete administrative control. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to show that there exists an employer employee relationship between the factory
and the workmen working in the canteen. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia.
(i)
Who appoints the workers;
(ii)
Who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii)
who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv)
who can take disciplinary action;
(v)
whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi)
extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and
supervision.”
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman though claims to be the employee of the
principal employer respondent No.1, no evidence showing his appointment in the hands of management No.1
and payment of salary by management No.1 has been proved. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that
management No.1 had the authority of taking disciplinary action against the workman. Not only that except the
oral evidence of the workman that he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year for respondent No.1 no
document is forthcoming. Having the admission of respondent No.2 in the back ground that the workman was
employed by him the only evidence regarding completion of 240 days of work in the premises of management
No.1 shall not establish his relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, from the evidence on
record it is held that the workman having the burden to prove his relationship with management No.1 as
employer and employee, failed to prove so. The documents like gate pass issued by the management No.1 and
recommendation letter issued by the officer of management No.1 will not suffice the standard of proof required
for the purpose. The Principle decided in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat referred supra & relied by the
workman has no applicability on facts of this case since in Umrala case, admittedly the workmen were engaged
by the Gram Panchayat for a long period on daily wage and then terminated. Thus the Court directed that the
nature of work being perennial, the workman should be observed permanently and treated at par with regular
employees of same cadre. But here, the evidence lacks to prove employment of the workman by management
No.1.
The workman has alleged that at the time of termination the statutory provision of section 25-F,G,H of the
ID Act were not followed by the management No.1 as no retrenchment notice and compensation was paid nor
the principle of last come first go was followed. In reply the management no..1 has taken a stand that when the
service of the workman was not under the disposal of management No.1 there was no need for compliance of
these provisions by management No.1. In view of the finding arrived with regard to the employer employee
relationship between the workman and the management No.1 it is held that the management No.1 cannot be held
liable for non compliance of the statutory provision and it cannot be said to have taken an unjust action of
termination against the workman. These two issues are accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.3
The workman has alleged that a contract was entered between the management No.1 and 2 only to deprive
him of the legitimate rights of the employment. Management No.2 admitted to be the employer of the workman
with an explanation that he himself resigned from the job and this is not a case of termination. Management
No.1 has denied the allegation of sham contract entered by it with management no.2. A copy of the contract has
been filed and exhibited as MW1/1. This contract is pursuant to tender call notice and contains the detail terms
of contract. This tribunal finds no reasons of disbelieving the genuineness of this contract. The Ld. A/R for the
workman during course of argument submitted that the contract contains a clause about the minimum wage to
be paid to the workman. That having not been done and the workman since was deprived of minimum wage
which is evident from the complaint lodged by him before the labour commissioner lead to a conclusion that the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4615
said contract was a sham transaction. But this argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since non
compliance of certain clause of a contract may make the contract partially non enforceable, but would not grade
the contract as sham transaction. Hence it is held that the allegation about the sham contract entered between the
management no.1 and 2 also fails. This issue is accordingly answered against the workman.
ISSUE NO.4
In view of the pleading and evidence of the parties it is found that the workman has not sought any relief
from management No.2. His only prayer is that the management No.1 violated the provision of section 25-F of
the Act and he should be reinstated to service with all back wages and other service benefits. While answering
issue No.1 and 2, it has been held that management no.1 is not the employer of the workman nor the service of
the workman was terminated by the said management. Hence, no responsibility can be saddled on management
No.1 for the relief sought for. However it is felt proper that the management No.2 which admitted to be the
employer of the workman since has not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding the non-payment of
retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of retrenchment shall pay the retrenchment
compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act 1947. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of
the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the
service of the workman has been terminated by the management No.2 with effect from 08/10/2012 in violation
of provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. The management No.2 shall pay retrenchment compensation in terms
of section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. 1947 to the workman within 2 months from the date when this award would
become enforceable alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination till the date of payment.
The management No. 2 if would fail to make the payment within the time stipulated the amount shall carry
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retrenchment till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate
Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1105
1105
1105
1105.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस दली मे<ो प>रयोजना-, बाराखंभा, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और
उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म
यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 36/2019) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/06/2019 को
ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019 आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2019) 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 Delhi
Metro Project-, Barakhamba, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 10/06/2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 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. 36/2019
Date of Passing Award-23rd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Brijram,
…Workman
S/o Shri Chhotey Lal,
Through Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
B-239, Karampura, New Delhi-15.
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Project-CC-34
Metro Bhawan, Road Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s Hindustan Construction Co. (HCC-Samsung JV),
DDA Park Behind-Hilton Hotel, Police Station Road,
District Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. M/s Surjeet Security
108, Pocket-7, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Ajit,
…For the Workman.
(A/R)
None for the management No.1
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2
Shri Abhishek,
For the Management No.3.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2-A of the ID Act by the workman against the management No.1, 2 and
3 praying a direction to the management to reinstate the workman to service with full back wages and all other
consequential benefits.
The workman has alleged in the claim petition that he was working as a security guard in the
establishment of management No.1 being appointed by management No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-.
However the management No.1 and 2 were the principal employer. During the tenure of service he was
discharging his duties sincerely leaving no scope for compliant. The management had not issued letter of
appointment nor extending the benefits of EPF, ESI annual increment and HRA to him. He was often making
complaint about the same to the management. The management was also not allowing him the statutory leave.
Being annoyed by his demands on 01.12.17 the management No.3 illegally terminated the service of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4617
workman. While doing so the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act was not followed. Finding no
other way the workman had approached the Central Labour Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was
taken up being attended by the workman and the management. After several sittings between the parties and
conciliation officer no settlement could be arrived. Hence, a failure report was communicated to the workman
which led to the filing of the present petition.
On receipt of the notice the management No.1 and 2 did not appear. Management No.3 filed written
statement refuting the claim of the workman. It is the plea of the management No.3 that the workman was
engaged for a particular time period and on completion of the period his service was terminated on payment of
all his dues towards full and final settlement.
At this juncture the workman and the management No.3 filed a joint petition enclosing the
memorandum of settlement arrived between him and management No.3 stating therein that he has no claim
against the management No.1, 2 and 3 since management No.3 has finally settled his dues.
Having regard to the settlement arrived and the contention of the parties it is held that there remains no
claim of the workman to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim of the workman be and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstance without cost. Send a
copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1106
1106
1106
1106.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस दली मे<ो प>रयोजना-, बाराखंभा, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और
उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय-2,
नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 32/2019) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2019) 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 Delhi
Metro Project-, Barakhamba, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 10/06/2019.
[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. 36/2019
Date of Passing Award-23rd May, 2019.
4618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Between:
Shri Binod Kumar Thakur,
…Workman
S/o Shri Chandrika Thakur
Through Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
B-239, Karampura, New Delhi-15.
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Project-CC-34
Metro Bhawan, Road Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s Hindustan Construction Co. (HCC-Samsung JV),
DDA Park Behind-Hilton Hotel, Police Station Road,
District Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. M/s Surjeet Security
108, Pocket-7, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Ajit,
…For the Workman.
(A/R)
None for the management No.1
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2
Shri Abhishek,
For the Management No.3.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2-A of the ID Act by the workman against the management No.1, 2 and
3 praying a direction to the management to reinstate the workman to service with full back wages and all other
consequential benefits.
The workman has alleged in the claim petition that he was working as a security guard in the
establishment of management No.1 being appointed by management No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-.
However the management No.1 and 2 were the principal employer. During the tenure of service he was
discharging his duties sincerely leaving no scope for compliant. The management had not issued letter of
appointment nor extending the benefits of EPF, ESI annual increment and HRA to him. He was often making
complaint about the same to the management. The management was also not allowing him the statutory leave.
Being annoyed by his demands on 01.12.17 the management No.3 illegally terminated the service of the
workman. While doing so the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act was not followed. Finding no
other way the workman had approached the Central Labour Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was
taken up being attended by the workman and the management. After several sittings between the parties and
conciliation officer no settlement could be arrived. Hence, a failure report was communicated to the workman
which led to the filing of the present petition.
On receipt of the notice the management No.1 and 2 did not appear. Management No.3 filed written
statement refuting the claim of the workman. It is the plea of the management No.3 that the workman was
engaged for a particular time period and on completion of the period his service was terminated on payment of
all his dues towards full and final settlement.
At this juncture the workman and the management No.3 filed a joint petition enclosing the
memorandum of settlement arrived between him and management No.3 stating therein that he has no claim
against the management No.1, 2 and 3 since management No.3 has finally settled his dues.
Having regard to the settlement arrived and the contention of the parties it is held that there remains no
claim of the workman to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Hence, ordered.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4619
ORDER
The claim of the workman be and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstance without cost. Send a
copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1107
1107
1107
1107.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
सरकार मेसस दली मे<ो प>रयोजना-, बाराखंभा, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक'
और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म
यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 33/2019) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/06/2019 को
ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019 आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 1107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2019) 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 Delhi
Metro Project-, Barakhamba, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 10/06/2019.
[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. 33/2019
Date of Passing Award-23rd May, 2019.
Between:
Shri Bijender,
…Workman
S/o Shri Hari Chand,
Through:-Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
B-239, Karampura, New Delhi-15.
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Project-CC-34
Metro Bhawan, Road Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s Hindustan Construction Co. (HCC-Samsung JV),
DDA Park Behind-Hilton Hotel, Police Station Road,
District Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. M/s Surjeet Security
108, Pocket-7, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85.
…Managements
4620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:-
Shri Ajit,
…For the Workman.
(A/R)
None for the management No.1
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2
Shri Abhishek,
For the Management No.3.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2-A of the ID Act by the workman against the management No.1, 2 and
3 praying a direction to the management to reinstate the workman to service with full back wages and all other
consequential benefits.
The workman has alleged in the claim petition that he was working as a security guard in the
establishment of management No.1 being appointed by management No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-.
However the management No.1 and 2 were the principal employer. During the tenure of service he was
discharging his duties sincerely leaving no scope for compliant. The management had not issued letter of
appointment nor extending the benefits of EPF, ESI annual increment and HRA to him. He was often making
complaint about the same to the management. The management was also not allowing him the statutory leave.
Being annoyed by his demands on 01.12.17 the management No.3 illegally terminated the service of the
workman. While doing so the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act was not followed. Finding no
other way the workman had approached the Central Labour Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was
taken up being attended by the workman and the management. After several sittings between the parties and
conciliation officer no settlement could be arrived. Hence, a failure report was communicated to the workman
which led to the filing of the present petition.
On receipt of the notice the management No.1 and 2 did not appear. Management No.3 filed written
statement refuting the claim of the workman. It is the plea of the management No.3 that the workman was
engaged for a particular time period and on completion of the period his service was terminated on payment of
all his dues towards full and final settlement.
At this juncture the workman and the management No.3 filed a joint petition enclosing the
memorandum of settlement arrived between him and management No.3 stating therein that he has no claim
against the management No.1, 2 and 3 since management No.3 has finally settled his dues.
Having regard to the settlement arrived and the contention of the parties it is held that there remains no
claim of the workman to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim of the workman be and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstance without cost. Send a
copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1108
1108
1108
1108.—रा?प ित, +ी मृनमोय कुमार भAाचाज7, पीठासीन अ िधकारी, केीय सरकार औ ो िगक
अ िधकरण सह +म यायालय, गुवाहाटी को सBपे गए केीय सरकार औ ो िगक अ िधकरण सह +म यायालय, आसनसोल के
पीठासीन अिधकारी का अित>रC भार क अविध को दनांक 22.05.2019 से छ: माह से आगे क अविध अथवा िनयिमत
पदधारी क िनयुिC तक अथवा अगले आदेश' तक, इनमे जो भी पहले हो के पीठासीन अ िधकारी के पद का अित>रC भार
सौपते है I
[सं. अ-11016/03/2015-सीएलएस.II]
संजीव नंदा, अवर स िचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4621
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1108.—The President is pleased to extend the period of additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol entrusted to Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati for a further period of six
months with effect from 22.05.2019 or till the appointment of a regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is
the earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2015-CLS-II]
SANJEEV NANDA, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1109
1109
1109
1109.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
सरकार मेसस म9गनीज ओर (इंिडया) िलिमटेड के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या. 48/2013-14)
को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/06/2019 को ा1 2आ था ।
[सं. एल-27011/1/2013-आईआर-(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2013-14) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Managanese Ore (India) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.06.2019
[No. L-27011/1/2013-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/48/2013-14
Date: 03.05.2019.
Party No.1
:
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
M/s Managanese Ore (India) Ltd.,
MOIL Bhawan, 1-A, Katol Road,
Nagpur (Maharashtra).
Versus
Party No.2
:
Shri Rajkumar Mohare,
The General Secretary,
Bhartiya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),
Bharveli, Distt.Balaghat (MP).
AWARD
(Dated: 03rd 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-27011/1/2013-IR (M) dated 21.08.2013, with the
following schedule:-
4622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the demand of the Union to regularize 73 numbers (as per list enclosed) of temporary contract
labourers of M/s. Ambika Enterprises working in Bharveli Mines of MOIL, Balaghat Mines Post Bharveli Distt.
Balaghat (MP) as permanent workers in the MOIL Company is justified, valid and reasonable? If yes, what relief
the union/workman is entitled to an from which date?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union “Bhartiya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) (“the union” in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of MOIL (here-in-after referred to as the “Party No. 1”) filed its written
statement.
The case of the union as projected in the statement of claim is that, Party No. 1 has set up Ferro Manganese
Plant and Electrolytic Manganese dioxide Plant for sale of ore and earned profit, which comes in purview of industry. 73
workers were deployed by M/s Ambika Enterprises at Dhanbad in connection with work of deepening of production
shaft at Bharveli Mines. These activities therefore are of perennial nature and activities were controlled against the
provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. So, these workers acquired the status of permanent
workers, because they were working for more than 240 days in a calendar year. According to the union, workers were
working under the direct supervision and control of officers engaged by Party No. 1, the contractor is merely a name
lender commission agent. All the workers were in the industry of Party No. 1 from last 8 years.
3.
According to the union, Party No. 1 is adopting discriminatory approach in the matter of regularization of
contract labour, Party No. 1 entered into settlement for regularization of contract labours on 20.01.2003 and 17.11.2006,
but they adopted unfair legal practice, because above 73 workers have been denied payment of wages and other facilities
as per provisions. The Hon’ble High Court also directed the Party No. 1 to produce documents, so above 73 workers are
entitled to be absorbed as regular workers. By filing the statement of claim, union prayed that, all above 73 workers are
entitled to regularization from 2007 and also prayed permanency in job with retrospective effect and also prayed for grant
of regular pay scale and all other benefits available at that time.
4.
By filing written statement on behalf of the Party No. 1, they denied all the material facts, which were asserted
in the statement of claim. According to them, M/s Ambika Enterprises was awarded contractual work of deepening,
lining and equipping, furnishing and allied work of production of shaft at Balaghat Mines. M/s Ambika Enterprises
completed its work on 30.11.2011. They received the work contract after obtaining the valid labour license. According
to the Party No. 1, contract work was completed by the contractor on 30.11.2011 for a specific period, so service of
workers deemed to be terminated by the contractor as per provisions of Contract Labour Act and there is no employee
employer relation between the workers and Party No. 1. It is denied that, alleged73 workers had been working with
Party No. 1 from 2007. It is also denied that, each worker completed more than 240 days of work in each calendar year,
so there is no question of regularization of contract workers.
5.
It is also denied that, all these workers were working under the direct supervision and control of the officers of
Party No. 1. According to the Party No. 1, union had raised the issue on 20.01.2003 and tripartite settlement was taken
place between the Party No. 1 and 92 workers, but present 73 workers were contractual employees, have been deployed
on temporary basis, so Party No. 1 under no legal or contractual obligation to regularize them. According to the Party
No. 1, they have some records regarding these employees, but record concerned M/s Ambika Enterprises, were not in
custody of Party No. 1, so according to the Party No. 1, they are not entitled to any relief. They also asserted that, this
Tribunal in Case No. CGIT/NGP/98/2007 held that, workers are not entitled to any relief, so they prayed that, reference
is answered in negative, workers are not entitled to any relief and the case has no merit in the eye of law.
6.
Union filed a rejoinder on same footing as statement of claim. According to the union, Party No. 1 is twisting of
the facts and misleading the Tribunal. They also asserted that, settlement deed and contract documents in exclusive
possession of the Party No. 1, have not been filed on records, so they prayed as reiterated in the statement of claim and
denied all facts, mentioned in the W.S.
7.
Point of determination:
i.
Whether the above 73 workers are entitled for regularization?
ii. Whether they are the employee of Party No. 1?
iii. Whether they are entitled to any relief?
Reason for determination:
8.
On behalf of the union, they argued that, 73 workers were deployed by the Party No. 1 through Ambika
Enterprises, this activity is of perennial nature, work has to be performed with quality, hence it requires supervision and
control of Party No. 1 and also argued that, all 73 workers performed their work from last 8 years in continuation in
service for more than 240 days per calendar year. They relied four case laws i.e. Kingfisher Airlines Limited Vs. Capt.
Prithvi Malhotra 2013 CLR 79, Devinder singh Vs. Municipal Council 2011 II CLR 461, Director, Fisheries Terminal
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4623
Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda AIR 2010 SC 1236 and Devinder singh Vs. Municipal Council (2011) 6
SCC 584.
9.
On the contrary, Party No. 1 in its written argument admitted that, Ambika Enterprises was awarded contractual
work of deepening, lining and equipping and allied work of production of shaft, they completed their work on 30.11.2011
under the provision of Contract Labour Act after obtaining valid labour license, so after completion of contractual work,
services of the worker was deemed to be terminated. They also argued that, there is no question of regularization of
contractual work as it is in contravention with constitutional provisions, so argument of Party No. 1 was that, alleged
acquiring the status of permanent worker cannot arise. Now I want to see the evidence part.
10.
On behalf of the union, Mr. Rajkumar was examined in support of their statement of claim. He admitted the
documents M-I, M-II and M-III of Party No. 1 and also admitted that, Party No. 1 gave a contract to Ambika Enterprises
and that firm employed 73 workers. He also admitted that, they have not filed any document regarding the membership
of 73 workers and also not filed any document, which show that, union authorized to take their claim before the Tribunal.
In this way, union failed to prove that, they authorized Mr. Rajkumar to give statement or raise the dispute before this
Tribunal. They also failed to prove that, all the 73 workers are their union members.
11.
Mr. Rajkumar also admitted that, the Party No. 1 gave a contract of award to Ambika Enterprises to deepening
the shaft at Bharveli Mines at Balaghat. He also admitted that, contract was given to above firm by the Party No. 1 on
14.06.2007 and completed the work on 23/29.05.2012. He also admitted that, Party No. 1 issued a Commence
Certificate in favour of above firm. He also admitted that, workers were not employed by the Party No. 1. He also
admitted that, all documents filed by the union show that, all the above workers were working for the above firm. Now I
want to see the evidence of Party No,1.
12.
The Party No. 1 examined Shri Nitin Pagnis, Dy. General Personnel Manager as an authorized representative of
their company. He supported the W.S. with five documents, M-I to M-V, namely License issued in favour of M/s
Ambika Enterprises for engaging contract labourers, Commencement Order dated 29.06.2007, Contract Certificate dated
26.07.2007, Completion Certificate dated 21.05.2012 and 29.05.2012 and License issued by the ALC in favour of M/s
Ambika Enterprises, but he has no knowledge of some facts eg he has no knowledge about the prior contractor to
Ambika Enterprises, he has also no knowledge, whether same workers were working there, reason shown by this witness
is that, he was posted at Nagpur Head Quarter, there is different Personnel Manager at Mines, but according to him, he
has direct link with working mines. In this way, his statement shows that, there was connectivity with mines day to day
work and it shows that, he gave a statement on the basis of record. He also asserted that, there are two types of nature of
work, some are permanent nature and some are temporary nature. According to him, they were neither employed
directly nor they were controlled or supervised their work.
In this way, this statement remained unrebutted in cross-examination. It also shows that, he did not prejudice to
any worker, so his statement appears to be reliable. Now I want to see the legal position.
13.
I relied on case laws: (i). Chairman, ONGC Vs. Shyamlal Chandra (2006) LLR 70 (SC) and Secretary, State of
Karnataka and other Vs. Umadevi and others 2006 AIR 1806, in which, the following principles are laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
(i). “The policy of ‘ad-hocism’ followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of
Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The State Government is expected to function as a model
employer”.
(ii). “The employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiency in his performance ----
Without any such communication, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order to the employee on the
ground of unsuitability”.
(iii). A class of employment, which can only be called ‘litigious employment’ has risen like a phoenix seriously
impairing the constitutional scheme -----The passing of orders for continuance tends to defeat the very
Constitutional scheme of public employment”.
14
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws, State of Haryana & ors etc. Vs. Piara Singh & ors etc. AIR 1992 SC
2130 and State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) AIR 2006 SC 1806, held that:-
(i). “The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of
administration may sometimes call for an ad-hoc or temporary appointment to be made ------The
appointment of regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an
ad-hoc temporary employee”.
4624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii). “For regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed
the same may be made consistent without our observations -----If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly
long spell-say two or three years – a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services”.
(iii). “There must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply
in response thereto should be considered fairly ………..If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is
continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is
eligible and qualified according to rules”.
15.
In above case laws, following principles are also laid down :-
i. “All aspects of arbitrability will have to be decided by the Court seized of the suit or proceeding and cannot
be left to the decision of the arbitrator”.
ii. “The quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of S 2 (s) of the Act”.
16.
Case laws:-Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 1015 and Employers in
relation to the management of Bhowra Area No. XI of Ms BCCL, Dhanbad Vs. the Presiding Officer, Dhanbad W.P. (L)
No. 2412 of 2002 dated 26.07.2012, in which Hon’ble Court laid down the following principles:-
i. “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to
any office under the state”.
ii. No dependent of an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to claim preference in the matter of
on public employment on the basis of the service of his father/parent is no longer res integra in view of the
specific provision contain in Part III of the Constitution of India and also laid down in the judgment delivered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases.
17.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, my humble opinion
is that, there is no employee and employer relation between the workers and Party No. 1 i.e. they are contract labourers.
Union also failed to prove that, all the workers are the member of the union and also failed to prove that, any resolution
passed by the union to take this matter before this Tribunal. On perusal of the records, it also appears that, my
predecessor decided same type of case on 28.03.2014 in case No. CGIT/NGP/98/2007. It also appears that, some
settlements taken between the Party No. 1 and R.M.M.S. Union, in which, Party No. 1 made a commitment to reappoint
some workers on quality basis on some terms and conditions, but it also appears that, contractor did not pay any
retrenchment compensation to the workmen in lieu of service rendered by them, but contractor is not a party in this case,
so workers are not entitled for compensation. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The demand of the Union to regularize 73 numbers (as per list enclosed) of temporary contract labourers of M/s.
Ambika Enterprises working in Bharveli Mines of MOIL, Balaghat Mines Post Bharveli Distt. Balaghat (MP) as
permanent workers in the MOIL Company is not justified, valid and reasonable. The workmen are not entitled to any
relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1110
1110
1110
1110.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस हAी गोड माइस कंपनी िलिमटेड के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय, ब9गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 40/2010) को
कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 13.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था।
[सं. एल-43012/11/2010 आईआर-(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4625
management of M/s Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.06.2019
[No. L-43012/11/2010-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022.
DATED
: 04TH JUNE 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala
Presiding Officer
CR 40/2010
I Party
Sh. P. Ramesh,
S/o Sh. Mahanthappa Pattna Setty T,
No. 87, Hutti Gold Mines Co.Ltd.,
Hutti Raichur Distt.
II Party
The Executive Director,
Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd.,
Hutti PO-584115,
Lingasugur Taluk,
Raichur Distt.
Karnataka.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party
: Mr. Muralidhara
Advocate for II Party
:
Mr. M.R.C Ravi
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-43012/11/2010 (IR(M)) dated 06.10.2010 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 Management of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Hutti Raichur Dist. Karnataka State in
terminating the services of Sh. P. Ramesh S/o Sh. Mehantappa Pattan Setty vide their order dated 15.09.1998 is
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
1.
The 1st Party workman claims that having been appointed as a General Labour on 06.05.1981, he was promoted
to Grade of S-3 Operator; he met with an accident on 07.08.1997 and suffered fracture in his legs and was unable to
move; at the same time his daughter was also not well, he had sent his leave application. The 2nd Party issued charge
sheet cum enquiry notice on 15.01.1998 alleging that he remained unauthorizedly absent for 93 days from January to
December 1997. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet but the Management initiated enquiry by appointing Enquiry
Officer. The enquiry was held in contravention of the Principles of Natural Justice and the Provisions of the Certified
Standing Orders of the Company. The Enquiry Officer gave his cryptic findings devoid of reasons. Even without
waiting for his explanation to the Enquiry Report the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from services vide order
dated 15.09.1998. It is further claimed, that the Employee Association of the Company requested the Management to
keep the dismissal order in abeyance till the case is reviewed by them. The 1st Party resumed work and was working
4626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
sincerely. All of a sudden on 10.04.2000, the Management issued an office order stating that in the year 1999 he
absented for 55 days and his case does not deserve to be reviewed. Thus, the punishment order dated 15.09.1998 was
given effect. He has not committed any misconduct under the Certified Standing Order. His reply to the charge sheet
was not considered wherein he had explained the reasons for his absence. The punishment order is devoid of reasons and
justifications. He is not gainfully employed since his dismissal.
2.
In its detailed counter statement the 2nd Party contended that there is more than 10 years of delay in raising the
dispute. The order of reference is beyond the scope of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act and is without
Jurisdiction. The Domestic Enquiry was held in fair and proper manner. Even after keeping the punishment order in
abeyance, on the request of the Union the 1st Party workman continued to remain absent continuously. He was
habitually absenting from work which resulted in dislocation of work, loss of production and created bad precedent
among the co-workers. Hence, the 2nd Party was constrained to implement the order of dismissal dated 15.09.1998 w.e.f.
10.04.2000. He did not appeal to the Appellate Authority. The dismissal order is legal and justified.
3.
On the rival pleadings of the parties a Preliminary Issue regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry was framed,
tried and adjudicated by upholding the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry.
4.
Both the parties have addressed arguments apart from respective written arguments.
5.
The validity of the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer having been upheld, now the 1st Party attacks on
the Enquiry Findings. Though he does not dispute the period of his absence, he reasons out that his absence was beyond
his control as he had met with an accident and his daughter was unwell.
6.
It is noticed from the Enquiry Records that on his request to conclude the enquiry in one day, the Enquiry
Officer held the preliminary hearing, received the management documents and enquired the CSE. During the enquiry by
the Presenting Officer he admitted that he was absent from January 1997 to June 1997 for a period of 8 days and
reasoned out that whenever he misses the bus he remained absent; he admitted that he has not applied for leave on those
occasions. It is further admitted that he remained absent for 6 days during July and continuously absent between August
to December 1997; the leave letter submitted by him to the management were marked as Ex M-5 and Ex M-6. When
questioned why he did not take treatment in the Company Hospital he stated that, the police admitted him to the Hospital
while he was unconscious and from there he was shifted to Miraj Hospital. He admitted that on two previous occasions
he was unauthorizedly absent. His representative had stated that it is always good to get the leave sanctioned before
going on leave. He undertakes to produce the documentary proof about taking treatment as outpatient in the Company
Hospital. However, failed to comply his own undertaking. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report that the CSE had
furnished documents about availing treatment in the outside Hospital but had failed to submit records about his treatment
in the company Hospital. The 2nd show cause notice was issued to him; however the punishment order was kept in
abeyance for review at the interference of the Union (EX M-7). On 10.04.2000 (Ex M-8) the dismissal order was passed
by recording that he remained absent for 55 days in the year 1999 evincing that he has no interest to continue in the
service.
7.
Learned Counsel Sh. TRKP for the 2nd Party while challenging the reference of the dispute which is raised after
almost one decade relies on the judgement of Apex Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd., vs K. P. Madhavankutty (2000) 2
SCC 455: 2000 SCC ( L & S) 283 at Pg.459, wherein ‘the reference of a matter after lapse of seven years was observed
as stale which cannot be a subject matter of reference under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act’. Learned Counsel
further relies on the Judgement of L&T Komatsu Ltd vs N. Udaya Kumar reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1752, in
which reinstatement of the workman who was unauthorisedly absent for 105 days in a period of 9 months, vide award of
the Labour Court (confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court) was set aside. He further relies on the judgement of India
United Mills Ltd., vs Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (1959) 2 LLJ 120; and B.M.S Motor Service vs Workman (1955) 1
LLJ 597, which judgements upheld the major punishment in the cases of unauthorised absence.
8.
As such the dismissal order of 1998 was given effect to in the year 2000. The reference order is not challenged
by the 2nd Party before the appropriate forum on the ground of delay; they have promptly prosecuted their case before
this Court. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal the matter cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the ground of
delay.
9.
As it can be noticed from the enquiry record the workman had submitted the medical records for taking
treatment in the outside Hospital but had not produced records for availing treatment as an outpatient at the Company
Hospital. His medical records were produced by the Management and marked as their documents only. The show cause
notice dated 15.06.1998 is marked as Ex M–5 wherein they have quoted his service records and emphasized on his
previous records wherein for the similar misconduct, twice he was warned and twice he was under suspension and for the
similar reason he was not eligible for seven years for yearly increments and he is a habitual absentee, thereby causing
dislocation of work and loss of production. Whether or not the 1st Party gave his reply to the said show cause notice
cannot be made out from the records, he has not disputed these facts in the evidence adduced by him before this Tribunal
after the Preliminary Issue was adjudicated. Under the circumstances, the necessary inference is, he is a habitual
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4627
absentee and his absence in the year 1997 and 1998 was not an isolated incident. In the circumstances I endorse the
punishment order passed against the workman.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 04th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1111
1111
1111
1111.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस हAी गोड माइस कंपनी िलिमटेड के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय, ब9गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 29/2010) को
कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 13.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था।
[सं. एल-43011/2/2010 आईआर-(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.06.2019
[No. L-43011/2/2010-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BANGALORE – 560 022.
DATED : 06TH JUNE 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala
Presiding Officer
CR 29/2010
I Party
Shri. A.R. Ismail,
General Secretary,
AITUC (District Council),
Up-Stairs Saptagiri Complex,
K. C. Road,
BELLARY – 583101.
II Party
The Executive Director
Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd.,
Hutti PO, Karnataka,
Ligasugar Taluk,
Raichur -584115.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party
: Mr. Muralidhara
Advocate for II Party
: Mr. M.R.C Ram
4628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-43011/2/2010-IR(M) dated 03.08.2010 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 Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Hutti in terminating the services
of Shri. Yenkoba, Token No. 1355 w.e.f. 10/03/2006 is justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
1.
The 1st Party Trade Union has espoused the cause of Sh. Yenkoba who was working in the 2nd Party Mines and
was dismissed from service on the allegation of theft. Before imposing the punishment order he was issued charge sheet,
Domestic Enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer had given his report that the charges alleged against the workman
are proved.
2.
The 1st Party contents that without waiting for his reply to the memo, charge sheet was issued. The charges
were vague and indifferent; the enquiry was not held in a fair and proper manner; findings of enquiry were unjust and
unreasonable; Disciplinary Authority has not applied its mind to the evidence on record, facts and circumstances of the
case. He has been victimized by the Management. His blemish less past records were not considered before passing the
punishment order.
3.
The 2nd Party in its counter statement has denied all the allegations and justified its action.
The Preliminary Issue regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry was tried and adjudicated and was held vide
order dated 30.10.2012 of this Tribunal that ‘Domestic Enquiry held against the 1st Party by the 2nd Party is not fair and
proper’. The 2nd Party was permitted to prove the charges against the workman afresh. On that 2nd party examined 5
witnesses; one material object (stolen) was marked as Ex M-1. Documents Ex M-1 to M-10 was marked. The 1st Party
workman gave rebuttal evidence as WW1. The 1st Party was receiving interim relief from the 2nd Party vide order of this
Tribunal dated 17.10.2013 equivalent to the salary he was drawing as on the date of his termination.
4.
The allegation against the workman was on 31.07.2005 at 7:30 pm, near the bungalow of Managing Director of
the Company and old water tank he was found carrying,
a.
old steel railings
b. U type angular, L type angular (2)
c.
Steel pieces (totally 9 articles weighing 50 kgs),
which belonged to the Company; he was caught red-handed by the security guards of the Company. The 1st Party had
given his explanation to his charge sheet that at the relevant time, having drunk and intoxicated he was resting near the
old water tank; two strangers came there with the stolen properties and insisted him to assist them to carry the same; on
his denial they threatened him; he agreed to carry a rod the security persons caught him, took him to the security Office
and took his signature; he is not aware of whatever happened in his intoxicated condition.
5.
Before this Tribunal the 1st witness examined for the Management was the security personnel who stated that,
on that evening he observed three men hovering around the water tank, they picked up iron materials lying near the new
water tank and were proceeding. He informed the matter to the Security Inspector Sh. Nagappa through Company’s
Wireless set; the Security Inspector came there in the jeep along with Sh. Thotegar and with Sh. Charles. When they
attempted to catch the culprits two of them ran away leaving behind the iron materials and the 1st Party workman was
caught. During the cross examination of MW-1, it emerged that 1st Party workman was not a stranger to him; he was not
on patrol duty at that time and place. The iron materials left behind by the culprits was not seized under Mahazar.
6.
The 2nd witness was the Security Inspector and he has stated that they produced the stolen property along with
the 1st Party workman before Sh. Mallappa Shaft time keeper, who in turn checked the register, traced that the person
brought is Sh. Yenkoba B No. 1355. They recorded the statement of Sh. Yenkoba sealed the iron pieces and complained
the matter to the Manager. He identified the stolen property as No–1. During the cross examination he stated that MW–
1/Security Guard was not provided with wireless set; he had sent the message from the post situated near the MD’s
Bungalow. When the raid party went near JSI Camp, Sh. Modin Saab saw and two other guards posted near MD
Bungalow joined them and they were eight in number.
7.
The 3rd witness was one among the security men who caught the 1st Party workman. As per his version during
cross examination, in all they were 5 in number; the stolen property was not seized under Mahazar.
8.
The 4th witness was the Driver of the jeep in which security personnels proceeded to the spot of offence. As per
his version he parked the vehicle near the JSI Campus the
security personnels alighted from the vehicle, returned with 1st Party workman and iron material.
9.
The DGM secretary who was also the Chief Security Officer was the 5th witness. As per his statement when the
1st Party was caught and brought to the main gate of the Company, he went there and investigated the matter received the
iron materials from the security guard and also their statement about the incident.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4629
10.
He produced the documents Ex M-1 to M-10 i.e., the complaint, the statement of witnesses, charge sheet, order
of dismissal and the application given by the 1st Party dated 08.04.2008 seeking pardon. He admits the suggestion that
the 1st Party is charged on the basis of the statements of the security personnels.
11.
During his rebuttal evidence the 1st Party workman stated that, on that evening he had consumed alcohol, while
on his way to home two strangers approached him holding materials in their hand. They were two security guards known
to him, they took him to the jeep and then to the Security Office at the main gate. They alleged him of theft and forcibly
took his signature on a paper and there after released him. He has not committed misconduct as alleged. He admits that
a Police complaint is given in respect of the incident.
12.
It is obvious that there is improvement in the case of the Management from the stage of charge sheet to the stage
of evidence before this Tribunal. In the charge sheet, there is no reference to two strangers with whom 1st Party workman
is said to be carrying Company property.
13.
In the 1st Information Report given to the jurisdictional Police, also there is no reference to any 3rd
persons/unknown culprits except the 1st Party workman. The Police complaint is lodged on 12.06.2005 (Ex M-13) in
pursuance of the same charge sheet is filed for the offence under section 379 of IPC, in respect of theft of 12 kgs of iron
material of value Rs. 100/-on the evening of 12.06.2005 against the accused
Sh. Yenkoba Hanumantha Dhodamani.
14.
It is not logical to connect the charge sheet issued to the workman by the Management dated 05.08.2005 in
respect of the incident of 31.07.2005 (Ex M-3). Whether these two charge sheets pertain to a same incident or different
incident is not explained by the 2nd Party. This discrepancy within the prosecution case is not a minor fault that can be
ignored. In both the cases the complainant is Sh. Basavaraj S/o Sh. Shankrappa Dhodamani Security Officer.
15.
The burden is on the prosecution to prove the allegation against the 1st Party at the least on the parameter of
‘principles of preponderance probability’. Going by the version of the charge sheet the culprit must be carrying the iron
articles which are marked before this Tribunal as MO-1. It is humanly impossible for a single person to carry all these
articles which probably weighs more than 50 kgs by himself. Hence, without further probe the conclusion that flows is
the charge is not proved by the 2nd Party, and it does call for interference by this Tribunal in exercise of the jurisdiction
bestowed by section 11 of Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The action of the Management of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., in terminating
the services of Sh. Yenkoba token No. 1355 w.e.f 10.03.2006 since, is not justified, same is set aside. The 2nd Party
Management is directed to reinstate the workman to his original post with continuity of service and 30% of back
wages. The Award must be complied by the Management within 60 days of publication of the Award in the
Official gazette, failing which the monetary benefit will carry future interest at 8% per annum.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 06th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1112
1112
1112
1112.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस मनोहरपुर िच>रया ओर माइन के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक
िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 65/2000) को कािशत
करती है जो केीय सरकार को 18.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था।
[सं. एल-26011/16/1999-आईआर-(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Manoharpur Chiria Ore Mine and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
18.06.2019.
[No. L-26011/16/1999-IR(M)]
4630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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. 65/ 2000
Employer in relation to the management of Manoharpur Chiria Ore Mine
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri D.K.Singh
Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry-Mines
Dated-30/05/2019
AWARD.
By order No. L-26011/16/1999-IR(M) dated 25/01/2000 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 and contractor’s in not paying wages to
the contractor’s workmen as per agreement of Steel Wages Board Award is justified? If
not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter one regd. notices was issued to the workmen
but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Moreover notice of the union is returned back with postal
remarks “ Not Known” Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that
workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
D.K.SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1113
1113
1113
1113.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस Mी डी इंटीNेटेड सॉयूशन िलिमटेड एवं अय के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म
िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय-1, दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या
88/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर-(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4631
Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Three D Integrated Solution Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.06.2019.
[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, NEW DELHI.
ID No. 88/2013
Shri Sarajuddin Ali s/o. Shri Shamsher Ali,
C/o. Engineering General Karamchari Lal Jhanda Union,
M-714-15, Mangolpuri,
Delhi -110083.
………Workman/Claimant
Versus
1-M/s Three D Integrated Solution Ltd.
609-611, JMD Pacific Square Behind 32nd Miles Stone,
NH-8, Sector 15,
Gurgaon (Haryana).
2-M/s Airport Authority of India,
Indira Gandhi Terminal-III,
Palam, New Delhi.
…….Management/Respondent
AWARD
This is a claim directly filed by the workman/claimant Sarajuddin Ali under Section 2(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that he has been working as Senior Technician
with the Management since 29/5/2010 and his last drawn wages were Rs.9000/-per month. He had been working with
honesty and sincerity. The duty place of the workman was at IGI Airport Terminal-III and his entry pass for duty was
upto 19/12/2011. Office of the Management had obtained the signatures of the workman on the application for entry
pass but same was not issued to the workman despite repeated requests and visits. It is pleaded that the workman
continued to go to the office but he was not provided with duty from 19/12/2011 till 4/6/2012 but on 4/6/2012 the
workman/claimant was told that his name has been removed from company’s record. Demand notice dated 4/6/2012
was sent to the Management through registered post but to no avail. Termination of the claimant from service on
4/6/2012 is illegal, unjust and against the provisions of law. The claimant is still unemployed since the date of his
termination. The claimant had approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. Prayer has been made for
reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and consequential benefits.
2.
The Management No.1 contested the claim petition by filing written statement. While denying the allegations
of the claimant, it has been alleged that the workman started absenting from duties without any intimation or permission
w.e.f. 20/12/2011 and therefore, he was issued a letter dated 11/1/2012, informing him about his absence from duties
w.e.f. 20/12/012 and advising him to report for duty but he did not report for duty. Another letter dated 18/1/2012 was
issued to him, advising him to report for duty within 10 days, failing which it will be inferred that he was no longer
interested to work with the Management. It is also alleged that at no point of time Management ever refused duties to the
workman. It is further alleged that having absented from duties continuously w.e.f. 20/12/2011 without any intimation,
the workman/claimant voluntarily abandoned his service and his continuous unauthorized absence from duty from
20./12/2011 constituted a gross misconduct. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.
Management no.2 Airport Authority of India did not appear despite service of notice and hence case was
proceeded ex-parte against it vide order dated 30./8/2013.
4.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/8/2013 :-
(i)
Whether claimant abandoned his service with M/s Three D Integrated Solutions Ltd.? If yes, its effect ?
(ii)
Whether termination of service, if any, of the claimant amounts to retrenchment ?
4632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) Whether provisions of Industrial law were violated when services of the claimant were terminated by M/s
Three D Integrated Solutions Ltd.?
(iv) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the service of M/s Three D Integrated Solutions
Ltd.?
5.
In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and
relied on documents Ex.WW/1 to Ex.WW1/5. On the other hand, the Management No.1 examined two witnesses
namely Shri R.K. Srivastava, Deputy General Manager (HR) and Shri Rajeev Shokeen, Deputy Manager (HR), who
filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW1/A and Ex.MW2/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex.MW1/1
(letter dated 11/1/2012) and Ex.MW1/2 (letter dated 18.1.2012).
6.
I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the workman./claimant and Shri K.K. Tyagi vice Shri Alok Bhasin,
A/R for Management No.1. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 to 4 :-
7.
All these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common
discussion.
8.
I may mention that affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim
petition. He has filed on record copy of the demand notice dated 4.6.2012 (Ex.WW1/1) sent to Management No.1 and its
postal receipt as Ex.WW1/2; copy of reply thereto given by Management No.1 as Ex.WW1/3, whereas documents
Ex.WW1/4 and Ex.WW1/5 relate to one Sultan Singh – claimant in another case. Perusal of these documents clearly
proves relationship of employer-employee between the Management No.1 and the claimant herein and that the claimant
falls within the definition of “workman” as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act.
9.
From the evidence adduced on record it stands proved that claimant/workman was engaged as a Technician on
29th May, 2010 and his entry pass was valid upto 19/12/2011. Case of the claimant is that office of the Management
had obtained the signatures of the workman on the application for entry pass but same was not issued to the workman
despite repeated requests and visits. Though he continued to go to the office, however he was not provided with duty
from 19/12/2011 till 4/6/2012 but on 4/6/2012 he was told that his name has been removed from company’s record. On
the other hand, case of the Management No.1 is that the workman started absenting from duties without any intimation or
permission w.e.f. 20/12/2011 and therefore, he was issued letters dated 11/1/2012 and 18/1/2012 (ExMW1/1 and
Ex.MW1/2), informing him about his absence from duties w.e.f. 20/12/012 and advising him to report for duty but he
did not report for duty. While denying the suggestion that he started absenting himself from duty since 20/12/2011,
claimant WW1 volunteered that he was attending to his duties daily but his entry pass was not issued to him. He also
denied the suggestion about issuance/receipt of letters Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2. MW2 Rajeev Shokeen –witness of
the Management has admitted that the workman/claimant had moved application for issuance of entry pass. This witness
clarified that entry pass is made on the basis of application on behalf of the workman to the Burearu of Civil Aviation
Security but admitted that the Management had not issued any letter in writing to the workman to collect the entry pass.
10.
As regards the version of the Management that the workman absented from duty without any intimation or
permission w.e.f. 20/12/2011 and for that purpose the Management issued letters Ex.MW1/1 (dated 11/1/2012) and
Ex.MW1/2 (dated 18/1/2012) to the claimant which were allegedly sent through courier, I may mention that onus to
prove the same was upon the Management. Perusal of the record shows that the Management has not filed on record
any acknowledgement/service report of the same. Moreover these letters do not bear any reference number of the office
of the Management. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Management has not produced on record any document
to show as to when entry pass of the workman/claimant which was valid upto 19/12/2011, was actually
renewed/revalidated – whether it was before or after 11/1/2012 when the first warning letter Ex.MW1/1 followed by
another warning letter dated 18/1/2012 (Ex.MW1/2) was allegedly issued by the Management but in these letters there is
no mention whether entry pass of the claimant/workman stands renewed/revalidated, or not. Even these letters were not
shown/put to the claimant in his cross examination for the purposes of confrontation. It seems that the Management has
manufactured these documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2 and the same are of no help to the case of the Management. It
is fairly settled that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an
intention not to resume the same. Testimony of the claimant that he was always called on in the office on every week but
he was provided his duty from 19/12/2011 upto 4/6/20112 has gone unchallenged. The claimant has also filed on record
his demand notice dated 4/6/2012 and its postal receipt as Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2 respectively, from which it can be
safely inferred that the claimant had no intention to abandon the job. In these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal has
no hesitation to hold that the Management has failed to prove that it was the claimant who abandoned his service
voluntarily.
11)
Now the question arises for consideration is whether the dismissal/termination of the claimant from services
w.e.f. 4/6/2012 is in violation of the provisions of the Act.
12)
Admittedly the claimant worked regularly under Management No.1 as Technician from 29/5/2010 till
19/12/2011 when his entry pass expired. I have already held above that the Management has failed to prove that it was
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4633
the claimant who abandoned his service voluntarily. The claimant has pleaded and testified that his termination from
service on 19/12/2011 and 4/6/2012 is illegal, unjust and against the law of land. MW2 Rajeev Shokeen – witness of the
Management has admitted that no charge sheet was issued to the workman nor any action was taken against him for his
continued absence and further that no termination letter was issued to the workman. Even no enquiry was conducted
against the workma, It is fairly settled that if the termination of an employee is based on no inquiry, no charge-sheet and
not by way of punishment, then it becomes a case of illegal retrenchment. As such, this Tribunal is of the considered
view that action of the Management in disengaging/terminating the services of the claimant herein amounts to
retrenchment.
13.
I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to
retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-
“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 for every completed years 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 or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”
The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from
giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment
compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that any retrenchment compensation was
paid to the claimant by the Management. There is also nothing on record to show that any notice ornotice pay was given
by the Management prior to termination of the claimant herein. As such, the Management has violated 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 Bank 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 her, as such action of the Management in
terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 4/6/2012 is held to be illegal and void.
16)
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work 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 since 29/5/2010. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the
claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman is of perennial and regular nature which fact
is also admitted by the witness of the Management. The claimant has pleaded and testified that he is totally unemployed
since his termination i.e. 14/6/2012.
17)
The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting
back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating
authority or the Court of first instance that he/she 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 employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was
getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is
so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the
person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive
fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the
4634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that
termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the
action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
19.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
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 workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith 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 case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal
termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4635
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
22.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, inasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his
termination by the Management no.1. Award is passed accordingly against Management No.1.
Date : 07.05.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1114
1114
1114
1114.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस एयरपोट अथॉ>रटी ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय-1, दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 25/2015) को
कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.06.2019.
[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1: NEW DELHI
ID No.25/2015
Shri Manoj Kumar ,
Working as driver in Airport Authority of India,
As represented by
Delhi Labour Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-54.
…Workman
Versus
The Management of Airport Authority of India,
4636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Through its Chairman,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
3rd Floor, C-Block,
Safdarjang Airport,
New Delhi 110003.
……Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act)
filed directly by the claimant/workman with the averments that he had joined into the employment of Management w.e.f.
4.7.2008. He was taken in job on contract basis and was posted as driver at Safdarjang Airport. He was continuously
and uninterruptedly discharging his services and raised an industrial dispute by giving a legal demand notice dated
17.12.2012 through his Union, seeking regularization to the post of Driver in proper pay scale and allowances. It is
pleaded that on receipt of aforesaid notice, the Management as a counter blast terminated the services of the workman on
5/9/201 by verbally informing him not to come on duty but without giving any written letter/communication.
Consequently, the workman filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act before the Conciliation Officer in
December, 2013 but to no yield and ultimately the ALC/Conciliation Officer issued a certificate dated 29/9/2014. It is
also pleaded that termination of his services is not only in violation of Section 33-A of the Act but is also in violation of
Section 25-F, G and H of the Act as the workman was not given any prior notice or notice pay or service compensation.
Action of the Management in terminating the service of the claimant amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in
Section 2(ra) read with item No.5 of the Fifth Schedule of the ID Act. It is further pleaded that the workman is totally
unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. He has prayed for his reinstatement into service with full back
wages & all consequential benefits as well as cost of litigation as provided under Section 11(7) of the Act.
2.
The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary
objections inter alia that there is no employer-employee between the workman/claimant and the Management inasmuch
as the workman was neither appointed by the Management, nor was its direct employee. It is alleged that the
Management had engaged the services of the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping, WZ-519, Raj Nagar-I, Palam Colony,
New Delhi through agreement. It is also alleged that the claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant has failed to
implead the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping. The workman was engaged by the contractor for his services, if any
and salary of the workman was paid by the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping and services of the workman were
terminated by the contractor. As such, contractor/s were solely responsible for employment of the workman, payment of
their wages and other service benefits. It is stated that the workmen/claimant never attained the status of permanent
employee and as such he was not entitled to regularization because there was no employer-employee relationship
between the Management and claimant. Prayer has been made that claim petition is not maintainable and as such the
claimant is not entitled to any relief.
3.
The claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the claim petition and denied the allegations as
made in the written statement. It has been alleged that it was the Management of Airport Authority of India only who
was supervising the services rendered by the claimant, though he was taken on job on contract basis. Even otherwise the
Management is a principal employer and the termination of the claimant is an act of victimization of the
workman/claimant.
4.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 24/8/2015 :-
1) Whether termination of the workman is illegal and against the principle of natural justice ?
2) Whether there exists relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the Management ?
5.
The workman /claimant examined himself as WW1 and led evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied
on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri K.K.Gautam. Jt.
General Manager (Tech.) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to
Ex.MW1/8.
6.
I have heard Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sunil Dutt, A/R on behalf of the Management
and have also gone through the records carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 and 2 :-
7.
Both these issues are taken up together as the same can be disposed of by common discussion.
8.
At the outset I may mention that claim of the workman/claimant is that he was working on contract basis under
Airport Authority of India, whereas it was submitted on behalf of the Management that the claimant/workman was/is in
fact employee of M/s Good Housekeeping and as such there does not exist any relationship of employer-employee
between the Management and claimant herein. Testimony of the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim
petition. He has filed on record various documents viz. Ex.WW1/1 – copy of complaint under Section 33-A of the Act;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4637
copy of its reply filed on behalf of Management Airport Authority of India as Ex.WW1/2; copy of the rejoinder thereto
as Ex.WW1/3; copy of legal demand notice dated 17/12/2012 as Ex.WW1/4 and its postal receipt as Ex.WW1/5; Entry
permit Card issued by the Management as Ex.WW1/6; copies of statements showing Overtime Allowance payable/paid
to the claimant pertaining to the period January, 2011 to October, 2012 as Ex.WW1/7 (colly.-19 pages) duty roaster of
the drivers including the workman herein for the period from 26/6/2011 to 8/.12/2012 as Ex.WW1/8 (colly. -25 pages),
issued and signed by Shri R.N. Prajapati, Dy.General Manager (Technical), AAI, Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi.
9.
MW1 – Shri KK Gautam in his testimony has deposed that there is no employer-employee relationship between
the claimant and Management as the workman was never appointed by the Management and was never the direct
employee of Airport Authority of India. This witness filed on record copies of letters relating to award of
contract/renewal of contract by the Management in favour of M/s Good House Keeping, New Delhi for providing
Facilitation Personnel/skilled persons for driving duty on annual basis during the period from 1/10/2011 to
3/4/2015, as Ex.,MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/15. However, from these documents it can not be inferred that the claimant was
working under M/s Good House Keeping, New Delhi. On the contrary, perusal of document Ex.WW1/8 (colly.) shows
that there was direct control and supervision over the work of the claimant/workman herein and that is why duty roaster
of the workman used to be prepared by officers/officials of Airport Authority of India.
10.
Even if it is admitted that the claimant was working with the Management/Airport Authority through M/s Good
House Keeping to whom contract/s were awarded and renewed from time to time, in that eventuality also, control and
supervision over the work of the claimant/workman herein was that of the principal employer Airport Authority of India.
Moreover, it is apparent from documents Ex.,MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/15 that the workers including the claimant were hired
by Airport Authority of India through the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping for plying its vehicles. There is nothing
on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s Good Housekeeping for completion of any
project or that the said contractor himself was the transporter and he provided the Management Airport Authority of India
the vehicles alongwith the driver/s.
11.
It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially
social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers
under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section
10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract
labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of
the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to
get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
12.
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract labour
would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-
“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :
(i)
Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment and
employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered
abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA
Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.
(ii)
Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract
labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality, the
employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of contract
labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact
at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.
(iii) Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal
employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed
be the employees of the principal employer.
13.
In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on
19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as
safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who
had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect
that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and
camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.
14.
I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record
that the contract awarded to M/s Good House Keeping was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management
Airport Authority of India for plying the cars owned/belonging to the Management. Even control and supervision over
the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. The job of driver/s is delicate. MW1 Shri KK Gautam
has admitted that the workman joined his duty as a driver w.e.f.4/7/2008. The Management has not filed on record any
4638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
document to show that there was any agreement between the Management and M/s Good Housekeeping in the year 2008.
MW1 has also admitted that the Management has not filed on record any document to show that the workman/claimant
as deployed by M/s Good Housekeeping to the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that the
workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the
contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for plying the vehicles of the Management/Airport Authority of
India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and M/s Good Housekeeping was a sham
and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the claimant herein. It is
manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman had been working regularly without any breaks since
4/7/2008 till 5/7/2013 when his services were terminated. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there
existed relationship of employer –employee between the Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/
claimant herein.
15.
It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice
pay/compensation. MW1 – KK Gautam witness of the Management while admitting that no retrenchment compensation
has been paid to the claimant has volunteered that he was not their employee. He admitted that no memo or charge sheet
was issued to the claimant. This impliedly shows that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to
the claimant by the Management and as such termination of the claimant/workman by the Management was in violation
of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show that the Management terminated the services of the
claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
16.
I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to
retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-
“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 for every completed years 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 or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”
The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from
giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment
compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the
Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the
Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
17.
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.
18.
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 her, as such action of the Management in
terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 5/9/2013 is held to be illegal and void.
19.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. Testimony of the claimant that he continuously worked
with the Management from 4/7/2008 to 5/9/2013, has gone unrebutted. Even he was paid over time allowance for the
overtime duty performed by him. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the
Management. Moreover, the job of the workman as driver is considered to be of perennial and regular nature. Though
claimant has pleaded and testified that he is totally unemployed since his termination on 5/9/2013. No evidence to the
contrary has been adduced by the Management. Even if it is assumed that the workman/claimant is doing intermittent
job, that can not be considered to be regular gainful employment of the claimant/workman herein.
20.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4639
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/she 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 employee/workman wads
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the
termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically
plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.”
21.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that
termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the
action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
22.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
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 workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
23.
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.”
24.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal
termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
4640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
25.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 60 per cent back wages, inasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his
termination by the Management. The claimant/workman is also granted litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand only) as provided under Section 11(7) of the Act and same shall also be paid by the Management. Award is
passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.
Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Date : 08.05.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1115
1115
1115
1115.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस एयरपोट अथॉ>रटी ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं$ के संब% िनयोजक' और उनके कमकार' के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं +म यायालय-1, दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं-या 26/2015) को
कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.06.2019 को ा1 2आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर-(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.06.2019.
[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, NEW DELHI
ID No.26/2015
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4641
Shri Kuldeep Singh ,
Working as driver in Airport Authority of India,
As represented by
Delhi Labour Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-54.
…Workman
Versus
The Management of Airport Authority of India,
Through its Chairman,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
3rd Floor, C-Block,
Safdarjang Airport,
New Delhi 110003.
……Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act)
filed directly by the claimant/workman with the averments that he had joined into the employment of Management w.e.f.
8/4/2010 as driver. He was taken in job on contract basis and was posted as driver at Safdarjang Airport. He was
continuously and uninterruptedly discharging his services and raised an industrial dispute by giving a legal demand
notice dated 17/12/2012 through his Union, seeking regularization to the post of Driver in proper pay scale and
allowances. It is pleaded that on receipt of aforesaid notice, the Management as a counter blast terminated the services of
the workman w.e.f. 28/2/2013 by verbally informing him not to come on duty but without giving any written
letter/communication. Consequently, the workman filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act before the
Conciliation Officer in December, 2013 but to no yield and ultimately the ALC/Conciliation Officer issued a certificate
dated 29/9/2014, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-A. It is also pleaded that termination of his services is not
only in violation of Section 33-A of the Act but is also in violation of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act as the workman
was not given any prior notice or notice pay or service compensation. Action of the Management in terminating the
service of the claimant amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2(ra) read with item No.5 of the Fifth
Schedule of the ID Act. It is further pleaded that the workman is totally unemployed since the date of his illegal
termination. He has prayed for his reinstatement into service with full back wages & all consequential benefits as well as
cost of litigation as provided under Section 11(7) of the Act.
2.
The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary
objections inter alia that there is no employer-employee between the workman/claimant and the Management inasmuch
as the workman was neither appointed by the Management, nor was its direct employee. It is alleged that the
Management had engaged the services of the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping, WZ-519, Raj Nagar-I, Palam Colony,
New Delhi through agreement. It is also alleged that the claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant has failed to
implead the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping. The workman was engaged by the contractor for his services, if any
and salary of the workman was paid by the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping and services of the workman were
terminated by the contractor. As such, contractor/s were solely responsible for employment of the workman, payment of
their wages and other service benefits. It is stated that the workmen/claimant never attained the status of permanent
employee and as such he was not entitled to regularization because there was no employer-employee relationship
between the Management and claimant. Prayer has been made that claim petition is not maintainable and as such the
claimant is not entitled to any relief.
3.
The claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the claim petition and denied the allegations as
made in the written statement. It has been alleged that the workman was posted at Safdarjung Airport on the post of
driver and his work was being supervised only by the Management of Airport Authority of India Even otherwise the
Management is a principal employer and the termination of the claimant is an act of victimization of the
workman/claimant.
4.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 24/8/2015 :-
1) Whether termination of the workman is illegal and against the principle of natural justice ?
2) Whether there exists relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the Management ?
5.
The workman/claimant examined himself as WW1 and led evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied on
documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/18. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri K.K.Gautam. Jt.
General Manager (Tech.) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to
Ex.MW1/8.
4642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
I have heard Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sunil Dutt, A/R on behalf of the Management
and have also gone through the records carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 and 2 :-
7.
Both these issues are taken up together as the same can be disposed of by common discussion.
8.
At the outset I may mention that claim of the workman/claimant is that he was working on contract basis under
Airport Authority of India, whereas it was submitted on behalf of the Management that the claimant/workman was/is in
fact employee of M/s Good Housekeeping and as such there does not exist any relationship of employer-employee
between the Management and claimant herein. Testimony of the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim
petition. He has filed on record various documents viz. Ex.WW1/1 – copy of legal demand notice dated 7/10/2013 as
Ex.WW1/1 and its postal receipt as Ex.WW1/2; copy of statement of claim filed before Conciliation Officer as
Ex.WW1/3; copy of its reply filed on behalf of Management Airport Authority of India as Ex.WW1/4; copy of the
rejoinder thereto as Ex.WW1/5; copy of legal demand notice dated 17/12/2012 as Ex.WW1/6 and its postal receipt as
Ex.WW1/7; Entry permit Cards issued by the Management as Ex.WW1/8 & Ex.WW1/11; copies of visitor’s pass issued
by Lok Sabha Secretariat as Ex.WW1/9 & Ex.WW1/10; copy of application form submitted by the claimant (duly
recommended by General Manager of Airport Authority of India to the Ministry of Home Affairs, for issuance of
temporary pass; copies of office notes Ex.WW1/13 and Ex.WW1/4 for providing seat covers and one set of seat towels
as well as one perfume bottle to the staff car driver Kuldeep Singh; copy of certificate issued by Joint Secretary to the
Ministry of Civil Aviation, about the work and conduct of the claimant; statements/claims of Overtime Allowance
payable to the claimant pertaining to the period January, 2011 to October, 2012 as Ex.WW1/16 (colly.); duty roaster of
the drivers including the workman herein for the period from 26/6/2011 to 8/.12/2012 as Ex.WW1/17 (colly.) issued and
signed by Shri R.N. Prajapati, Dy.General Manager (Technical), AAI, Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi; and copy of
reference order dated 18/2/2015 in respect of industrial dispute concerning non-regularization of the claimant/workman
as Ex.WW1/18.
9.
MW1 – Shri KK Gautam in his testimony has deposed that there is no employer-employee relationship between
the claimant and Management as the workman was never appointed by the Management and was never the direct
employee of Airport Authority of India. This witness filed on record copies of letters relating to award of
contract/renewal of contract by the Management in favour of M/s Good House Keeping, New Delhi for providing
Facilitation Personnel/skilled persons for driving duty on annual basis during the period from 1/10/2011 to
3/4/2015, as Ex.,MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/15. However, from these documents it can not be inferred that the claimant was
working under M/s Good House Keeping, New Delhi. On the contrary, perusal of documents Ex.WW1/16 and
Ex.WW1/17 (colly.) shows that there was direct control and supervision by the Management over the work of the
claimant/workman herein and that is why duty roaster of the workman used to be prepared by officers/officials of Airport
Authority of India.
10.
Even if it is admitted that the claimant was working with the Management/Airport Authority through M/s Good
House Keeping to whom contract/s were awarded and renewed from time to time, in that eventuality also, control and
supervision over the work of the claimant/workman herein was that of the principal employer Airport Authority of India.
Moreover, it is apparent from documents Ex.,MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/15 that the workers including the claimant were hired
by Airport Authority of India through the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping for plying its vehicles. There is nothing
on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s Good Housekeeping for completion of any
project or that the said contractor himself was the transporter and he provided the Management Airport Authority of India
the vehicles alongwith the driver/s. On the other hand, documents Ex.WW1/13 and Ex.WW1/4 are indiacative of the
fact that in November, 2011 the claimant was doing duty as staff car driver of vehicle No.DL3-C-AY-3601 owned by
Airport Authority of India which was attached to Jt.Secretary (P) of Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, New
Delhi.
11.
It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially
social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers
under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section
10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract
labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of
the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to
get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
12.
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 noticed the following circumstances under which contract
labour would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-
“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :
(i)
Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and
employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4643
abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the
CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.
(ii)
Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the
contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality,
the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of
contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct
position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.
(iii)
Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal
employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would
indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
13.
In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on
19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as
safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who
had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect
that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and
camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.
14.
I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record
that the contract awarded to M/s Good House Keeping was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management
Airport Authority of India for plying the cars owned/belonging to the Management. Even control and supervision over
the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. The job of driver/s is delicate. MW1 Shri KK Gautam
has admitted that the workman joined his duty as a driver w.e.f. 8/4/2010. The Management has not filed on record any
document to show that the claimant was being paid wages and other facilities by the contractor M/s Good Housekeeping .
MW1 has also admitted that the Management has not filed on record any document to show that the workman/claimant
was deployed by M/s Good Housekeeping to the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that the
workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the
contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for plying the vehicles of the Management/Airport Authority of
India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and M/s Good Housekeeping was a sham
and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the claimant herein. It is
manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman had been working regularly without any breaks from
8/4/2010 till 27/2/2013 & thereafter his services were terminated. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that
there existed relationship of employer–employee between the Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/
claimant herein.
15.
It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice
pay/compensation. MW1 – KK Gautam witness of the Management while admitting that no retrenchment compensation
has been paid to the claimant has volunteered that he was not their employee. He admitted that no memo or charge sheet
was issued to the claimant. This impliedly shows that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to
the claimant by the Management and as such termination of the claimant/workman by the Management was in violation
of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show that the Management terminated the services of the
claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
16.
I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to
retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-
“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 for every completed years 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 or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”
4644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from
giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment
compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the
Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the
Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
17.
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.
18.
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 her, as such action of the Management in
terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 28/2/2013 is held to be illegal and void.
19.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. Testimony of the claimant that he continuously worked
with the Management from 4/7/2008 to 27/2/2013, has gone unrebutted. Even he was paid over time allowance for the
overtime duty performed by him. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the
Management. Moreover, the job of the workman as driver is considered to be of perennial and regular nature. Though
claimant has pleaded and testified that he is totally unemployed since his termination on 28/2/2013. No evidence to the
contrary has been adduced by the Management. Even if it is assumed that the workman/claimant is doing intermittent
job, that can not be considered to be regular gainful employment of the claimant/workman herein.
20-
The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the
termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically
plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.”
21.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/ employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that
termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the
action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
22.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
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 workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
23.
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4645
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.”
24.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal
termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
25.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 60 per cent back wages, inasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his
termination by the Management. The claimant/workman is also granted litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand only) as provided under Section 11(7) of the Act and same shall also be paid by the Management. Award is
passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.
Date : 07.05.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2019
dk-vk-1116.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 33-, ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ deckrk ,oh,s”ku izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
4646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; u-2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% f”kdk;r u-a
03@2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y-&20013/02/2019–vkbZ-vkj-(lh,e-1)]
,l-lh-jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1116.—In pursuance of Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, New
Delhi (Ref. Complaint Case No. 03/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the Management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Limited and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 03.06.2019.
[No. L-20013/02/2019-IR(CM-I)]
S.C. RAY, 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.
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 03/2013
Date of Passing Award-29th April, 2019.
Between:
Shri Jasbir Singh,
…Workman
S/o. Shri Hari Singh,
K-445D, Street No. 12,
Mahipalpur Extension
New Delhi-110037.
Versus
The management of
…Management
M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,
9/9A, 3rd Floor, Vasant Square Mall,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110037.
Appearances:-
Claimant in person,
…For the Workman.
(Advocate)
None for the management,
…For the Management.
(Advocate)
AWARD
This is a complaint filed by the workman u/s 33A of the ID Act 1947, alleging change of service
condition by the respondent/management during Pendency of the Industrial Dispute between him and the
management.
The workman Jasbir Singh claim himself to be a protected workman being the office bearer of
Cambata Aviation Karamchari Union (Regd.). (herein after referred to as the Union). The respondent is the
management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.. On behalf of the Union demanding several service benefits of
the Union Members Id. No. 122/2012 was filed and pending before this tribunal. The management in order to
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4647
satisfy its vengeance, during the pendency of the said Industrial Dispute on 09.08.13 passed an order terminating
the service of the workman w.e.f. 26.08.13. Before doing so management did not take the permission of the
Tribunal as provided u/s 33(3) of the ID Act. The workman has thus, pleaded that for want of such permission
the order of termination passed against him is void-ab-initio, and the workman is deemed to be in service on the
date of termination and thereafter. It has also been pleaded by the workman that the management while passing
the order of termination had not followed the principle of first come last go in compliance of the provision of
section 25(G) of the ID Act 1947. Not only that the workman is a protected workman and the provisions of
chapter V-B of the ID Act squarely apply to him. But the management in gross violation of the statutory
provision passed the order of termination. In the capacity of the Vice President of Cambata Aviation
Karmachari Union he was raising demand with the management for payment of Dearness Allowance and other
Variable Allowance to the fellow workers. Being aggrieved the management terminated his service illegally.
Hence, by filing the present application he has prayed for setting aside the order of termination and
reinstatement in service with continuity of service benefit, full back wages and all other consequential benefits
alongwith the litigation expenses.
The management being noticed appeared and filed WS denying all the allegations leveled by the
workman. It has been stated in the WS that the workman Jasbir Singh was initially employed as Assistant
Supervisor on probation and subsequently in April 1996 he was confirmed in the said post. Thereafter he was
promoted to the post of supervisor and again as duty officer by office order dated 01.05.1997 and 15.10.2001
respectively. His last drawn basic salary was Rs. 20,588/-and gross salary was Rs. 34,731/-per month. As such
he is not a workman as defined u/s 2(S) of the ID Act. While denying the plea of the workman that he is a
protected workman, the management has stated that as per the job profile the workman was discharging the job
of a supervisor and was a White collar Staff. From the beginning he was an in disciplined employee and many
cases are pending against him individually. In the past, he was issued numerous interoffice communication for
his alleged act of omission and commission. His order of termination was in terms of the contract of
appointment and for the illegal activities exhibited by him. He was justifiably terminated from service. Neither
he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement nor the litigation expenses as prayed by him.
Considering the pleadings of the parties by order dated 02.09.2014 following issues were framed for
consideration.
1. Whether claimant is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial disputes,
Act 1947? If so its effect?
2. Whether the workman was a protected workman at the time of the termination of his services? If
so its effects?
3. Whether service conditions of the claimant were altered in violation of provisions of section 33 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so its effects?
4. Whether the claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service with continuity of services,
full back wages and all other consequential benefits as per allegation mentioned in his claim? If so
its effects?
The complainant/workman examined himself as WW1 and proved certain documents in the series of
WW1/1 to WW1/11. The documents include his initial appointment letter the letter of confirmation in service
letter, of promotion dated 01.05.1997 to the post of supervisor, the promotion order, dated 15th Oct, 2001 as
duty officer the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 02.12.2013 directing the management
to recognize 14 of the officer bearers of the union as protected workman, the letter written by the complainant’s
union to the management furnishing a list of the office bearers to be recognized as protected workman the order
of termination passed by the management against the complainant’s on 09. Aug.2013 received by him under
protest the letter of the workman to the Chief Operating Officer alleging unfair labour practice for termination of
the protected workman, the list of the persons in Cambata Aviation occupying the position of the management
in which the name of the present complainant is not included etc. He has also filed the list showing the category
of white collar and blue collar employees, the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed in WPC
No. 332/2014 and 326/2014 under which the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner declaring 14 members
of the Union as protected workman was challenged but the Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the Assistant
4648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Commissioner. The workman has also filed order of the Hon’ble High Court Delhi in LPA No.
456/2015 and Batch cases in which the order passed in WPC 332/2014 was challenged but dismissed. The
management, though had appeared at the beginning of the proceeding remained absent during the later part of
this proceeding, and as such could not cross-examine the claimant witness nor any evidence was adduced on
behalf of the management.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1and 2
These 2 issues being interlinked have been taken up for consideration together. The admitted facts are that
the present complainant was appointed on probation as an assistant supervisor with the management on 01st
October, 1995 and was confirmed in the post on 1.04.1996. It is also admitted that by order dated 01.05.1997 the
management promoted the complainant as supervisor with basic salary of Rs. 5750/-. On 15th Oct 2001 he was
promoted to the post of Duty Officer w.ef. 01. Oct 2001 on a basic salary of Rs. 8590/-. Till the date of alleged
termination he was working in the post of said duty officer. It is also not disputed by the management that the
complainant was the office bearer of Cambata Aviation Karmachari Union (Regd.). This is proved through the
documents marked by the workman as Exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/4 tendered by him during his examination as a
witness. It is also not disputed that there was an Industrial Dispute pending between Cambata Aviation
Karmachari Union and the Management of Cambata Aviation Registered as ID No. 122/2012 being referred by
the Appropriate Government for adjudication of various demands influencing the service condition of the
members of that Union.
Whereas the complainant has challenged the termination order passed by the management against him
on two grounds i.e. for the pendency of the Industrial Dispute and want of prior permission of the tribunal and
also for he being a protected workman such order of termination cannot be passed by the management, the
management in the Ws has taken objection to both the grounds. It has stated that in order to be a protected
workman the complainant need to be a member of the workmen union. He being a duty officer discharging the
work of the supervisor cannot be termed as a workman as defined u/s. 2(S) of the ID Act. Unless he is a
workman cannot become a member of the Union to be elected as an officer bearer. The management has also
taken a further stand that the workman was never declared as a protected workman. Such a declaration was
made at a much later point of time i.e. in the year 2014 when this compliant has already been made. On this
ground management has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
To answer this issue it is primarily required to examine if the claimant falls under the category of
workman defined u/s 2(S)of the ID Act. The specific stand of the management taken in the written statement is
that at the time of allege termination the complainant was drawing basic salary of Rs. 20588/-per month and his
gross salary Rs. 34731/-. Since his salary is more than the maximum mensem salary of a workman prescribed
under the ID Act, he is not a workman to be a member of the Union. The workman while adducing evidence as
WW1 has admitted that his last drawn salary was 34181/-. But his specific stand is that his gross salary includes
various allowances but doesn’t exceed mensem salary of a workman prescribed under the statute. This testified
statement of the workman has not been disproved by the management either by oral or documentary evidence.
There is also no evidence to take a contrary view to the statement made by the workman. Now it is to be seen if
the workman was discharging the function of managerial nature to disqualify himself to come under the fold of
the definition of the workman. A careful reading of the provisions of section 2(S) of the ID act 1947 gives an
impression that any person skilled or unskilled including apprentice employed in any industry shall be termed as
a workman but doesn’t include any such persons who being employed in a supervisory capacity draw wages
exceeding Rs. 10,000/-per mensem or exercises either by the nature of the duty attached to the office or by
reasons of the power vested on him functions mainly of a managerial nature. Hence, it is predominantly clear
from the wordings of the provision that a person though employed in a supervisory capacity if draway mensem
salary of Rs. 10,000/-or less shall fall under the definition of workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the ID act. In this
case the complainant has admitted that initially he was appointed as a Assistant Supervisor and subsequently
promoted to the post of supervisor and duty officer. His last promotion as duty officer was carrying basic salary
of Rs. 8590/-per month alongwith DA/VDA applicable from time to time. Thus, the workman argued that his
designation as duty officer shall not deprive him of being treated as a workman since his salary per mensem was
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4649
less than 10000/-though he was working in a supervisory capacity. This contention of the complainant sounds
convincing in absence of evidence to be contrary. On the other hand the workman has filed a document which is
in the nature of list of employees of the management occupying managerial post and the name of the present
complainant Jasbir Singh doesn’t find place in the said list. Hence it is concluded that the complainant was a
workman and in such capacity he was the office bearer of Cambata Aviation Karmachari Union.
While examining the other claim of the complainant that being a protected workman his service should
not have been terminated by the management and the order of termination being illegal he should be deemed to
have been in service needs consideration, it is necessary to examine the provision of law covering the area.
Protected workman has been defined in Rule 61 of the ID (Central) Rules 1957, wherein it is provided that
every registered trade union connected with an industrial establishment to which the Act applies shall
communicate to the employer before 30th April every year the names and addresses of such of the officers of the
Union, who are employed in that establishment and who, in the opinion of the union should be recognized as
protected workmen and any change in the incumbency of any such officer shall be communicated to the
employer by the Union within 15 days of such change. In response thereto the employers shall subject to limits
of number of workman to be recognized as protected workmen, shall recognize such workmen to be protected
workmen for the purpose of subsection (3) of section 33 of ID act and communicate the same to the union in
writing within 15 days of receipt of information from the trade union and the life of such list of protected
workmen would be 12 months from the date of communication.
In this case, the complainant in his pleading has alleged that a list of 15 workmen was submitted to the
management requesting to recognize them as protected workmen. The list has been proved as Exhibit WW1/6.
But the management took no action on the same which compelled the Union to file an application before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi. The said Assistant Labour Commissioner on 02.12.13
passed an order taking into consideration the total No. of workmen registered as members of the Union, and the
no. of Registered Trade Union. The said order has marked as Ww1/5 by the workman. In the said order the
Assistant Labour Commissioner passed a direction that out of the list of 15 workmen submitted by Cambata
Aviation Karamchari Union 14 should be treated as protected workmen. The complainant has stated that on the
next date of the order i.e. on 03.12.13 the list of 14 such workmen including the present complainant was sent to
the management for recognition. But the management with an ulterior intention did not take any action and
referred the matter to the Regional Labour Commissioner. Not only that the management while filing WPC
332/2014 challenged the order dated 02.12.13 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner but the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ application conforming the order passed by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner. Though this order was passed on 21.04.2014 the management again challenged the same by
filing LPA No. 465/2014. The attempt of the management was aimed at buying time and not declaring the
present complainant as a protected workman to facilitate taking punitive action against him.
On behalf of the complainant it was argued that the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated
02.12.13 was later on confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and was never suspended or stayed by any
order of the court. This clearly shows that when Assistant Labour Commissioner directed that 14 persons of the
Union be declared as protected workmen and name of the present complainant was listed in the list, and as such
the action of the management in dismissing him from service is illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of
section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.
But this argument of the complainant is not accepted since there is absolutely no document on record to
believe that following the order dated 2nd December 2013 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to
recognize 14 persons of the Camabata Aviation Karamchari Union as workmen a list was submitted to the
management which included the name of the present complainant. At no point of time dispute has been raised
that the list of protected workmen was prepared in the year 2014 having validity for 12 months. Hence, it is
concluded that on the alleged date of termination the present complainant was not designated as a protected
workman of the union. But at the same time it is held on the basis of the documents available on record the
complainant was a workman of Cambata Aviation Karamchari Union which was litigating against the
management in Id No. 122/2012 wherein dispute was raised relating to payment of DA and VDA etc to the
workman. It is not disputed that Id. No. 122/2012 was pending on the alleged date of termination order dated
4650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
09.08.2013 passed against the complainant, and the same clearly violates the provision of law laid u/s 33(2)(B)
of the Id Act as the management had not obtained prior permission of this tribunal before passing the order.
These two issues are accordingly answered.
ISSUE No. 3 and 4
These two issues are also interdependent and taken up for consideration together. The management has
admitted that before passing the order of termination no prior approval from the tribunal was taken since the
complainant was neither the workman nor a protected workman. While answering issue No.1 it has been held
that the complainant was a workman coming under the fold of the definition u/s 2(s) of the Id Act. The provision
of law laid u/s 33(2)(b) of the Id. Act clearly provides that during the pendency of any such proceeding in
respect of industrial dispute the employer may alter the service condition of the workman in regard to any matter
not connected with the dispute or for any misconduct not in connected with dispute. Admittedly no such
disciplinary proceeding was taken up against the complainant for misconduct. There is also not evidence on
record that the action taken was unconnected to the dispute pending. On the contrary the oral evidence adduced
by the workman clearly shows that for the union activities taken by him the management took the punitive
action against him. At the cost of repetition it is stated that during the proceeding the management laid no
evidence to disprove the stand of the complainant. Hence it is concluded that the workman was subjected to
unfair labour practice for the order of termination was passed against him during the pendency of Id. No.
122/2012.
Now coming to the prayer of the complainant with regard to his reinstatement to service with full back
wages and consequential benefits it is worth mentioning here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Jaipur Zila Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited vs. Ram Gopal Sharma reported in (2002) 2 SCC
244 it has been held that when the application filed u/s 33(2)(b) of the Id. Act is dismissed the same would have
the effect of continuance of employee in the employment i.e. as if the employee had never been dismissed.
Here is a case where the workman/applicant has approached the tribunal by filling the application u/s
33A of the Id act alleging violation of the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. In the preceding
paragraphs it has been held that the management in gross violation of the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Id
Act passed an order of dismissal against the applicant. This order is not sustainable in eye of law. Hence, it is
observed that the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside and the applicant workman shall be deemed to be in
service on 26th august 2013 and thereafter with full back wages. These issues are accordingly answered in
favour of the applicant. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The complainant is accordingly decided in favour of the workman and it is held that the order of the
dismissal passed by the management against the applicant was in gross violation of the provision of 33(2)(b) of
the ID Act. The workman is deemed to be in service on 26.08.2013 and thereafter with full back wages. The
management is further directed to reinstate the workman with immediate effect. Send this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required u/s 17 of the Id. Act. 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
ubZ fnYyh 20 twu] 2019
dk-vk-1117.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 46/2000) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 17/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[l- ,y-&20012/328/1999–vkbZ-vkj-(lh,e-1)]
,l-lh-jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4651
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 46 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-20012/328/1999-IR(CM-I)]
S.C. RAY, 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. 46/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/S BCCL,
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry-Coal
Dated- 31/05/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/328/1999-IR(C-I) dated 20/01/2000 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 workman Basant Bhuia was in employment of BCCL till the day of
his death i.e. 01.11.1995 ? If yes then whether denial of employment to his dependent son
under NCWA –V by the management is legal? If not then to what relief the workman
and his dependent is entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently the workmen left appearing before the Tribunal. Subsequently regd. notices was issued to
the workman but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long, so, it
is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
D.K.SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2019
dk-vk- 1118.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 123/1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y-&20012/39/1999–vkbZ-vkj-(lh-1)]
,l-lh-jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 123 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-20012/39/1999-IR(C-I)]
S.C. RAY, 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. 123/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Jitpur Colliery M/S IISCO
AND
Their workman.
Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
:- None
For the workman.
:- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry-Coal
Dated- 29/04/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/39/1999-IR(C-1) dated 04/06/1999, 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 demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union for regularization of the
13 workman, as per list enclosed, working as stone cutter in the Jitpur Colliery of
IISCO is justified ? If yes to what relief the workmen are entitled and from what
date?”
Note:-list of workmen is not enclosed/received alongwith order of reference.
2.After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but both the parties failed to appear before this
Tribunal. Subsequently Two regd. notices were issued but even then none of the parties appeared. Case
is pending since long and workmen is not appearing before Tribunal so 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
ubZ fnYyh 20 twu] 2019
dk-vk-1119.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 149/1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y-&20012/181/1996–vkbZ-vkj-(lh-1)]
,l-lh-jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4653
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019
S.O. 1119 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 149 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-20012/181/1996-IR(CM-I)]
S.C. RAY, 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. 149/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/S BCCL,
AND.
Their workmen.
Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shri U.N.Lall, Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry-Coal
Dated-30/05/ 2019
AWARD.
By order No. L-20012/181/1996-IR(C-I) dated 14/08/1997 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 Bararee Colliery in denial to protect
the wages in respect of Sri Gorelal Dhari, Biranchi Hari, Sarjoo Mahato , Dhinewhwar
Nonia, Shankar Pandit, Mangru Bhuia, Shyam Nandan Paswan and Ram Bilas General
Mazdoor is justified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently the workmen left appearing before the Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. notices were issued
to the workman but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long, so,
it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
D.K.SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2019
dk-vk- 1120-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y-ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k – lg -Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 11/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012/131/2012–vkbZ-vkj-(lh-,e&II)]
jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2019
S.O. 1120.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2012)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s W.C.L and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/06/2019.
[No. L-22012/131/2012–IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/27/2012-13
Date: 17.05.2019.
Party No.1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Hindustan Lalpeth O/c Mines of Chandrapur Area,
Western Coalfields ltd., Post Padmapur,
Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)
Versus
Party No.2
:
The Joint General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
C/o Shri C.R. Tembhre, Vaidhay Nagar,
Near Ayyappa Mandir, Tukum Ward No. 2,
Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.).
AWARD
(Dated: 17th 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 Western Coalfields Limited and their Union, Rashtriya
Colliery Mazdoor Congress for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/131/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 26.10.2012, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Lalpeth Open Cast sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western
Coalfields Ltd., in denying employment to Shri Hemant Kumar, the dependant son of Shri Chilkarammya
Haanumantu, Ex-Dumper Operator who has already put in 35 years service which is contrary to the provisions of
Para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified? To what relief is the workman entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union “Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (“the union” in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL (here-in-after referred to as the “Party No. 1”) filed its written statement.
The case of the union as projected in the statement of claim is that, Shri Chilka Hanumantu has retired after
completing the service of 35 years from 20.11.1975 to 31.07.2012 and Hemant Kumar is son of Chilka Hanumantu.
According to the union, NCWA-III Clause 9.4.4 provides service of one dependent. According to the union, Party No. 1
wrongfully denied the appointment of Hemant Kumar, which is against the provisions of NCWA-III and circular issued
by Coal India Limited on 16.01.2010. According to the union, these provisions clarify that, employment of at least one
of the dependants of such employee, who retire or die after putting at least 35 years of service.
3.
According to the union, on the basis of above provisions, they demand service of Hemant Kumar as per
Instruction and Circular of NCWA and Agreement between CIL and the union. According to them, provisions of
NCWA-III is applicable and effective even after enforcement of NCWA-IV or subsequent NCWAs i.e. in this way, son
of the employees is eligible and qualified according to the terms of WCL, but Party No. 1 rescinded this provisions
arbitrarily. In this way, they prayed that, reference is decided in favour of the workman and direction may be issued to
the Party No. 1 that, son of the petitioner may be allowed to get employment as per above provisions.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4655
4.
By filing written statement on behalf of the Party No. 1, denied all material facts by asserting that, these
provisions are not applicable in present circumstances, because 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016, NCWA-IX came into
existence, but they admitted that, Circular issued by the Coal India Limited on 22.06.1977 and NCWA-III came into
existence on 20.03.1984 between union and Party No. 1. Party No. 1 asserted that, para no. 8 & 9, 11 to 16 are the matter
of records, para 18 of statement of claim needs no comments, but according to the Party No. 1, above NCWA is no more
in existence.
5.
According to the Party No. 1, provision mentioned in NCWA-III as Clause 9.4.4 was deleted or expunged from
new provisions of NCWA-IV to NCWA-IX, so from 01.01.1987 till today, no dependant of workers was employed by
the Party No. 1. The Party No. 1 also admitted that, Chilka Hanumantu was a Dumper Operator, who retired from
services on 30.06.2012. According to the Party No. 1, outside appointment are made by giving notice to the public and
after due selection, as per prevalent practice and procedure. According to them, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka held that, “No unconstitutional appointment can be made now in the matter of public
employment by the state ……… It violates article 14 & 16 of the Constitution”. So, they prayed that, this reference be
answered in the negative in favour of Party No. 1 and also prayed that, action of the Party No. 1 i.e. WCL declared legal
and justified.
6.
Point of determination:
i. Whether Hemant Kumar is entitled for employment under NCWA-III?
ii. Whether he is entitled to any other relief?
Reasons for determination:
7.
On behalf of the union, Shri Chilka Hanumantu and on behalf of the Party No. 1, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma
filed their evidence on affidavit. They were cross-examined by the opposite party. The union also filed written notes of
argument by asserting that, above NCWA-III provides service of dependant after completing 35 years of service, they
base their argument on the Circular of Coal India Limited and other provisions of Party No. 1. They also argued that,
Agreement was covered with all categories of employees in the Coal Industry, who were covered under National Coal
Wages Agreement I to VII. So, they argued that, Hemant Kumar is entitled to employment in WCL and Party No. 1
denied his legal rights. In support of their argument, they examined Shri Chilka Hanumantu. Now I want to discuss the
evidence part.
8.
Chilka Hanumantu in para 7 & 8 of his cross-examination admitted that, in his knowledge, no child of any
Dumper Operator got job. He asserted that, in Bihar Coal Mines, some Dumper Operator’s child got job, but he is not in
position to mention their names. In his cross-examination, he asserted that, in 1977, Coal India issued such type of
circular, but in para 8 of his cross-examination, he asserted that, he has no knowledge about the circular, which was
issued as an Implementation of Instruction. He also admitted that, “In cases of Dumper operators, dependant did not get
job ………. I have no knowledge about NCWA-IX, which came into force from 01.07.2011”. In this way, this witness
gave contradictory statement as per their chief examination, which shows that, he virtually no knowledge about the
circular and NCWA, but it also appears that, he gave statement on the basis of hearing of some facts. Now I want to see
the Party No. 1’s evidence.
9.
Party No. 1 examined his Personnel Assistant Manager, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma in support of their defence.
In para 15 of his cross-examination, he admitted that, father of Hemant Kumar was working as a Dumper Operator in
WCL, he has retired and still alive and he filed an application before the GM, Chandrapur regarding job of Hemant
Kumar as his dependant. He also admitted that, father of Hemant Kumar had worked for more than 35 years and in
document of W-5, words used are correct. He also admitted that, NCWA-II is not cancelled but not applicable. He also
asserted that, at the time of scarcity of man power was there so such type of facility was issued in this direction, but on
the basis of such circular, nobody was appointed.
10.
Shri Ashok Kumar Verma asserted that, he has knowledge about the agreement NCWA-III (Exhibit W-3), but
according to him L.Rs of the workmen are not entitled for any compensatory appointment. This witness remained
unrebutted in his cross-examination. It also appears that, he gave statement on the basis of the documents as well as
personal knowledge of some facts. Nothing shows that, he is prejudiced to the workman or Hemant Kumar. He gave a
fair statement and it appears to be reliable. Now I want to see the legal position.
11.
Case laws:-Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 1015 and Employers in
relation to the management of Bhowra Area No. XI of Ms BCCL, Dhanbad Vs. the Presiding Officer, Dhanbad W.P. (L)
No. 2412 of 2002 dated 26.07.2012, in which Hon’ble Court laid down the following principles:-
i.
“”There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the state”.
4656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ii. “No dependent of an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to claim preference in the matter of
on public employment on the basis of the service of his father/parent is no longer res integra in view of the
specific provision contain in Part III of the Constitution of India and also laid down in the judgment delivered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases”.
iii. “Article 16, cl. (1), guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State: and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain grounds in respect of
any such employment or appointment. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the fundamental right
guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State should be cut
down by a reference to the provisions in Part XIV of the constitution which relate to services or to provisions in
the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same subject”.
iv. “The new offices which were created for the new village or villages should be filled up by the Collector by
selecting the persons whom he considered best qualified Collector to dull up the said new offices by selecting
persons from among the families of the last holders of the offices was opposed to Article 16 of the constitution”.
12.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, my humble opinion
is that, union fails to prove his case. So, union/workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:.
ORDER
The action of the management of Lalpeth Open Cast sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields
Ltd., in denying employment to Shri Hemant Kumar, the dependant son of Shri Chilkarammya Haanumantu, Ex-
Dumper Operator who has already put in 35 years service which is contrary to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of
NCWA is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2019
dk-vk-1121-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Q+wM
dkjiksjs'ku v‚Q+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k – lg -Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 140/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y&22012/153/2002–vkbZ-vkj-(lh-,e&II)]
jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2019
S.O. 1121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/2003)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s F.C.I and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/06/2019
[No. L-22012/153/2002-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/140/2003
Date: 09.05.2019.
Party No.1(a)
:
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajni, Nagpur.
Party No.1(b)
:
The Managing Director,
Food Corporation of India,
16/20 Barakhambha Lane, New Delhi,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4657
New Delhi – 110001.
Versus
Party No.2
:
The Regional Vice President,
Food Corporation of India Employees Association,
C/o FCI, Ajni, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 09th 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 Food Corporation of India and their Union, Food
Corporation of India Employees Association for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/153/2002-IR (CM-II) dated
09.05.2003, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, through its Managing Director,
New Delhi in not considering the request of the senior employees in Grade-II such as Shri N.S, Shukla, A.M.
Mukherjee, R.S. Lokhande, J.R. Godbole, S,S. Halve, D.S. Yadav, B.S. Jaipurkar and others to maintain parity
with their juniors encadred in PP sub Cadre, (who were initially juniors in parent cadre) is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief they are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union “Food Corporation of India Employees Association, (“the union” in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of FCI (here-in-after referred to as the “Party No. 1”) filed its written statement.
3.
The case of the union as projected in the statement of claim is that, workmen were appointed in FCI in the year
of 1972. In 1976, the Party No. 1 invited option from its existing employees from different cadres for their transfer to
Technical cadre, but some employees challenged this order before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in which
option proceeding of FCI employees was quashed. This order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C)
No. 518/87. The Party No. 1 decided to protect pay of the repatriated employee and for reasons created a new sub cadre
in the name of procurement and processing wing (PP cadre). According to the union, this action of the Party No. 1 was
without logic and legal aspect.
4.
According to the union, a senior employee in the same cadre must receive his pay at par or more than that of
junior employee, but senior in the cadre are step up to the junior employee i.e. aggrieved workmen and their junior, who
enjoyed promotion and higher pay in the post of AG-II and Assistant Grade-I.
According to the union, juniors are presently continuing in the same seniority list of workmen and who are
drawing more pay than workmen senior, but workmen are entitled for pay and benefits at par with their juniors, so they
prayed that, Tribunal direct the party No. 1 to fix the pay of the workmen at par with their junior in the seniority list from
the date, the junior have started more pay and all arrears due may be paid to the aggrieved workers.
5.
The Party No.1 denied all material facts except that, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the
proceedings and order of FCI, which relating to from transfer from General Cadre to Technical Cadre, but according to
the Party No. 1, this is to be done in public interest, because non-availability of eligible candidate through direct
recruitment and FCI could not make recruitment in bulk for filling of vacant post.
6.
According to the Party No. 1, the past seniority of optees from Depot cadre was counted in the equitted grade in
the Techical cadre of their permanent transfer provided the optee gave an undertaking in writing that they would not
claim seniority over and above the employees already promoted and holding the post of AG II (Technical) AG-I
(Technical) Assistant Manager (Quality Control) as the case may be in the Technical cadre.
7.
According to the Party No. 1, Technical Cadre optees (Approximately 340 employees) on the ground that, they
would be placed in seniority and blocked their promotional prospects. Both of the Writ Petitions namely W.P. No.
506/1981 and W.P. No. 518/1987 were finally heard by the Apex Court on 19.02.1991 and Hon’ble Apex Court observed
that, “After the transfer of the petitioners of W.P. No. 506/1987 to the Technical side ---------340 persons go back their
promotional prospects would be affected and there will be stagnation”.
8.
According to the Party No. 1, on the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Party No. 1 created sub cadre namely
PP cadre, which had been kept in abeyance was also revived. The Party No. 1 also took approval from Govt. of India on
10.02.1992. In this way, Party No. 1 took an objection that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said
reference. According to them, union raised some allegations in para 14, were false. PP cadre employees have been
4658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
drawing more pay than their seniors is not correct. Seniority list of the depot cadre staff only for purpose of determining
same for promotion in Technical cadre.
9.
According to the Party No. 1, seniors drawing more or equal pay in lower pot, so allegation levied by the union
are false and denied. So, they prayed that, reference is to be rejected.
10.
Union filed rejoinder on same footing as statement of claim and denying the all facts, which is raised by the
Party No. 1 in their W.S. According to the union, the number of posts earmarked for Manager (Depot) was manipulated
by the Party No. 1. It is also denied that, special cadre created on the direction of the Supreme Court, so they prayed that,
their prayer is allowed and arrears must be paid to the aggrieved workers.
11.
Point of determination:
i.
Whether Party No. 1 is not considering the request of senior employees in Grade-II?
ii.
Whether workmen require parity with their juniors PP cadre employees?
iii.
Whether they are entitled to any relief?
Reasons for determination:
12.
Both parties produced their evidence on affidavit, but union failed to produce their witness for cross-
examination, so my predecessor closed the evidence of union on 05.01.2015 by expunging the evidence on affidavit of
witness, Narendra Shukla i.e. this evidence on affidavit is not read, because this affidavit was not verified and cross-
examined by the Party No.1. Moreover Party No. 1 filed evidence on affidavit of Shri Pandurang M. Nirmale, AGM
General FCI. This witness was present for cross-examination, but union not availed the opportunity of cross-
examination. This Tribunal verified on oath, the contents of the affidavit on 23.08.2018. So affidavit of P.M. Nirmale
remained unrebutted.
13.
Both parties also produced documents, but nobody proved these documents in court. Moreover, evidence on
affidavit of both the parties is in support of their pleadings, so they may be called oath against oath i.e. no independent or
inference can be drawn by this evidence. Burden of proof of fact lies on union, but union failed to discharge his burden
to prove the pleadings. In my opinion, without proving the pleadings of the statement of claim, union is not entitled to
any relief. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Food Corporation of India, through its Managing Director, New Delhi in not
considering the request of the senior employees in Grade-II such as Shri N.S, Shukla, A.M. Mukherjee, R.S. Lokhande,
J.R. Godbole, S,S. Halve, D.S. Yadav, B.S. Jaipurkar and others to maintain parity with their juniors encadred in PP sub
Cadre, (who were initially juniors in parent cadre) is legal and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any other relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2019
dk-vk-1122-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
ekyoh; uS'kuy bafLVVîwV v‚Q+ VsDuksy‚th t;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k–lg&Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 133/2005,
134/2005, 135/2005, 137/2005 & 136/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18/06/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y&42012/57, 75, 74, 73, 72/2005–vkbZ-vkj-(lh-,e& II)]
jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2019
S.O. 1122 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/2005, 134/2005, 135/2005, 137/2005 & 136/2005) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Malviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/06/2019.
[No. L-42012/57, 75, 74, 73, 72/2005–IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
vuq
vuq
vuq
vuqca/ka/ka/ka/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4659
lh
lhlh
lh-th
th
th
th-vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ-VhVhVhVh-izdj.k la
izdj.k la
izdj.k la
izdj.k la-133 / 2005, 134 / 2005, 135 / 2005, 137 / 2005 & 136 / 2005
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
¼1½ jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/57/2005–IR(CM-II) fnukad 23/11/2005
¼2½ jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/75/2005–IR(CM-II) fnukad 23/11/2005
¼3½ jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/74/2005–IR(CM-II) fnukad 23/11/2005
¼4½ jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/73/2005–IR(CM-II) fnukad 23/11/2005
¼5½ jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/72/2005–IR(CM-II) fnukad 23/11/2005
1-
dkukjke iq= Jh gfjukjk;.k] tkfr eh.kk] fuoklh pkj.kokl] iks-nwnyh] rglhy cLlh] ftyk
t;iqjA
2-
lUrks"k xqtZj iq= Jh iwj.key xqtZj] fuoklh 150 eksrh dkWyksuh] xwtjksa dk ekSgYyk] xksfoUn
uxj] iwoZ vkesj jksM] t;iqj jktLFkku
3-
gsejkt cSjok iq= Jh jkeukjk;.k cSjok] tkfr cSjok] fuoklh xzke o iksLV ?kkWal] rglhy o
ftyk Vksad jktLFkku
4-
egsUnz oekZ iq= Jh ckcwyky oekZ] tkfr cykbZ] fuoklh 117@1 fot; dkWyksuh lsDVj ua-1
ekyoh; uxj] t;iqj
5-
cUuk yky xqtZj iq= Jh jkeLo:i xqtZj tkfr xqtZj] fuoklh xzke /kikoudyka] iks-dksykuk]
rglhy clok] ftyk nkSlkA
&izkFkhZx.k Jfed
cuke
ekyoh; us'kuy bULVhV~;wV vkWQ VSDuksyksth ¼MhEM ;wfuoflZVh½ t;iqj] ekyoh; uxj] ts-,y-,u-
ekxZ] t;iqj & tfj;s funs'kdA
&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr % &
izkFkhZx.k dh rjQ ls % Jh lat; jkgM+ & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh y{e.k flag dPNkok & ,MoksdsV
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad % 28-05-2019
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 23-11-2005 dks mi;qDrZ lHkh izdj.kksa esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼,½ o 2 ¼,½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrXkZr fuEukafdr fookn
vf/kfu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ cUuk yky xqtZj ls lEcfU/kr fookn dks fnukad
16-12-2005 dks la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k gS bl la'kks/ku }kjk cUuk yky xqtZj ds inuke fi;ksu ¼pijklh½ dks LVsuksxzkQj@,y-
Mh-lh-ds :i esa ifjofrZr fd;k x;k gSA lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls bu ikapksa lanfHkZr fooknksa dks fuEukuqlkj lesfdr fd;k x;k
gSA
“Whether the action of the management of Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur in terminating the
services of Shri Kanaram S/o Sh. Harinarayan Meena, Sh. Santosh Gurjar S/o Sh. Pooranmal Gurjar, Sh. Hemraj
Bairwa S/o Sh. Ramnarayan Bairwa, Sh. Mahendra Verma S/o Sh. Babulal Verma -Peons & Sh. Bannalal Gurjar S/o
Sh. Ramswroop Gurjar, Steno-Typist(LDC) w.e.f. 28.11.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
2- mi;qZDr lanfHkZr fooknksa esa foi{kh ekyoh; us'kuy bULVhV~;wV vkWQ VSDuksyksth] ekyoh; uxj t;iqj }kjk lHkh
izkFkhZx.k dks fnukad 28-11-2003 dks ,d gh jhfr ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vk{ksfir gSA blfy;s bu ikWpksa lanfHkZr fooknksa ds
lEcU/k esa mHk;i{k ds rdksZa] ,oa lqlaxr fof/k dk izLrqr dh x;h lk{; ds vk/kkj ij foospu dj ,dhd`r :i ls
vf/kfu.kZ;.k ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA
3- mi;qDrZ lanfHkZr fookn vf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij izkFkhZx.k o foi{kh dks mifLFkfr gsrq lalwfpr dj izkFkhZx.k dks muds
nkos ds vfHkdFku izLrqr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA izkFkhZx.k us fnukad 20-12-2005 o 18-1-2006 dks vius&vius nkos ds
vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;sA izkFkhZx.k esa ls ek= cUukyky xqtZj dh dfFkr fu;qfDr LVsuksxzkQj ,y-Mh-lh-ds in ij gqbZ tcfd
4660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
'ks"k izkFkhZx.k fi;ksu ¼pijklh½ ds in ij fu;qDr gq,A izkFkhZx.k us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa] dkukjke us o"kZ 2000 esa
¼frfFk vafdr ugha½] larks"k xqtZj us 15-2-2000 dks] gsejkt cSjok us 4-3-2001 dks o egsUnz oekZ us 1-7-2001 dks pijklh ds
in ij 1800 :i;s ekfld osru ij rFkk cUukyky xqtZj us fnukad 1-4-2000 dks LVsuks VkbZfiLV¼,y-Mh-lh-½ ds in ij
3000 :i;s ekfld osru ij foi{kh }kjk fu;qDr fd;k tkuk dgk gSA izkFkhZx.k dk dFku gS fd foi{kh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku
dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA ftls fu;kstd dgk x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k foi{kh ds deZdkj gSa ftUgksus fu"BkiwoZd vius dk;Z dk
fu"iknu fd;kA izkFkhZx.k vkSj foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd deZdkj dk lEcU/k gSA fnukad 28-11-2003 dks foi{kh us vuqfpr
:i ls foi{khx.k dh lsok lekIr dj nhA izkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh&izfrdj dk Hkqxrku foi{kh
us ugha fd;k] u gh mudh ofj"Brk lwph cukbZA izkFkhZx.k us lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls
vf/kd vof/k rd yxkrkj fu;fer dk;Z fd;k gSA foi{kh us izkFkhZx.k dh lsok lekfIr ds i'pkr u;s Jfedksa dh HkrhZ Hkh
dh gSA bl izdkj foi{kh us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ¼th½ o ¼,p½ rFkk fu;e 77 o 78 dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k
ds fo:) dksbZ ?kjsyw tkap ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh dksbZ vkjksi fl) fd;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZx.k dh lsok lekfIr dks voS/k
?kksf"kr dj fnukad 28-11-2003 ls mUgsa fujUrj lsok esa leLr lsok ykHk lfgr fy;k tkosa rFkk iqu% fu;qfDr rd fiNys
osru ij C;kt fnyok;k tkosA
4- foi{kh us 24-6-2003 dks lHkh izdj.kksa esa oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq, nkos ds vfHkdFkuksa esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj
fd;kA vizkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks mlus dHkh fu;qfDr ugha nh u gha osru Hkqxrku fd;k blfy;s izkFkhZx.k ds lsok
eqDr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ volj gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZx.k us foi{kh laLFkku ds v/khu 240 fnu dk;Z dHkh ugha fd;kA
foi{kh us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku dk mYya?ku dHkh ugha fd;kA izkFkhZx.k dks ;fn dke ij fy;k x;k gS rks fdlh
Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls fy;k x;kA ,sls O;fDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ ds vuqlkj deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs u gh
foi{kh izkFkhZx.k dk fu;kstd gSA vr% nkos vLohdkj fd;s tkosaA
5- izkFkhZx.k us vius lk{; esa izR;sd izdj.k esa lEcfU/kr izkFkhZ dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izysf[k; lk{; ds :i esa izn'kZ
ih&1 ls ih&11 rd izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
6- foi{kh us lHkh fooknksa esa vius lk{; esa Jh lokbZ flag] ds;j&Vsdj dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa ,u-,-&1
ls 36 rd izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
7. fnukad 8 o 9-5-19 dks eSusa mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/k;ksa ds ijLij fojks/kh rdkZsa ,oa izLrqr fd;s x;s U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa
izfrikfnr fof/k ij lk{; ds lanHkZ esa euu fd;kA
8- izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh us izkFkhZx.k dks fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij pijklh rFkk cUukyky xqtZj
LVsuksVkbZfiLV dks ekSf[kd :i ls fu;qfDr nh gSA foi{kh }kjk fdlh Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dke ij j[kus dk tks dFku
fd;k x;k gS og fdlh izdkj fo'oluh; ugha gS] D;ksafd foi{kh us vius oknksRrj esa fdlh Bsdsnkj dk uke of.kZr gh ugha
fd;k gSA u gh] mDr Bsdsnkj dks vius lk{; eas ijhf{kr fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr foi{kh
}kjk gh vafdr dh tkrh Fkh rFkk osru Hkqxrku Hkh foi{kh }kjk gh fd;k tkrk FkkA blfy;s izkFkhZx.k o foi{kh ds e/;
fu;kstd o deZdkj dk lEcU/k izekf.kr gSA lk{; esa mifLFkfr iaftdk ,oa vU; izys[k izkFkhZx.k }kjk yxkrkj 240 fnu
dk;Z lEiknu djus ds izek.k gSaA foi{kh }kjk fnukad 28-11-2003 dks lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ,oa
NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku u fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl izdkj dh x;h lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ¼th½
rFkk ¼,p½ ds vUrxZr voS/k gSA izkFkhZx.k leLr foxr ifjykHkksa rFkk lsok esa fujUrjrk lfgr iquZLFkkiuk ds vf/kdkjh gSA
izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls vius rdZ ds lEcU/k esa fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s%&
1- ¼2003½ 4 ,l-lh-lh-619 izeksn >k o vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj o vU;
2- ¼1990½ 3 ,l-lh-lh-682 iatkc ,y-Mh-,aM-vkj-dkikZsjs'ku cuke ih-vks-yscj dksVZ] p.Mhx<+ o vU;A
9- foi{kh dk ;g izeq[k rdZ gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks foi{kh }kjk u rks lsok esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj u gh osru Hkqxrku
fd;k x;k oju ,sd Bsdsnkj eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj ls vuqcU/k dj Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls lsok,a izkIr dh xbZA
foi{kh us Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr fd;s x;s O;fDr;ksa dks vius fofHkUu dk;ksZa ij yxk;k rFkk Bsdsnkj us gh mu O;fDr;ksa dks
etnwjh dk lafonktfur Hkqxrku fd;kA izLrqr dh xbZ mifLFkfr iaftdk ds vuq:i Bsdsnkj] izkFkhZx.k dks etnwjh dk
Hkqxrku djrk FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k vkSj foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds lEcU/k dHkh ugha jgsA u gh mudh
NaVuh dh xbZA Bsdsnkj ls vuqcU/k ds lekiu ij Bsdsnkj }kjk gh izkFkhZx.k ds lsok lekIr dh xbZA foi{kh ds izys[kh;
lk{; ls bl rF; dh iqf"V gqbZ gS rFkk izkFkhZx.k ds osru ls Bsdsnkj dk deh'ku dkVdj osru Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk Hkh
izekf.kr gSA vr% nkos fujLr fd;s tkosa] foi{kh us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s%&
¼1½ ¼2001½ 7 ,l-lh-lh &1] LVhy vkWFkfjVh vkWQ bf.M;k fyfeVsM o vU; cuke us’kuy ;wfu;u okVjQzkUV odZlZ ,oWa
vU;
¼2½ ¼2004½ 7 ,l-lh-lh-112] ,-mekjkuh cuke jftLVªkj] dks vkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht o vU;
¼3½ ¼2005½ 1 ,l-lh-lh 639] egsUnz ,y-tSu o vU; cuke bUnkSj MsoyiesaV vFkkfjVh o vU;
¼4½ ¼2005½ 5 ,l-lh-lh 122] ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn] ;w-ih-cuke vfuy dqekj feJk o vU;
¼5½ ¼2006½ 1 ,l-lh-lh 667] LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih-cuke uhjt voLFkh o vU;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 29] 2019@vk"kk<+ 8] 1941
4661
¼6½ ¼2008½ 2 ,l-lh-lh 552] pUnz 'ks[kj vktkn d`f"k ,oWa izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke ;wukbVsM+ VªsM~l dkaxzsl o
vU;
10- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa lk{; ,oa fof/k ds ifj'khyu ds mijkUr bu fooknksa esa fuEukafdr fcUnq eq[; :i ls fopkj.kh;
mRiUu gq, gaS %&
¼1½ D;k izkFkhZx.k o foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds lEcU/k vfLrRo esa gS \
¼2½ D;k izkFkhZx.k us foi{kh ds v/khu lsok lekfIr frfFk ds iwoorhZ 12 dSys.Mj eklksa dh vof/k esa 240 fnu lrr lsok
dh gS \
¼3½ D;k izkFkhZx.k dks lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds cnys osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku
u fd;s tkus ls fnukad 28-11-2003 dks dh xbZ izkFkhZx.k dh lsok lekfIr voS/k gS \
fcUnq la[;k & 1
11- foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; LVhy vkWFkfjVh vkWQ bf.M;k fyfeVsM o vU; cuke us’kuy ;wfu;u okVjQzkUV odZlZ
,oWa vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us iz/kku fu;kstd ,oa lafonk Jfed ds e/; fo|eku lEcU/k dh izd`fr dk foospu
djrs gq, ;g vfHker O;Dr fd;k gS fd ** lafonk Jfed deZdkj 'kCn dh ,d iztkrh gSa& tc ,d deZdkj fdlh laLFkku
ds dk;Z ds lEcU/k esa iz/kku fu;kstd }kjk fdlh Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls HkkMs ij fy;k tkrk gS rks ,slk Bsdsnkj ek= ,d
vfHkdRrkZ ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gSA blfy;s deZdkj vkSj iz/kku fu;kstd ds e/; ,d fu;kstd o deZdkj ds lEcU/k gksrs
gSa] fdUrq tgkaW deZdkj ,d laLFkku ds dk;Z esa ;k fdlh dk;Z ds lEcU/k esa Bsdsnkj }kjk HkkMs ij fy;k tkrk gS rks pwafd
og Bsdsnkj fdlh visf{kr ifj.kke nsus gsrq laLFkku dks vk'oLr djrk gS vFkok og laLFkku ds fdlh dk;Z lEiknu gsrq
deZdkj miyC/k djokrk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ,d iz'u mRiUu gks ldrk fd D;k ,slk Bsdsnkj ek= Nn~ekaoj.k
(Camouflage) gSaA bl iz'u dk mRrj ;fn ldkjkRed gS] rks deZdkj okLro esa iz/kku fu;kstd dk deZpkjh gksxk
fdUrq ;fn mRrj udkjkRed gS rks deZdkj Bsdsnkj dk lafonkJfed gksxkA bl ekxZn'kZu ds izdk'k esa lk{; dk foospu
;g izdV djrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks lh/ks rkSj ij iz/kku fu;kstd ekyoh; bULV~hV;wV vkWQ VsDuksyksth }kjk dke ij ugha
yxk;k x;k oju foi{kh }kjk tc tc Hkh fdlh dk;Z fo'ks"k dks lEiUu djus ds fy;s lsokvksa dh vko';drk gksrh] mlds
fy;s fufonk vkefU=r dj lsok,a ysus ds fy;s Bsdk fn;k tkrk FkkA bu fooknksa esa ;|fi izkFkhZx.k dh lsok,a foi{kh laLFkku
ds dk;Z fo'ks"k ds lEiknu ds fy;s yh xbZ gS] fdUrq ;s lsok,a ,d Bsdsnkj eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj }kjk fu;qDr
O;fDr;ksa dh] yh xbZ gSA foi{kh us fu;qfDr gsrq u rks dksbZ foKfIr izlkfjr dh vksj u gh dksbZ fofgr p;u izfdz;k dk
vuqlj.k fd;kA blds LFkku ij mlus Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qfDr fd;s x;s O;fDr;ksa dh lsok,a yhA izkFkhZx.k ls yh xbZ lsokvksa
dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks ugha fd;k tkrk Fkk] oju~ foi{kh ds laosnd dks foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA tSlk fd
foi{kh ds izys[k izn’kZ ,u-,-&36 ls izdV gksrk gSA bl rF; ls ;g Li"V gS fd Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh lsok,a
foi{kh laLFkku esa dk;Z lEiknu gsrq yh xbZA foi{kh }kjk viuk;h x;h ;g O;olFkk fdlh Nnekoj.k ds vUrxZr ugha dh
xbZ oju ;g ,d okLrfodrk izdV gksrh gSA foi{kh ds lk{kh Jh lokbZ flag] ds;j&Vsdj ls dh xbZ izfrijh{kk esa bl rF;
ds izfrdwy dksbZ lq>ko izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls ugha fn;k x;k gS fd Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls yh xbZ izkFkhZx.k dh lsok] foi{kh
}kjk Jfedksa dks ns; lsok lEcfU/kr ifjykHkksa ls cpus ds fy;s Nn~ekaoj.k (Camouflage) ds vUrxZr dh xbZ gSA ;gka
;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd izkFkhZx.k us rks vius lk{; esa ;g Hkh ugha dgk gS fd mudh lsok,a Bsdsnkj ds
ek/;e ls foi{kh us yh gSA bl foospu ds i'pkr izkFkhZx.k okLrfod :i ls Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr deZdkj izdV gksrs gS
ftuds fy;s foi{kh us izkFkhZx.k ls u rks lh/ks rkSj ij lsok gsrq lEidZ fd;k u gh lsok ds izfrQy dk Hkqxrku lh/ks
izkFkhZx.k dks fd;kA blfy;s izkFkhZx.k ds lafonk Jfed gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZx.k o foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds
lEcU/k vfLrRo esa gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA
12- izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; iatkc yS.M MoyiesUV ,.M fjdzysus'ku dkikZsjs'ku cuke ih-vks-yscj dksVZ] p.Mhx<+
o vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g ekxn'kZu fn;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vks-½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh dk vFkZ
,d deZdkj dh lsok dk ,d fu;kstd }kjk lekiu fdlh ,sls dkj.k ls gS] tks bl /kkjk esa vioftZr ugha fd;s x;s gaSA
pwafd bl /kkjk dh eq[; vis{kk fu;kstd ,oa deZdkj ds lEcU/kksa dk vfLrRo esa gksuk gS] rFkk bu fooknksa esa izkFkhZx.k lafonk
Jfed izekf.kr gq;s gS] rFkk foi{kh ls mudk iz/kku fu;kstd o deZdkj dk lEcU/k izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS blfy;s bl
fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/k izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa lgk;d ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius uohure fu.kZ; 2019 ,y-
,y-vkj-515 Hkkjr gSoh byasfDVªdYl cuke egsUnz dqekj t[keksyk o vU; ¼Loa; vf/kdj.k }kjk½ esa ;g dgk gS fd tgka
deZdkj dk Bsdsnkj }kjk osru Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS& Bsdsnkj }kjk iz/kku fu;kstd dks deZdkj lkSai fn;s tkus ds ckn
iz/kku fu;kstd ds funZs'kkuqlkj deZdkj }kjk dke djus ij] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd deZdkj iz/kku fu;kstd ds
iz'kklfud fu;U=.k ,oa i;Zos{k.k ds vUrZxr gS] D;ksafd bl fLFkfr esa iz/kku fu;kstd }kjk tkjh dksbZ fu;qfDr i=] izksfoMs.V
Q.M ;k osru iphZ ugha gS blfy;s eq[; fu;kstd ,oa Bsdsnkj ds e/; vuqcU/k] Nn~ekaoj.k (Camouflage) ugha gSA
13- vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
fcUnq la[;k %& 2
fcUnq la[;k %& 2
fcUnq la[;k %& 2
fcUnq la[;k %& 2
4662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2019/ASADHA 8, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14- bl fcUnq ds vUrxZr ;g fopkj.kh; gS fd D;k izkFkhZx.k us foi{kh ds v/khu lsok lekfIr frfFk 28-11-2003 ds rqjUr
iwoZ ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu yxkrkj lsok dh gS\ fcUnq la[;k&1 ds vUrxZr izkIr fd;s x;s fu"d"kZ ds
vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k ,oa foi{kh ds chp fu;kstd ,oa deZdkj ds lEcU/k bl vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ugha gq, gSa fd izkFkhZx.k eSllZ
f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj uked Bsdsnkj }kjk lsok esa fy;s x;s lafonk Jfed gksuk izekf.kr gq, gaS izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr
mifLFkfr jftLVj dks foi{kh us izkFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr ds izek.k&Lo:i bl viokn lfgr Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;g
mifLFkfr Bsdsnkj }kjk iznRr dh xbZ lsok ds vUrxZr] mifLFkr O;fDr dh foi{kh laLFkku dh fdlh 'kk[kk&fo'ks"k esa
mifLFkfr dk vfHkys[k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij Bsdsnkj }kjk osru dk Hkqxrku mldk deh'ku dkVdj mUgsa fd;k tkrk FkkA
izn’kZ ,u-,-&36 bl lUnHkZ esa lqlaxr izys[k gS ftlesa izkFkhZx.k ds Bsdsnkj dk deh'ku dkVdj mUgsa osru dk Hkqxrku
fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k pwafd Bsdsnkj ds }kjk fu;qDr lafonk Jfed Fks mudh lsok lekfIr ds
iwoZ 240 fnu dh yxkrkj lsok fd;s tkus dk fcUnq Lor% vizklafxd o vlaxr gks tkrk gSA lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF;
izekf.kr ugha gS fd foi{kh laLFkku ds v/khu izkFkhZx.k us dfFkr lsok lekfIr fnukad 28-11-2003 ds iwoZorhZ ,d dsys.Mj
o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd vof/k esa yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk
gSA
fcUnq la[;k %& 3
fcUnq la[;k %& 3
fcUnq la[;k %& 3
fcUnq la[;k %& 3
15- izkFkhZx.k dk foi{kh fu;kstd ls deZdkj dk lEcU/k gksuk iwoZorhZ foospu esa izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA blfy;s vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25 ¼vkSvkS½ ds vUrxZr izkFkhZx.k dh lsok lekfIr Bsdsnkj }kjk fd;s tkuk izekf.kr gksus ij ,slh lsok lekfIr pwafd
,d vuqcU/k ds lekiu ds dkj.k gqbZ gS NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk eas ugha vkrh gSA blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds
vUrxZr oS/k NaVuh ds fy;s micfU/kr vfuok;Zrk;sa tks fd NaVuh ds iwoZ deZdkj dks uksfVl fn;s tkus ;k uksfVl ds cnys
osru fn;s tkus rFkk NaVuh&izfrdj ds Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr gaS] dk foospu fdlh izdkj visf{kr ugha gSaA izkFkhZx.k pawfd
foi{kh ds v/khu deZdkj gksuk gh izekf.kr ugha gq, gS] foi{kh }kjk NaVuh dh iwoZorhZ vfuok;Zrkvksa dk vuqikyu fd;k tkuk
visf{kr ugha gSA
16- izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; izeksn >k o vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj o vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us }kjk
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ o 2 ¼vks-vks-½ ds vUrxZr micfU/kr vko';drkvksa ds lEcU/k esa fof/k izfrikfnr dh gS] fdUrq
foi{kh ds lEcU/k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dh vko';d 'krksZa dh vuqikyuk fd;k tkuk visf{kr gh ugha gSA vr% bl
fu.kZ; esa ikfjr fof/k rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa lgk;d ugha gSA vRk% ;g fcUnq Hkh izkFkhZx.k ds fo:)
fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
17- foi{kh }kjk izLrqr fu.k;Z ,-mekjkuh cuke jftLVªkj] dks vkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht vkSj vU;] egsUnz ,y-tSu vkSj vU;
cuke bUnkSj MsoyiesaV vFkkfjVh] ek/;fed f’k{kk ijh"kn] ;w-ih-cuke vfuy dqekj feJk vkSj vU;] LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih-cuke
uhjt voLFkh o vU; rFkk pUnz 'ks[kj vktkn d`f"k ,oWa izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke ;wukbVsM+ VªsM~l dkaxzsl esa ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k vkns'kkRed izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dh xbZ fu;qfDr;ksa ds i'pkrorhZ fu;fefrdj.k ds
lUnHkZ esa gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g dgk gS fd ,slh fu;e fo:) fu;qfDr;ksa dks leqfpr ljdkj
fu;fer ugha dj ldrh gS] D;ksafd ;g lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 dk mYya?ku gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g
Hkh funsZ'k fn;k gS fd tc dksbZ in Lohd`r uk gks rks ,sls in ds fy;s mlh in ij iqu%&LFkkZiu dk funsZ'k ugha fn;k tk
ldrkA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k llEeku esa ykxw gksuk ugha ikrk gwWaA
18- mi;qZDr fcUnqvksa ij ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij Je eU=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fooknksa dk vf/kfu.kZ;u
djrs gq, bl izdkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS %
**izcU/ku ekyoh; jk"Vªh; izks|ksfxd laLFkku] t;iqj }kjk izkFkhZx.k loZ Jh dkukjke] lUrks"k xqtZj] gsejkt o egsUnz
oekZ pijklhx.k rFkk cUuk yky xqtZj LVsuksxzkQj@,y-Mh-lh-dh fnukad 28-11-2003 dks dh xbZ lsok lekfIr foi{kh
laLFkku }kjk ugha dh xbZ oju~ bu izkFkhZx.k ds eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj t;iqj uked Bsdsnkj ds lafonk Jfed
gksus ls Bsdsnkj }kjk gh dh xbZA ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZx.k foi{kh laLFkku ds fo:) dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus ds vf/kdkjh izekf.kr
ugha gq, gaSA
vkns'k
vkns'k
vkns'k
vkns'k
19- vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bu ekeyksa esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanHkksZa fjQjsUl dk
mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA vf/kfu.kZ; dh ,d izfr izR;sd lanfHkZr&fookn i=koyh esa layXu dh tkosaA
20- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ
izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
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: 2019.07.12
11:45:45 +05'30'