3264 GI/2019

(4923)

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- 28]

ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 7—tqykbZ 13] 2019] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 16—vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

No. 28]

NEW DELHI, JULY 7—JULY 13, 2019, SATURDAY/ASADHA 16— ASADHA—22, 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)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 8 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1208

1208

1208.—ब ककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) क$ धारा 3 क$

उप-धारा (2क) के दूसरे परंतुक +ारा ,द- शि/य का ,योग करते 2ए, के45ीय सरकार, एत6ारा, भारतीय 8रजव ब क के

परामश से युनाइटेड ब क आफ इंिडया क$ ,ािधकृत पूंजी को आठ हजार पांच सौ करोड़ Eपए से बढ़ाकर बारह हजार करोड़

Eपए करती है।

[फा.सं.11/8/2019–बीओए-I]

ए. के. घोष, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 8^th July, 2019

S.O. 1208.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (2A) of section 3 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Central Government after

4924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby increases the authorised capital of United Bank of India from eight

thousand five hundred crore rupees to twelve thousand crore rupees.

[F. No.11/8/2019-BOA-I]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 8 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1209

1209

1209.—ब ककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) क$ धारा 3 क$

परामश से इिFडयन ओवरसीज ब क क$ ,ािधकृत पूंजी को दस हजार करोड़ Eपए से बढ़ाकर प45ह हजार करोड़ Eपए करती

है।

[फा.सं.11/8/2019–बीओए-I]

ए. के. घोष, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 8^th July, 2019

S.O. 1209.— In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (2A) of section 3 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Central Government after

consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby increases the authorised capital of Indian Overseas Bank from ten

thousand crore rupees to fifteen thousand crore rupees.

[F. No.11/8/2019-BOA-I]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 8 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1210

1210

1210.—के4 5 सरकार, एतद् +ारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस K थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

संM या 25) क$ धारा 6 के साथ प8ठत धारा 5 क$ उपधारा (1) +ारा ,द- शि/य का ,योग करते 2ए राजK थान राO य

सरकार, गृह (जीआर-V) िवभाग, जयपुर क$ अिधसूचना सं. एफ.19(21) गृह-5/2018 दनांक 04.06.2019 के माR यम से

,ाS सहमित से ब क धोखाधड़ी से जुड़े अथवा उ/ मामल से उUपV एवं उसी संWवहार मX का8रत अ4य अपराध से संबंिधत

पुिलस थाना मेटा िसटी, िजला- नागौर, राजKथान मX दज एफआईआर सं. 301/2017, 261/2017, 262/17, 263/2017,

279/2017, 399/2017, 14/2018, 31/2018 एवं 40/2018 क$ जांच करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस K थापना के

सदK य क$ शि/य और Zे[ािधकार का समK त राजK थान राO य मX िवK तार करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/05/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. ि[ पाठी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 8^th July, 2019

S.O. 1210.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur issued vide Notification No.F.19(21) Home-5/2018 dated

4.6.2019, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the

whole of the State of Rajasthan for the investigation of FIR No.301/2017,261/2017,262/17, 263/2017, 279/2017,

399/2017, 14/2018, 31/2018 & 40/2018 registered at Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan related to

Bank Fraud or any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the said cases.

[F. No. 228/05/2019-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4925

कोयला मंालय

नई दली, 28 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1211

1211

1211.—कारखाना अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 63) क$ धारा 2 के खFड (ढ) के ,थम परंतुक के खFड

(iii) +ारा ,द- शि/य के अनुसरण मX कX5 सरकार िन]तािलका के कॉलम (3) मX िन_द` अिधका8रय को उ/ तािलका के

कॉलम (2) मX िन_द` एनएलसी इंिडया िलिमटेड (एनसीआईएल), िजसका पंजीकृत कायालय ,थम तल, नं. 8, मेयर

सUयामूaत रोड, एफएसडी, एbमोर कॉcपलेdस ऑफ फूड कारपोरशन ऑफ इंिडया, चेटपैट, चेVई-600031 है, के संबंिधत

कारखाने अथवा वकशॉप के “ऑdयूपायर” के Eप मX एत6ारा िनयु/ करती है, अथातः-

.सं.

कारखाने/वकशॉप का नाम

ऑdयूपायर के Eप मX िनयु/ अिधका8रय के पदनाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

01.

ताप िवiुत कX5-I

ताप िवiुत कX5-I के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा

,बंधक

02.

ताप िवiुत कX5-I िवKतार

ताप िवiुत कX5-I िवKतार के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

03.

ताप िवiुत कX5-II

ताप िवiुत कX5-II के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा

,बंधक

04.

ताप िवiुत कX5- II िवKतार

ताप िवiुत कX5- II िवKतार के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

05.

नेयवेली

4यू

ताप

िवiुत

प8रयोजना

(एनएनटीपीपी)

एनएनटीपीपी के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा

,बंधक

60 एमएलडी जल शोधन संयं[

60 एमएलडी जल शोधन संयं[ के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

08.

30 एमएलडी आधुिनक सीवेज शोधन संयं[

30 एमएलडी आधुिनक सीवेज शोधन संयं[ के उप महा

,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

09.

मै4यूफैdचjरग यॉड ि,काKट िडिवजन

मै4यूफेdचjरग यॉड ि,काKट िडिवजन के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

10.

सXkल वकशॉप/4यू सaवस युिनट

सXkल वकशॉप/4यू सaवस युिनट के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

11.

सXkल इलेिdkकल 8रपेयर शॉप

सXkल इलेिdkकल 8रपेयर शॉप के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

12.

ऑटो kांसपोट यॉड, 4यू सaवस

ऑटो kांसपोट यॉड, 4यू सaवस के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

13.

फटनेस सlटफकेट ओवरहाल कॉcपलेdस, 4यू

सaवस युिनट, ओड वीएंडसी ए8रया

फटनेस सlटफकेट ओवरहाल कॉcपलेdस, 4यू सaवस युिनट,

ओड वीएंडसी ए8रया के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय

महा ,बंधक

14.

बस िडपो

बस िडपो के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

15.

आईसीई-िडिवजन, 4यू सaवस युिनट

आईसीई-िडिवजन, 4यू सaवस युिनट के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

16.

िमनी ऑटो, mलॉक-10

िमनी ऑटो, mलॉक-10 के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय

महा ,बंधक

17.

िमनी ऑटो, mलॉक-01

िमनी ऑटो, mलॉक-01 के उप महा ,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय

महा ,बंधक

18.

बरnसगसर ताप िवiुत कX5

बरnसगसर ताप िवiुत कX5 के उप महा ,बंधक/महा

,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

4926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

नेयवेली सौर िवiुत प8रयोजना (एनएसपीपी) नेयवेली सौर िवiुत प8रयोजना (एनएसपीपी)के उप महा

,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक

20.

नेयवेली

तिमलनाडु

पावर

िलिमटेड

(एनटीपीएल)

नेयवेली तिमलनाडु पावर िलिमटेड (एनटीपीएल) के उप महा

,बंधक/महा ,बंधक/मुMय महा ,बंधक/मुMय कायपालक

अिधकारी

2. अRयZ एवं ,बंध िनदेशक, एनएलसी इंिडया िलिमटेड संबंिधत पद के िलए ऐसे अिधका8रय, िज4हX उपयु/ानुसार

कारखान के ऑdयूपायर के Eप मX पदनािमत कया जाता है, को नाम से पद नािमत करन के िलए एत6ारा ,ािधकृत ह ।

[फा. सं. 38026/1/2013-सीए-II]

अका शेखर, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2019

S.O. 1211.—In pursuance of the powers, conferred by clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (n) of Section 2

of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints officers specified in column (3) of the

Table below as “Occupier” of the respective factory or workshop of NLC India Limited (NLCIL), specified in column

(2) of the said Table having its registered office at First Floor, No. 8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex

of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai-600031, namely:-

Sl.

No.

Name of Factory/ Workshop

Designation(s) of Officer, appointed as Occupier

(1)

(2)

(3)

01 Thermal Power Station-I

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Thermal Power Station-I

02 Thermal Power Station-I Expansion

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Thermal Power Station-I Expansion.

03 Thermal Power Station-II

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Thermal Power Station-II

04 Thermal Power Station-II Expansion

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Thermal Power Station-II Expansion

05 ^Neyveli

New

Thermal

Power

Project

(NNTPP)

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of NNTPP

07 60 MLD Water Treatment Plant

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of 60 MLD Water Treatment Plant

08 30 MLD Modern Sewage Treatment Plant

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of 30 MLD Modern Sewage Treatment Plant

09 Manufacturing Yard Precast Division

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Manufacturing Yard Precast Division

10 Central Workshops / New Service Unit

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Central Workshops / New Service Unit

11 Central Electrical Repair Shop

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Central Electrical Repair Shop

12 Auto Transport Yard, New Service

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Auto Transport Yard, New Service

13 ^{Fitness Certificate Overhaul Complex, New}

Service Unit, Old B&C area.

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Fitness Certificate Overhaul Complex, New Service

Unit, Old B&C area

14 Bus Depot

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Bus Depot

15 ICE Division, New Service Unit

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of ICE Division, New Service Unit

16 Mini Auto, Block-10

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Mini Auto, Block-10

17 Mini Auto, Block-01

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4927

Manager of Mini Auto, Block-01

18 Barsingsar Thermal Power Station

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Barsingsar Thermal Power Station

19 Neyveli Solar Power Project (NSPP)

Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General

Manager of Neyveli Solar Power Project (NSPP)

20 Neyveli Tamil Nadu Power Limited (NTPL)

Deputy General Manager / General Manager / Chief General

Manager/ Chief Executive Officer of Neyveli Tamil Nadu

Power Limited (NTPL)

2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of NLC India Limited is hereby authorized to nominate by name such

officers to the respective positions, who are designated as occupiers of the factories, as indicated above.

[F. No. 38026/1/2013-CA- II]

ALKA SHEKHAR, Under Secy.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

गैस मंालय

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 212

212

212.—के45ीय सरकार, पेkोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मX उपयोग के अिधकार के अजन)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क$ धारा 2 के खF ड (क) के अनुसरण मX और पेkोिलयम एवं ,ाकृितक गैस मं[ालय,

भारत सरकार के का.आ. 2844(अ) दनांक 4 दसcबर 2012, का.आ. 2846(अ) दनांक 6 दसcबर 2012 और का. आ.

175 (अ) दनांक 24 नवंबर 2014, क$ अिधसूचना के संशोधन मX उd त अिधिनयम के अधीन राजKथान राO य के राO यZे[ के

भीतर िह4 दुK तान पेkोिलयम कॉपrरेशन िलिमटेड क$ मुं5ा दली पाइपलाइन, आवा-सालावास पाइपलाइन और रेवाडी-

कानपुर पाइपलाइन प8रयोजना के िलए सZम अिधकारी के कायs का िनवहन करने के िलए tीमित एकता काबरा,

आर.ए.एस., राजKथान सरकार को ,ािधकृत करती है। यह इस अिधसूचना क$ तारीख से लागू होता है ।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/5/2019-ओआर-I/ई-30377]

शांतनु धर, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 24^th June, 2019

S. O. 1212.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in modification of Notifications of the Government of India in Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 2844(E) dated the 4^th December 2012, S.O. No. 2846(E) dated the 6^th December

2012 and S.O. No. 175(E) dated the 24^th November 2014, the Central Government hereby authorizes Mrs. Ekta Kabra,

RAS, Government of Rajasthan to perform the functions of Competent Authority for HPCL’s Mundra Delhi Pipeline,

Awa Salawas Pipeline and Rewari Kanpur Pipeline under the said Act, within the territory of Rajasthan State. This is

applicable from the date of Notification.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/5/2019-OR-I/E-30377]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk- vk- 1213-&Hkkjr ljdkj] isVªksfy;e ,oa çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dk vk 2649 ¼bZ½] fnukad 18

fnlEcj 2015 esa gq, mikarj.k vkSj isVªksfy;e ,oa [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj dk vtZu ½ vf/kfu;e

¼1960 dk 50½ ds vuqHkkx 2 ds [kaM ¼,½ ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæ ljdkj ,rr~}kjk Jh ,l jes'k] eq[; çca/kd] Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dks Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksPph &dks;EcVwj &d:j ikbiykbu ds fy, dsjy ,oa

rfeyukMq jkT; ds vanj rFkk Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksPph fjQkbujh& dksPph baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ , Vh

,Q ikbiykbu ds fy, dsjy jkT; ds vanj mä vf/kfu;e ds varxZr l{ke çkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy,

çkf/k—r djrh gSA

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼15½4@2019@vksvkj&I@bZ&30015]

'kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo

4928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3^rd July, 2019

S.O. 1213.—In modification of notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O. 2649(E) dated 18^th September, 2015 and in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorises

Shri. S. Ramesh, Chief Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to perform the functions of Competent

Authority for “Cochin-Coimbatore-Karur Pipeline of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, under the said Act within

the Territory of the State of Kerala and Tamilnadu and “Kochi Refinery-Cochin International Airport ATF pipeline” of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, under the said Act within the Territory of the State of Kerala.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/4/2019-OR-I/E-30015]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1214-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMw jkT; ds lsye dks dsjy

jkT; esa Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ dh dksfPp fjQkbujh ls rjyhd`r isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy,] ,d

ikbiykbu dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM+ }kjk fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa] tks blls

mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, ;

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] IksVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962

dk 50½] dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus

ds vius vk”k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS;

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh

izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy;s mlesa

mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh c'khjdqatw ,] l{ke çkf/kdkjh] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM] d#.k

,aDyso] f}rh; ry] Mksj uŒ ch& 2] ,l ,u taD'ku] fjQkbZujh jksM] ;wfu;u cSad v‚Q bafM;k ds lkeus] f=iqfuFkqjk] ftyk

,sjukdqye] dsjy & 682301 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: vkyqok

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

rsDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 30½

149@3

156@1

156@2

156@13

195@7

197@1

197@2

197@3

197@10

214@4

214@5

214@6

oMDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 28½

158@10

158@17

192@7

192@9

djqdqfV ¼[k.M la- 2½

360@9

dht+ekM+ ¼[k.M la- 32½

301@5

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4929

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

ekjefifYy ¼[k.M la- 24½

109@10

109@11

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: f='kqj

rkyqd: pkyDdqMh

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

dkYywj rsDdqeqjhZ ¼[k.M la- 50½

506@1

506@3

fd"kDdeqjh ¼[k.M la- 49½

841@3

859@10

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ikykdkM

rkyqd: vkykFkwj

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

dkstkYeUue ¼[k.M la- 16½

570@1

okMDdupsjh&I ¼[kaM la 34 ½

677@2

677@4

[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017@vksvkj&I@bZ&19746]

'kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3^rd July, 2019

S.O. 1214.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of

Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the a pipeline should be laid by M/s. Kochi – Salem pipeline Private

Ltd;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the schedule

annexed to this notification;

Now therefore in the exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the

copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing

to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Basheerkunju. A, Competent

Authority, Kochi-Salem Pipeline Private Ltd, Karun Enclave 2^nd floor, Door No. B2, S.N. Junction, Refinery Road, Opp:

Union Bank of India, Tripunithura, Pin – 682 301.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM

TALUK : ALUVA

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA (APPROXIMATE)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ:METERS

THEKKUMBHAGAM

BLOCK. NO. 30

149@3

156@1

156@2

156@13

195@7

197@1

197@2

197@3

4930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

197@10

214@4

214@5

214@6

VADAKKUMBHAGAM

BLOCK. NO. 28

158@10

158@17

192@7

192@9

KARUKUTTY

BLOCK. NO. 2

360@9

KEEZHMAD

BLOCK. NO. 32

301@5

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA (APPROXIMATE)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ:METERS

MARAMPILLY

BLOCK. NO.24

109/10

109/11

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : THRISSUR

TALUK : CHALAKUDY

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA (APPROXIMATE)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ:METERS

KALLUR THEKKUMMURI

BLOCK. NO. 50

506/1

506/3

KIZHAKKUMMURI

BLOCK. NO. 49

841/3

859/10

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : PALAKKAD

TALUK : ALATHUR

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA (APPROXIMATE)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ:METERS

KUZHALMANNAM - I

BLOCK. NO. 16

570/1

VADAKKANCHERY - 1

BLOCK. No. 34

677/2

677/4

[F. No. R-12031(196)/ 2017-OR-I/E-19746]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1215

1215

1215.—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 1793¼v½ rkjh[k 11@12@2018 ,oa

dkŒ vkŒ 401¼v½ rkjh[k 11@02@2019 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ Øe'k 50 rkjh[k 16@12@2018 ls 22@12@2018 ,oa 12

rkjh[k 17@03@2019 ls 23@03@2019 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe

esa dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds

fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d

ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k Øe'k 29@03@2019 ls 18@04@2019 ,oa 27@04@2019 ls

17@05@2019 ds chp miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh ;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4931

vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us ] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu

fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS ]mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu

fd;k tkrk gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd

mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh

foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM es fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

118@9

141@5&1

148@12

254@10

398@2

401@5

401@7

402@2

405@19&1

429@14

430@6

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: vkyqok

eVwj ¼[k.M la- 27½

1@12

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw

okt+dqye ¼[k.M la0 24½

61/7

61/8

[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017@vksvkj&I@bZ&19746]

'kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1215.—Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O. No. 1793 dated 11.12.2018 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 50 dated 16.12.2018 to 22.12.2018, S.O.

No. 401 dated 11.02.2019 published in the Govt. of India Gazette No. 12 dated 17.03.2019 to 23.03.2019 issued under

sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962

(Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire

the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for

the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State

of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette Notifications have been made available to the public between

29.03.2019 to 18.04.2019 and 27.04.2019 to 17.05.2019 respectively.

AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in

the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

4932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this

notification are hereby acquired.

AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government

vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM

TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

KIZHAKKAMBALAM

BLOCK. NO. 25

118/9

141/5-1

148/12

254/10

398/2

401/5

401/7

402/2

405/19-1

429/14

430/6

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM

TALUK : ALUVA

MATTOOR

(BLOCK. No. 27)

1/12

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU

VAZHAKULAM

BLOCK. NO. 24

61/7

61/8

[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई द ली, 14 मई, 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1216

1216

1216.—औiोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क$ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मX के45ीय सरकार

मेसस िनदेशक, सरदार वलभभाई राuीय ,ौiोिगक$ संKथान, इचानाथ, सूरत

)

गुजरात

(

और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के

,बंधतं[ के संबv िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध मX िन_द` औiोिगक िववाद मX के45ीय सरकार औiोिगक

अिधकरण एवं tम 4यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद पंचाट (संदभ संMया 27/2018) को ,कािशत करती है जो के45ीय सरकार को

22.04.19 को ,ाS 2ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/32/2018-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4933

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2019

S.O. 1216.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 27/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat) & Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 22.04.19.

[No. L-42011/32/2018-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 27/2018

The Chairperson,

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat) - 395007

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology Employees Association,

A-1002, Siddhi Tower, Samarth Park, Adajan Char Rasta,

Surat (Gujarat) – 395009

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/32/2018–IR(DU)

dated 16.04.2018 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Institute of Technology (SVNIT) Employees Union for pay

scale, Increment, Bonus Leave Salary, Medical Benefits and other benefits for the workmen (who are employed

in daily paid unskilled and skilled category and working since long) as per prevailing labour laws is fair, just

and legal? If yes, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 16.04.2018 and received on 20.04.2018 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After receiving the schedule of reference from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi, notices were issued to both the parties on 15.05.2018 to appear on 15.06.2018 to submit their claims. But the

second party union did not prefer to submit the statement of claim. Thereafter, despite giving 6 more opportunities on

09.08.2018, 04.10.2018, 14.11.2018, 02.01.2019, 20.02.2019 and 10.04.2019, the second party union refrained to submit

statement of claim.

Thus it appears that the second party union is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party union with

the observation as under: “the demand of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Institute of Technology (SVNIT) Employees Union for

pay scale, Increment, Bonus Leave Salary, Medical Benefits and other benefits for the workmen (who are employed in

daily paid unskilled and skilled category and working since long) as per prevailing labour laws is not fair, just and legal.”

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

4934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1217

1217

1217.—औiोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क$ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मX के45ीय

सरकार मेसस व8रw डाक अधीZक, चंडीगढ़ और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के ,बंधतं[ के संबv िनयोजक और उनके

कमकार के बीच अनुबंध मX िन_द` औiोिगक िववाद मX के45ीय सरकार औiोिगक अिधकरण एवं tम 4यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के

पंचाट (संदभ संMया 321/2013) को ,कािशत करती है जो के45ीय सरकार को 16.05.2019 को ,ाS 2ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/86/2013-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019

S.O. 1217.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 321/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Senior

Superintendent of Post Officer, Chandigarh and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 16.05.2019.

[No. L-40012/86/2013-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No.321 of 2013

Registered on:-07.02.2014

Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Chander, Age 33 years,

R/o VPO Dobhetta, District Ropar(Punjab).

… Workman

Versus

Union of India, through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Technology,

Department of Posts, New Delhi.

Senior Superintendent of Post Officer, Chandigarh.

…Management

Dated:10.04.2019

Respondent-establishment ‘Union of India’ has moved an application under Section 17-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for correction of the incidental/clerical

mistakes in the award dated 19.06.2018 which is notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment on 18.09.2018.

Brief facts, alleged in the application, are that a reference was sent from the Government of India vide Letter

No.L-40012/86/2013-IR(DU) Dated 22.01.2014 under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under:-

“Whether action of terminating the service of Sh. Suresh Kumar, GDSBPM w.e.f. 9.6.2010 by Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?’’

The case was heard and decided by this Hon’ble Tribunal on 30.05.2018 which was published vide notification

dated 18.09.2018. The Hon’ble Tribunal has the competence and jurisdiction to entertain the application for seeking

correction of the clerical/incidental mistakes in the award in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case titled Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hans Raj, 2005(1) RSJ 322, the application filed within 30 days from the

notification of the award. As per application, due to an incidental mistake, the Hon’ble Tribunal has treated the workman

to have worked from 19.05.2000 to 19.05.2010. As a matter of fact, the workman in the instant case worked from

01.04.2009 to 08.06.2010 intermittently for various periods. In para 6 of the statement of claim the workman has

categorically stated that he worked from 19.05.2009 to 09.06.2010 and that he completed more than 240 days of service

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4935

preceding the date of his termination. It is further alleged that this Tribunal committed clerical or incidental mistakes in

para no.9 of the award wherein it has been stated that the workman worked from 19.05.2000 to 19.05.2010. Similarly, in

para 10 of the award similar finding has been recorded by this Tribunal. The aforesaid finding recorded in para 10 is

beyond the pleading of the parties and beyond the pleadings of the workman himself the claim filed by him before this

Tribunal. Consequently, this Tribunal has recorded finding in award that compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the

workman instead of taking period during which he had worked with the management as 19.05.2009 to 09.06.2010 as

claimed by the workman himself. Thus, it appears that due to typographical mistake, the figure 2000 has been typed in

place of figure 2009 in various paras of award which are required to be corrected in the interest of justice and relief

granted of Rs.5,00,000/- to the workman also requires to be reviewed and recomputed accordingly. It is therefore prayed

that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to order necessary corrections in the award in the interest of justice.

Claimant/workman Suresh Kumar was put to notice who appeared before this Tribunal along with his counsel.

Workman did not file any objection against the application filed by the management for correction of the award.

The perusal of the case ID No.321/2013 titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India, registered on 07.02.2014

reveals that reference was received from Government of India which was answered by my learned predecessor vide

order dated 19.06.2018 holding that respondent/applicant Union of India is responsible for payment of Rs.5,00,000/-

with 6% interest from the date of reference of the award in case the award money is not paid by the respondent-applicant

from the date of publication of award.

I have heard the arguments of Sh. D.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel of workman/objector and Sh. Vikram Bajaj, Ld.

Counsel of applicant/management.

The learned counsel of the workman/claimant has admitted during the course of arguments that due to clerical

mistake and typographical mistake the alleged mistake is there in the award which requires to be corrected so that just

and proper award money could be paid by the respondent-applicant to workman.

Going through the admission of the learned counsel of workman and perusal of the original file of ID

No.321/2013 it transpires that due to typographical and clerical mistake the length of the services of the workman is

mentioned as 19.05.2000 to 19.05.2010 while it should be from 01.04.2009 to 09.06.2010 as is alleged by the

claimant/workman in his claim petition. This fact is also agitated by the management-witness Sh. Hari Mohan whose

affidavit is Exb.RX. Thus, total service of the workman with the management comes about one year only. It appears that

my learned predecessor in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court in the case of District Development Officer

Vs. Suresh 2018 LLR 225 has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- compensation to the workman. Going through the tenure of service

of the workman from 19.05.2000 to 19.05.2010. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is perhaps calculated on the strength of 10

years of service of the workman with the respondent-management. Going through this analogy and calculation of the

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- mentioned in the award dated 19.06.2018 is liable to be corrected as Rs.‘50,000/-’ only for the

admitted tenure of about one year of the workman rendered in the establishment.

Application for correction of the award is allowed in view of Rule 28 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules

1957, accordingly and the award is amended in the light of the observation made by the Tribunal. Let copy of the order

along with amended award be sent to the Central Government for re-publication.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1218

1218

1218.—औiोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क$ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मX के45ीय

सरकार मेसस मुMय महा,बंधक, दूरसंचार, भोपाल (म,) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के ,बंधतं[ के संबv िनयोजक और

उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध मX िन_द` औiोिगक िववाद मX के45ीय सरकार औiोिगक अिधकरण एवं tम 4यायालय,

जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभ संMया. 17/2014) को ,कािशत करती है जो के45ीय सरकार को 14.05.19 को ,ाS 2ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/98/2013-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019

S.O. 1218.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 17/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

4936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief

General Manager, Telcommunication , Bhopal (MP) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 14.05.19.

[No. L-40012/98/2013-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2014

Shri Narendra Kumar Jaiswal,

S/o Shri Amar Singh Jaiswal,

V& PO Bhiasa, PS-Kharora,

Distt. Raipur (CG)

…Workman

Versus

Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,

Department of Posts,

Government of India, Raipur Division,

Raipur CG)

… Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26^th day of April 2019

As per letter dated 7-2-2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-40012/98/2013-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Department of Posts, Government of Indi, Raipur in terminating the services of

Shri Narendra Jaiswal is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

According to the workman, he was engaged as daily wage worker in the Post Office Bhaisa under Asstt

Superintendent Post Office, Raipur on 15-4-2010 as Mail Carrier. Subsequently to shifting of Nutan Verma the then mail

carrier on the post for branch Post master and worked as mail carrier from 15-4-2010 to 23-11-12. He worked

continuously on daily basis atleast 5 hours a day engaged in sorting of mails and its distribution. He was paid on monthly

basis. His work was satisfactory and he was communicated no adverse remark by his superior. He was illegally

terminated from post of mail carrier by an oral order of the new post master on 23-11-2012 disclosing that Nutan Verma,

then earlier mail carrier was reverted back to the post. It was further alleged that there is still one vacancy of mail carrier

for rural area of post office on which the workman can be adjusted. This is also the case of workman that inspite of

having served the department continuously for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his termination, he was

not served any notice or given any compensation hence his termination is against Section 25-F of ID Act. Accordingly

the workman has prayed that he be reinstated on the post with backwages and other benefits.

In their Written Statement, the employers specifically denied the allegation that the workman was in continuous

engagement for a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement. It was further pleaded that he

was engaged as daily wager only for the period 15-4-2010 to 31-5-2010 as an outsider in National Employment

Guarantee Scheme because the then mail carrier was given additional charge of sub post master and when the new post

master joined, he was reverted back on his original post of mail carrier. Accordingly it is prayed that the reference be

answered against the workman.

In evidence, workman has filed photocopy of documents denied by employers, not proved by the workman

hence they cannot be read in evidence. Only 2 documents (copy) regarding payment of wages to the workman for the

period 15-4-2010 to 30-4-2010 & 1-5-2010 to 31-5-2010 have been admitted by management witness hence marked

Exhibit W-1 & 2 respectively. Workman has examined himself on oath. Management also has examined its witness

Motiram Sahu on oath. No document was filed by management.

I have heard argument of Shri Shailendra Pandey learned counsel for workman and Shri P.Yadav learned

counsel for management and have gone through the records.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4937

After having perused the record in the light of rival argument, following points come up for determination in the

case-

(1)

Whether the action of the Department of Posts, Government of India, Raipur in terminating the services of

Shri Narendra Jaiswal is legal and justified?

(2)

To what relief the workman is entitled to?

Point for Determination No.1- Respective pleadings of parties have been detailed earlier. Workman has stated in

his statement on oath that he had worked regularly as mail carrier from 15.4.2010 to 23.11.12. He admits that he was a

daily wager, not appointed through regular procedure, not issued any appointment letter. Except his this statement, there

is nothing on record to corroborate his claim of regular service of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his

disengagement. The two documents Exhibit W-1 & W-2 are regarding payment of work done from 15.4.2010 to

30.4.2010 & 1.5.10 to 31.5.10 which is simply 45 days. Management witness has denied the claim of the workman

having in continuous service for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination hence in the light of evidence

of such a nature, the claim of workman that he was in continuous service for 240 days in the year preceding his date of

his disengagement is held not proved. Accordingly violation of Section 25-F of ID Act as alleged by the workman is also

held not proved.

On the basis of above discussion, termination of workman Narendra Jaiswal by department of post, Government

of India Raipur is held legal and justified. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point for determination No.2- in the light of my findings in Point No.1, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Department of Posts, Government of India, Raipur in terminating the services of

Shri Narendra Jaiswal is legal and justified.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

11.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

Dated:26.4.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1219

1219

1219.—औiोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947(1947 का 14) क$ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मX के45ीय सरकार

मैसस, िनदेशक, अनार राuीय अनुसंधान कX5 सोलापुर (महाराu) एवं उनके कमचारी और अ4य के ,बंधतं[ के संबv

िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध मX िन_द` औiोिगक िववाद मX के45ीय सरकार औiोिगक अिधकरण एवं tम

4यायालय, न. 2 मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ संMया CGIT-2/77 of 2014) को ,कािशत करती है जो के45ीय सरकार को

26.04.2019 को ,ाS 2आ था ।

[सं. आर-42012/76/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019

S.O. 1219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT-2/77 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

The Director,National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur (Maharashtra).and their workmen & Others, which was

received by the Central Government on 26.4.2019.

[No. L-42012/76/2014-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

4938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/77 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

(1)

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE

(2)

M/S. SWADESHI SECURITIES

The Director,

National Research Centre for Pomegranate,

Near Solapur University,

Solapur (Maharashtra).

M/s. Swadeshi Security,

96, Salgar Vasti,

Dongaon Road,

Solapur (Maharashtra).

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Datta G. Bansode,

R/o Kedgaon,

Tal North Solapur,

Solapur (Maharashtra),

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Shri R. B. Rai, Representative

FOR THE WORKMEN

Absent

Mumbai, dated the 12^th March, 2019.

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-42012/76/2014 – IR (DU) dated 25.07.2014. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Datta G. Bansode, for asking regulation as an employee of National

Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified ? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled

to ?’’

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

On going through Roznama it appears that the concerned workman is absent since long. He has not filed

affidavit in support of his statement of claim. Today also he is absent hence there is no evidence to substantiate the

statement of claim. Therefore the reference is disposed of for want of evidence to substantiate the statement of claim.

Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Date : 12.03.2019

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4939

नई द ली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1220

1220

1220.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-

2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@51@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fo"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019

S.O. 1220.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.07.2019.

[No. L-12012/51/2010– IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 24^TH June 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

C.R No. 14/2011

I Party

II Party

Sh. M.S Gurumurthy,

S/o Sh. Machappa,

R/o Chavalur Village,

J.J Colony, Challakere Taluk,

Chitradurga District,

Karnataka.

1. The Chariman,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, K.G. Road,

Bangalore – 01.

2. The Assistant General Manager III,

State Bank of India, Regional Office,

No. 6, 199, Mandipet,

Davangere - 577 001.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh

Advocate for II Party : Mr. N. Venkatesh

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/51/2010-IR(B-I) dated 07.04.2011 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 State Bank of Mysore in not regularizing

Sh. M.S. Gurumurthy as permanent employee of the Bank after taking work from him during the period

from 1988 to 1998 as casual worker, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

The case of the 1^st Party is, he joined State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to its

amalgamation with State Bank of India), Regional Office, Davanagere as temporary peon and worked there from 1988 to

1998 for about 620 days in the Branch Offices of Chittradurga. He was assured by the Bank Authorities that he would

be considered against the permanent vacancies. He has worked beyond the norms of working hours some days he was

made to work even without allowing to sign the attendance register; he was informed in 1998 that his service is

terminated and no temporary employees will be considered henceforth for permanent vacancy. He approached the

Hon’ble High Court in W.P No. 36248-56 of 2000 along with similarly placed persons; the Writ Petitions were disposed

off with liberty to make an appropriate representation before the 2^nd Party. His application before the 2^nd Party was

turned down. Again along with others he filed Writ Petitions bearing W.P No. 39806 to 39287/2003 seeking direction to

the Competent Authority to regularise their service; the Writ Petitions were rejected on the ground that he has the

remedy to approach the appropriate Government for redressal under the Industrial Dispute Act; as directed by the

4940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble High Court he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli and the Conciliation proceedings was

held in the presence of 2^nd Party No. 2. The 2^nd Party No. 2 filed its objection statement; the efforts made by the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli, during the conciliation proceedings did not yield any fruitful result and the

matter is referred for this Tribunal for adjudication.

It is the further case of the 1^st Party that the State Bank of India issued a staff circular No. 9 dated 21.04.1991

instructing all the Offices of the Bank communicating the advices received from the Government of India, regarding the

terms of agreement reached with the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union in connection with the appointment of

temporary employees as permanent sub-staff, who have put in a minimum of 90 days total service between 01.11.1984 to

31.12.1989. The 2^nd Party issued a staff circular No. 058 dated 30.08.1993 on the subject of appointment of temporary

employees. But said instructions were not meticulously followed by the Branch Offices. The State Bank of Mysore

Employees Union, Central Office, Bangalore issued a Bulletin No. 96/97 dated 08.02.1997, that 200 temporary are

employees absorbed as permanent sub-staff, as listed in the bulletin. But those temporary employees had paid

Rs. 5,000/- each to the union and were recommended by the Union. The 2^nd Party issued Staff Circular No. 047/98-99

dated 16.09.1998 on the subject of appointment of temporary peons, but the instructions were not followed by the

Branch Offices. The action of the 2^nd and 3^rd Party in engaging his service for about 10 years as temporary employee and

thereafter terminating his service is arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour practice.

The 2^nd Party in their counter statement contended that, the 1^st Party has approached this Tribunal 18 years after

the Circular referred in his claim statement were issued. He had not worked for 240 days or more in any block of 12

months between 25.12.1988 to 19.06.1997, question of regularizing his service or absorbing him does not arise at all.

Such regularization or absorption is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950. His allegation of

exploitation, over work etc., are false. The reference is hopelessly belated and liable to be rejected.

In order to discharge the burden entrusted on the Management to prove the referred issue, the Chief Manager of

the 2^nd Party is examined. In his affidavit averments he detailed the number of days worked by the 1^st Party at different

intervals of the 2^nd Party. Accordingly he worked at

Branch

Period

No. of days

Chitradurga

25.12.1988 to 19.06.1990

83 ½ days

Chitradurga

01.07.1991 to 20.05.1992

90 days

Chitradurga

01.05.1993 to 01.12.1993

87 ½ days

Chitradurga

Feb 1997 to Jun 1997

89 days

The Service Certificates issued by the Branch Manager in respect of different intervals of his service are marked as

Ex M-1 to Ex M-4. The cross examination of the witness did not yield any benefit for the 1^st Party.

As his rebuttal evidence 1^st Party filed his affidavit reiterating the claim statement averments; he also produced

the Photostat copies of the Service Certificates Ex W-1 to Ex W-4 which are the reproduction of Ex M-1 to Ex M-4.

Ex W-5 is the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the W.P No. 36248-56/2000 Dated 11.06.2001 disposing of

the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representation before the Management, for the reliefs

which are sought in the Writ Petition.

Ex W-7 is his representation to the Competent Authority.

Ex W-6 is the photostat copy of the response of the General Manager dated 12.09.2001 to the representation of the

petitioner and others.

Ex W-8 are the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P Nos. 39806 to 39827/2003 dated 03.01.2006 thereby

rejecting the Writ Petitions with liberty to the petitioners therein to raise Industrial Dispute.

Ex W-9 is the Petition given to the Chief Labour Commissioner.

Ex W-10 is the objection filed by the 2^nd Party to Ex W-9.

Ex W-11 is the Photostat copy of the Staff Circular No. 9 dated 21.04.1991 whereby the Banks were informed that they

have decided to consider appointment of temporary subordinate staff who had put in a minimum of 90 days total

service between 01.11.1984 to 31.12.1989.

Ex W-12 is the staff Circular No. 58 dated 30.08.1993 whereby the Branches are informed not to make any temporary

appointment in future.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4941

Ex W-13 is the Bulletin of the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union dated 08.02.1997 publishing that on 31.10.1985

interviews for the eligible candidates was held and around 200 employees attended the interview and all the temporary

employees who attended the interview are declared selected for permanent absorption.

Ex W-14 is a Staff Circular No. 047/98-99 to the Branches advising not to consider temporary appointment to any

person exceeding 90 days in a year.

During the cross examination he fairly admitted the suggestion that he worked from 25.12.1988 19.06.1997 for

83 ½ days, from 01.07.1991 to 20.05.1992 for 90 days, from 01.05.1993 to 01.12.1993 for 87 ½ days, from February

1997 to June 1997 for 89 days. He admits that his name is not registered in the Employment Exchange. He further

stated that year of his Birth is 1954, and now he is working as a Coolie.

The 1^st Party in his written arguments has attempted to address the delay issue raised by the 2^nd Party in their

Counter Statement, he has stated that, he was consistently assured of absorption against the permanent vacancies by the

Bank Authorities if he worked to their satisfaction and attend the office to their call. He was carried away by such

assurance and worked to the best of his effort with the fond hope of getting the permanent employment. MW-1 has

vaguely denied the suggestion that 1^st Party has worked for a total period of 620 days during 1988 to 1998 at Chitradurga

Branch such vague denial amounts to implied admission under Order VIII Rule 5 of C.P.C 1908. MW-1 has admitted

that they maintain a long book for the attendance of the temporary employees but said material document is not produced

before this Tribunal.

Further, the 1^st Party has placed strong reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in ‘Civil Appeal

No. 6950/2009 Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association vs Life Insurance Corporation

of India & Others’.

The 2^nd Party in its written arguments maintained its stand that 1^st Party has not worked for 240 days or more in any

block of 12 months and the question of regularizing his service or absorbing him does not arise at all. Several Authorise

are relied by them to contend that inordinate delay to peruse the remedy cannot be condoned. Relying on the Judgment

of the Apex Court in AIR 2006 SC 1806 Secretary State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi. It is submitted that the 2^nd Party

being a Nationalised Bank has to follow the regular process of recruitment to the permanent vacancies; the contractual

appointment comes to an end on the expiry of its term.

Ex W-1 to Ex W-4 being the photostat copies of Ex M-1 to Ex M-4 (which are also photostat copies) it is not

required to look for the originals of these documents. Ex W-11 is a crucial document in view of the Staff Circular No.9

dated 21.04.1991 issued by the Head Office of the 2^nd Party, by this document the Branches were advised to obtain

applications from the eligible temporary subordinate staff who have put in minimum of 90 days total service between

01.11.1984 to 31.12.1989 for consideration of their appointment. As per Ex W-1/M-1 he has worked for 83 ½ days

between 25.12.1988 to 19.06.1990. The fact is after scoring the figure 90 it is shown as 83 ½ days but during cross

examination WW-1 himself as admitted that he worked for 83 ½ days between the above period. Even otherwise the

Staff Circular No. 9 does not bestow any merit to his case for the reasons that his name was not sponsored by the

Employment Exchange. Whether he was called upon by the then Bank Manager to submit his application is not revealed

by him. Assuming for a while that he had worked for 90 days during the above period and was eligible for consideration

under Staff Circular No. 9 of 21.04.1991 same came to an end by the fact that all the eligible 200 applicants were

interviewed and were appointed. The Staff Circular No. 9 was issued as per the terms of the agreement reached between

the Union and the Management on the advice of the Government of India. By way of its bulletin Union has acquiesced

the appointment of 200 temporary workmen for permanent post. The 1^st Party alleges that they were the persons who

had paid Rs. 5,000/- to the Union. But such allegations in the absence of the concerned union do not deserve any

credence.

10.

Having not served for 240 days in any Calendar year/block of 12 months continuously as contemplated by

Section 25-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, he does not acquire any right as against his employer to seek regularisation.

He has strongly relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Civil Appeal No. 6950/2009 (Supra). In the said

case the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal which had been disturbed by the Hon’ble High

Court was confirmed by the Apex Court. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal had passed Award relying on an

Award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal which was further clarified on an reference by the Government by a

later Award of 17.04.1986. The subject matter before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was regularization of

the workmen who at that point of time working as temporary, badli and part-time workers on daily wage basis against

the leave vacancies and other vacancies in Class-III and Class-IV post in various Branches of the LIC. The workman

had sought regularization on the basis of the two Awards (Supra) of the National Industrial Tribunal. But in the case on

hand the 1^stParty workman has not founded his claim on any of the previous Awards or the Order of the Hon’ble High

Court. Though twice he was before the Hon’ble High Court as a petitioner in neither of the cases there is any direction

in his favour to the 2^nd Party to absorb/regularize or consider him for the regular post.

4942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

When it is apparent from the undisputed documents, that he has not served continuously for 240 days as

contemplated by Section 25-B of the Industrial Dispute Act and has not acquired any right, the circumstances do not fall

within the frame work of retrenchment contemplated by definition clause of Section 2-oo of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Had if he was found to have been terminated illegally, the delay in raising the dispute would have been an issue to be

considered while moulding the relief, but that is not the circumstances in the case on hand. Having worked for the 2^nd

Party intermittently if he is not provided work that does not amount to termination. Either the orders passed by the

Hon’ble High Court or the circulars issued by the 2^nd Party would enable him to seek regularization in service. On the

top of it he has crossed the age of superannuation by now. No fault can be found with the 2^nd Party Management in not

regularizing him as a permanent employee though he worked intermittently from 1988 to 1998. He is not entitled for

any relief in this reference. Hence,

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 24^th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk- vk- 1221-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2019 izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@161@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3^rd July, 2019

S.O. 1221.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.07.2019.

[No. L-12012/161/99– IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 24^TH JUNE 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 98/1999

I Party

II Party

Sh. Rajashekara Rao Sindhya

S/o Ramachandra Rao,

No. 31, 2^nd Cross, Cholur Palya,

Magadi Road,

BANGALORE (KARNATAKA)

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India, Head Office,

K.G. Road,

BANGALORE – 560 009.

(KARNATAKA)

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. D.R Vishwanath Bhat

Advocate for II Party : Mr. N. Venkatesh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4943

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/161/99/IR(B-I) dated 05.08.1999 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 termination of Sri. Rajasekhara Rao Sindhya, Typist/ Clerk by the management of State

Bank of Mysore is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The 1^st Party workman was working as Typist/Clerk with the 2^nd Party from 02.11.1977, while working at Fort

Branch of the 2^nd Party Management at Bangalore he was issued Charge Sheet on 29.09.1987. He denied the Charges.

Domestic Enquiry was conducted by appointing Enquiry Officer; on conclusion of Enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted

his findings to the Disciplinary Authority holding him guilty of charges; acting on the enquiry report the Disciplinary

Authority dismissed him from service. His Appeal was also rejected by Appellate Authority.

In his claim statement the 1^st Party questioned the validity and fairness of the Enquiry proceedings and alleged

that the Enquiry Report is perverse and the legality of the dismissal order.

In their counter statement the 2^nd Party denied the allegations levelled against the enquiry proceedings, enquiry

findings and the dismissal order, thus justified their action.

On the rival pleadings touching the procedure of the enquiry, a Preliminary Issue was framed, tried and

adjudicated, holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the 2^nd Party is fair and proper. The 1^st Party workman there

after led evidence on his plea of discrimination and unemployment, rebuttal evidence is adduced.

The 1^st Party was issued Charge Sheet dated 29.09.1987 on 5 counts: -

Firstly, he manipulated RID/Fixed deposit registers and recorded spurious transaction to secure/pass on undue

pecuniary gain for himself and others.

Secondly, prepared several debit vouchers, debited term deposit, reinvestment deposit interest Accounts and

transferred the proceeds to his personal account, his joint account with his Wife and other accounts.

Thirdly, prepared vouchers, by manipulation debited reinvestment deposit/term deposit accounts and transferred

the proceeds to his personal account and other accounts.

Fourthly, to conceal his fraudulent acts manipulated the balances extracted in respect of term deposit receipts/

reinvestment deposit accounts, so as to make them appear as agreed.

Fifthly, on 15.07.1982 fraudulently prepared vouchers to raise an unauthorized debit of Rs. 2,556/- to the

cumulative deposit account of Late. M. Venkate Gowda and transferred the proceeds to the credit of SB A/c of Sh.

Baskar Sindhya at SBM Vijaynagar Branch.

The above acts besides being prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank or likely to cause financial loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs. 12,67,650.93.

During the enquiry the Management examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 297 documents. The 1^st Party opted

not to lead defence evidence and one document was marked on his behalf.

The first witness was the then Accountant of the Fort Branch between September 1983 to May 1985,

through him the vouchers which were in the handwriting of the 1^st Party with the details of date, SC No. / FDR

No., name of the account holder, the amount and the record were marked. He further produced SC register and

identified the relevant folios which were in the handwriting of the 1^st Party, he further identified the handwriting

of the 1^st Party in the specimen signature cards pertaining to Sh. Shrikanta Rao and account holder Sh.

Channamma.

The second witness was the Officer of the Fort Branch who was working there for past one and a half months.

He identified the vouchers which were collected from the Vijaynagar Branch in clearing to the credit of Savings Bank

Accounts of Sh. Shrikanta Rao, Annapoorna Bai and Meera Bai.

The third witness was the Manager Indian Bank, Chamarajapet, he identified that the accounts were opened at

his Branch to which proceeds of certain fixed deposit/FD interest having excess with the charges were credited.

The 1^st Party submitted that he has no defence evidence.

In his enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer considered each of the charges in the light of the documentary

evidence coupled with the oral evidence of the 1^st witness/BW-1, who was the accountant of the Branch at the relevant

point of time. Being the colleague of the 1^st Party he was able to recognise his handwriting and signature commencing

from the document No. BEX-118 to BEX-185; he recorded his finding that each of the voucher under various

4944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

transactions referred to in the enquiry proceedings are in the handwriting of the CE; the debits raised referred to in the

fore going are either to non-existing accounts or to the accounts of some other genuine depositors and are therefore

spurious; the deposit receipts are written by the CE are fictitious; he has made entries in the Bank’s Books and registers

in his handwriting; many letters seeking premature payments of the spurious deposits were also written by CE; the

proceeds of the spurious deposits have gone top of the credits of his Wife, Brother/Associates at SBM Fort Branch,

Vijayanagar Branch and Indian Bank, Chamarajpet Branch and Canara Bank, Vijayanagar Branch; he has violated

instructions contained in HOL-177; Ex-213 to Ex-215 are the ledger sheets specimen cards and account opening forms

relating to the SB A/c of the CE were produced by Manager of the said Bank (MW-3). Ex BEX-210 to Ex BEX-212 are

the specimen signature card ledger sheet extract pertaining to SB A/c of one Smt. M V Manjula at Indian Bank

Chamarajpet Bangalore produced by the Manager of the said Bank (MW-2), from the above documents the Enquiry

Officer records that proceeds of some of the Office cheques of Fort Branch representing funds of spurious

transactions/deposits were credited to this account. The defence did not dispute the hand writing or the signature of CE

in the documents. The strong ground of attack was these documents were signed by Superior Officials; they become

authorised transactions and are qualitative in nature. The Enquiry Officer brushed aside the said contention with his

observation that very purpose of the enquiry is to find out whether the transactions are spurious or not. It was also found

that the letters requesting premature payments of the spurious deposits bear the hand writing of CE and the total amount

involved in such fraudulent transaction aggregates to Rs. 6,43,039.25/- with the break up figures in respect of each

spurious transaction annexed to the finding of the Charge No. 1.

Likewise, with regard to Charge No. 2 relying on the documentary evidence BEX-43/1 and BEX-43/2 (debit

and credit vouchers of 06.09.1982), BEX-45/1 (debit and credit voucher of 11.09.1982 for Rs. 2,500), BEX-45/2 (for

Rs 6,965.56 dated 11.09.1982) and BEX-45/3, BEX-45/4 (debit and credit vouchers), Enquiry Officer found that

spurious debits are raised to the extent of Rs. 16,055.56/- and fraudulently transferred to SB A/c of Sh. Rajashekar who is

not the depositor. Likewise, the amount was credited to the SB A/c of Sh. Ramachandra Rao (Father of CE), Sh. BR

Anjaneya Setty and Smt. Rukminiamma.

Further from BEX-48/1, BEX-48/2 (debit vouchers). BEX-113, the spurious debits were raised and transferred

fraudulently to Father of CE who is not the real depositor. It was further found that in the TD register BEX-113 the

interest payments pertaining to debit vouchers raised as per BEX-49/1 and BEX-49/2 were not credited to the accounts

of the Account Holders through the Office cheques BEX-49/3, BEX-49/4 for Rs. 9,832.29/- had gone to the credit of SB

A/c holder Sh. Annapoorna Bai at SBM Vijayanagar Branch. Likewise, from the documents BEX-50/1, BEX-50/2 (debit

credit vouchers) the amount was transferred to Sh. Rajashekar who was not the depositor. The amount under the debit

and credit vouchers at BEX–51/1 and BEX-51/2 were transferred in favour of Sh. Ramachandra Rao the Father of the

CE. The proceeds of debit voucher BEX-51/1 and BEX-52/2 were directed to the SB A/c of Smt. Usha, Wife of CE at

Vijayanagar Branch; the amount raised under the debit vouchers BEX-54/1 and BEX-54/2 were directed to the account

of Smt. Annapoorna Bai through Office cheque to her account at SBM Vijayanagar Branch. Likewise, the transfer debit

and transfer credit vouchers as per BEX-55/1and BEX-55/2 were directed to the account of Sh. Ramachandra Rao. The

amount at transfer debit vouchers BEX-56/1 and transfer credit voucher BEX-56/2 were directed to the account of Smt.

Usha at SBM Vijayanagar Branch. Thus, the Enquiry Officer on the documentary evidence supported by the evidence of

MW-1, records the fraudulent transactions from the accounts to the credits of non-depositors, family members of the 1^st

Party and charge was held proved.

Further on a meticulous examination of the documents supported by the deposition of MW-1 viz-a-viz the

defence contention the records out of 55 instances dealt with in the charge no. 2 in 53 instances the act of the CE has

resulted in the financial loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs. 28,29,647.30/-. The break up figure is annexed to the

finding.

Regarding Charge No. 3 on a careful consideration of the material, the outcome was, the CE was working

in the deposit section and prepared the vouchers; he made the entries in registers to raise spurious debits and fraudulent

transfer of proceeds by means of Office cheques/mail transfer for credit of the account of himself, his wife and associates

namely Smt. Meera Bai, Smt. Annapoorna Bai, Sh. Shrikanta Rao and Sh. Basakar Rao Sindhya/his Brother at SBM

Vijayanagar Branch. Without following the procedure that is production of deposit receipts, he used transfer debit

vouchers.

The signature of the Passing Officers on the vouchers are at variance, leading to inference that the vouchers

were not passed by those whose signatures appeared in the exhibits; the proceeds of fraudulent transaction has gone to

the accounts of himself and his associates at SBM Vijayanagar Branch; he maintained an account at SBM Vijayanagar

Branch where the balance ran into lakhs. Thus, the charge was held proved and the financial loss to the Bank was

assisted Rs. 1,97,361.60/-.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4945

10.

Regarding charge No. 4, as per the deposition of MW-1 the CE in the balance book BEX-29 had given up some

of the accounts which were purported to have been opened in the registers. The details of those deposits were as BEX-30

to BEX-33. The Enquiry Officer observed in reference to the entries made by the CE that the dates referred to as the

dates of deposits viz 2^nd August, 1982 and 3^rd April, 1983 were not working days but it was on Sundays. At BEX-29 the

account particulars are recorded; the entries were made by the CE subsequent to the audit either most of the accounts do

not bear evidence of checking by the Superior Officers or initials there on are at variance. The sectional balances do not

include the deposits; the TDR/RID account mentioned at page 87 were intentionally vomited by him in the balance book.

Thus, charge no. 4 was held proved.

11.

Regarding Charge No. 5, the documentary proof were BEX-21 to BEX-26, BEX-199 to BEX-205. After a

scrupulous assessment of the evidence this charge was held proved and the financial loss to the Bank was assessed Rs.

2,556/-. Totally from all the five charges it was calculated at Rs. 11,25,921.91/-.

It is also a matter of record that the Bank sued the 1^st Party workman and others before the Civil Court for sum

of Rs. 15,08,223.14/- together with interest of 12% per annum on the principle amount and also for closure of mortgage

and sale of the suit schedule mortgage property, the suit was decreased. The F.D.P Petition filed there on is allowed

permitting the Bank to sell the immovable properties, appropriate the sale proceeds toward decrial amount etc.,

12.

It is also another part of the story that the criminal case initiated against the 1^st Party workman under section

5(1) (D read with 5(2)) of prevention of corruption act ended with his acquittal. Though the charges were proved against

him, because of want of valid sanction he was not convicted.

13.

Before this tribunal the 1^st Party contends that he is victimized, other responsible Officers are set free without

issuing any memo. They are the persons who are responsible for passing of the vouchers and payment of amount.

Because he is working in the low-grade post he is sacrificed.

But the above grievance of the 1^st Party is not founded on tangible evidence. The Enquiry Officer during the

appreciation of the evidence had noticed that the so-called signatures of the Superior Officers under which the

transactions were passed varied with the signatures found on the undisputed records thus, doubted the identity of the

author of the signatures. The misconduct proved against the 1^st Party workman is of greater ramification and financial

implication. It is not an isolated incident of occasional mistake. His complicity in the alleged misconduct through

manipulation of Bank records by way of fraudulent transactions forging the documents to make unlawful gain is evident.

14.

In fact, the documents marked in evidence are not disputed, he did not lead rebuttal evidence before the Enquiry

Officer to put forth his case. The Enquiry Officer has founded his finding on a meticulous scrutiny of each and every

document and the same is not either perverse or arbitrary.

The Disciplinary Authority had called upon the CE for his remarks to the Enquiry Report but he did not

respond. However, he appeared for the personal hearing and his submission to exonerate him of the charges was not

considered. The Disciplinary Authority by recording his satisfaction to the finding of the Enquiry Officer and in the light

of the proposition of the law, that the parallel prosecution of domestic enquiry viz-a-viz criminal proceedings is

permissible, accepted with the enquiry findings and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated

31.03.1990. The Appellate Authority in its detailed order revisited the evidentiary material on an independent

application of mind have found the charges are proved beyond doubt. On the top of it the dispute is raised after a delay

of 9 years which by itself is sufficient to presume Industrial Dispute if any between the parties has faded by efflux of

time.

15.

Having regard to the gravity of misconduct alleged and proved against the workman, I hold that this is not the

case warranting any relief under the jurisdiction under the section 11 A of the I D Act.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 24^th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

4946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1222-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/kra=z 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 cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2019

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@52@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1222.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.07.2019.

[No. L-12012/52/2010–IR (B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 24^TH June 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

C.R No. 13/2011

I Party

II Party

Sh. Keshavamurthy,

S/o T.K. Channappa,

R/o Kasavanahalli Village,

Toparamalige Post,

Chitradurga District,

Karnataka.

1. The Chariman,

State Bank of India,

Head Office, K.G. Road,

Bangalore – 01.

2. The Assistant General Manager III,

State Bank of India, Regional Office,

No. 6, 199, Mandipet,

Davangere - 577 001.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh

Advocate for II Party : Mr. N. Venkatesh

AWARD

The Central Government vide OrderNo.L-12012/52/2010-IR(B-I) dated 07.04.2011 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 State Bank of Mysore in not regularizing Sh. Keshvamurthy

as permanent employee of the Bank after taking work from him during the period from 1991 to 1998 as

casual worker, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

The case of the 1^st Party is, he joined State Bank of India, (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to its

amalgamation with State Bank of India) Regional Office, Davanagere as temporary peon and worked there from 1991 to

1998 for about 655 days in the Branch Offices of Chittradurga, Chellakere and Heriyur. He was assured by the Bank

Authorities that he would be considered against the permanent vacancies. He has worked beyond the norms of working

hours some days he was made to work even without allowing to sign the attendance register; he was informed in 1998

that his service is terminated and no temporary employees will be considered henceforth for permanent vacancy. He

approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P No. 36248-56 of 2000 along with similarly placed persons; the Writ Petitions

were disposed off with liberty to make an appropriate representation before the 2^nd Party. His application before the 2^nd

Party was turned down. Again he along with others filed Writ Petitions bearing W.P No. 39806 to 39287/2003 seeking

direction to the Competent Authority to regularise their service; the Writ Petitions were rejected on the ground that he

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4947

has the remedy to approach the appropriate Government for redressal under the Industrial Dispute Act; as directed by the

Hon’ble High Court he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli and the Conciliation proceedings was

held in the presence of 2^nd Party No. 2. The 2^nd Party No. 2 filed its objection statement; the efforts made by the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli, during the conciliation proceedings did not yield any fruitful result and the

matter is referred for this Tribunal for adjudication.

The 2^nd Party in their counter statement contended that, 1^st Party had not worked for 240 days or more in any

block of 12 months between 04.03.1991 to 10.09.1998, question of regularizing his service or absorbing him does not

arise at all. Such regularization or absorption is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950. His

allegations of exploitation, over work etc., are false. The reference is hopelessly, belated and liable to be rejected.

In order to discharge the burden entrusted on the Management to prove the referred issue, the Chief Manager of

the 2^nd Party is examined. In his affidavit averments he detailed the number of days worked by the 1^st Party at different

intervals at different branches of the 2^nd Party.

Accordingly he worked at

Branch

Period

No. of days

Chitradurga

04.03.1991 to 02.11.1991

89 days

Challakere

May 1992 to March 1993

90 days

Chitradurga

29.07.1993 to 21.12.1993

90 days

Challakere

April 1994 to April 1995

90 days

Hiriyur

July 1995 to November 1996

118 days

Chitradurga

April 1997 to July 1997

89 days

Chitradurga

05.05.1998 to 10.09.1998

89 days

The certificates issued by the respective branch are marked as Ex M-1 to Ex M-7. The cross examination of the witness

did not yield any benefit for the 1^st Party.

As his rebuttal evidence 1^st Party filed his affidavit reiterating the claim statement averments; during the cross

examination he fairly admitted the suggestion that he worked in the 2^nd Party as detailed in the affidavit evidence of MW-

1. He also categorically admitted that as a temporary employee his service used to be availed whenever the permanent

employee went on leave. He had not given any representation to regularize his service; further he admitted

the following documents confronted to him by the 2^nd Party.

Ex M-8 is the Photostat copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P No. 36248-56/2000, on a

petition filed by the 1^st Party workman with similarly placed persons seeking for a direction to the 2^nd Party to continue

their services and to regularize their service in the respective post in which they are working. The Hon’ble High Court

disposed off the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioners therein to make appropriate representation before the

Management inter alia requesting the reliefs sought in these petitions.

Ex M-9 is the Photostat copy of the order passed by the 2^nd Party thereby rejecting the prayer of the 1^st Party and

8 others for continuation of their service in the Bank/ regularization of their employment, since they had not completed

240 days of service in a block period of 12 months.

Ex M-10 is the Photostat copy of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P No. 39806/2003 dated

03.01.2006, on the petition filed praying for a direction to the management to regularise the service of the 1^st Party herein

and others. The petition was struck down at the stage of admission itself on the ground that they have alternative and

efficacious remedy; they can raise an Industrial Dispute before the appropriate Government to seek reference to the

Competent Court for adjudication.

Ex M-11 is the Photostat copy of the representation given by the 1^st Party to the Chief Labour Commissioner

(C), dated 26.06.2009 whereby he sought for absorption as permanent employee on humanitarian ground, in the said

petition also he detailed his services with the 2^nd Party as below

Period from and to

SBM Branch

No. of Days

04.03.1991 to 02.11.1991

Chitradurga

89 days

May 1992 to March 1993

Chellakere

90 days

29.07.1993 to 21.12.1993

Chitradurga

90 days

April 1994 to April 1995

Chellakere

90 days

4948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

July 1995 to August 1996

Heriyur

28 days

August 1995 to November 1996

Heriyur

90 days

April 1997 to July 1997

Chitradurga

89 days

05 May 1998 to 10 September 1998

Chitradurga

89 days

Ex M-12 is the Photostat copy of the objection statement filed by the 2^nd Party to Ex M-11 thereby it was

informed that 1^st Party has not completed Statutory Period of working to be considered, it was detailed in the objection

statement that he worked for 167 days between 04.03.1991 to 10.09.1998 at Chitradurga Branch and 155 days at

Challakere Branch between May 1992 to May 1995 (the number of days pertaining to Chitradurga appears to have been

tampered to make the figure 167, appear like 267 days).

Ex M-13 is the bulletin circulated by the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union, by the said bulletin the

members are informed that the Management agreed to the request of the Union to absorb the temporary employees who

are working continuously in the vacant position; interview was conducted to those of the employees who are otherwise

eligible for permanent absorption as on 31.10.1995; around 200 employees attended the interview, and were selected.

The 1^st Party in his written arguments contends that the 2^nd Party Head Office issued a staff circular No. 9 dated

21.04.1991 instructing all the Offices of the Bank communicating the advices received from the Government of India,

regarding the terms of agreement reached with the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union in connection with the

appointment of temporary employees as permanent sub-staff, who have put in a minimum of 90 days total service

between 01.11.1984 to 31.12.1989. The 200 temporary employees absorbed as permanent sub-staff as listed in the Union

bulletin (Ex M-13) had paid Rs. 5,000/- each to the union and were recommended by the union and considered by the 2^nd

Party; the above appointments were vitiated. The 2^nd Party during his cross examination has admitted that a Bank

maintains a long book for the signature of the temporary employees who attend the office but has failed to produce the

material document in their possession. MW-1 has vaguely denied that 1^st Party has worked for a total period of 655 days

during 1991 to 1998 at Chitradurga, Chalakeri and Hiriyur Branch; there exists legal and subsistence claim in the claim

petition.

Further, the 1^st Party has placed strong reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in ‘Civil Appeal

No. 6950/2009 Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association vs Life Insurance Corporation

of India & Others’.

The 2^nd Party in its written arguments maintained its stand that 1^st Party has not worked for 240 days or more in

any block of 12 months and the question of regularizing his service or absorbing him does not arise at all.

The disputed fact if any pertaining to the number of days of work served by the 1^st Party workman with the

2^nd Party stands cleared by his own admission during his cross examination. He has admitted the Service Certificates

issued by various Branches in which he has served. That apart he has also admitted to the direct question that between

04.03.1991 to 02.11.1991 he has worked for 89 days at Chitradurga Branch between May 1992 to March 1993 for 90

days at Chellakere Branch, from 29.07.1993 to 21.12.1993 for 90 days at Chitradurga Branch; from April 1994 to

December 1994 for 56 days and from January 1995 to April 1995 for 34 days at Chellakere Branch, between July 1995 to

November 1996 for 118 days at Hiriyur Branch, between April 1997 to July 1997 for 89 days at Chitradurga Branch and

again from 05.05.1998 to 10.09.1998 for a period of 89 days at the same Branch. That being so the 2^nd Party cannot be

expected to prove the admitted fact regarding the number of days of his work by producing its attendance Register. The

Elementary Principle of the Evidence Act under sec 58 is, the admitted fact need not be proved.

Having not served for 240 days in any Calendar year/block of 12 months continuously as contemplated by

Section 25-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, he does not acquire any right as against his employer to seek regularisation;

he has strongly relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Civil Appeal No. 6950/2009 (Supra). In the said

case the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal which had been disturbed by the Hon’ble High

Court was confirmed by the Apex Court. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal had passed Award relying on an

Award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal which was further clarified on an reference by the Government by a

later Award of 17.04.1986. The subject matter before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was regularization of

the workmen who are working as temporary, badli and part-time workers on daily wage basis against the leave vacancies

and other vacancies in Class-III and Class-IV post in various Branches of the LIC. The workman had sought

regularization on the basis of two Awards (Supra) of the National Industrial Tribunal. But in the case on hand the 1^st

Party workman has not founded his claim on any of the previous Awards or the Order of the Hon’ble High Court.

Though twice he was before the Hon’ble High Court as a petitioner in neither of the case there is any direction in his

favour to the 2^nd Party to absorb/regularize or consider him for the regular post.

In his written arguments 1^st Party has referred to a Circular No. 9 dated 21.04.1991 issued by the Head Office of

the 2^nd Party instructing all the Offices of the Bank as per the agreement reached with the State Bank of Mysore

Employees Union in connection with the appointment of temporary employees as permanent sub-staff, who had put in a

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4949

minimum of 90 days total service between 01.11.1984 to 31.12.1989. Unfortunately, he had not served the 2^nd Party

between 01.11.1984 to 31.12.1989. Having not served continuously at any point of time for 240 days continuously

there is no basis in his claim for regularization.

10.

The 2^nd Party have placed reliance on number of Authorities to stress upon the inconsistency between his

pleadings and proof, delay in raising the dispute and the procedure to be complied prior to retrenchment etc., When it is

apparent from the undisputed documents, he has not served continuously as contemplated by Section 25-B of the

Industrial Dispute Act and has not acquired any right, the circumstances do not fall within the frame work of

retrenchment contemplated by definition clause of Section 2-oo of the Industrial Dispute Act. Had if he was found to

have been terminated illegally, the delay in raising the dispute would have been an issue to be considered while moulding

the relief, but that is not the circumstance in the case on hand. He has worked intermittently (as admitted by him during

cross examination) whenever the permanent employees went on leave or remained absent. Having worked for the 2^nd

Party intermittently if he is not provided work that does not amount to termination. Either the orders passed by the

Hon’ble High Court or the circulars issued by the 2^nd Party would enable him to seek regularization in service. No fault

can be found with the 2^nd Party Management in not regularizing him as a permanent employee though he worked

intermittently from 1991 to 1998. He is not entitled for any relief in this reference. Hence,

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 24^th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1223-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

baVjus'kuy LVwMsaV~l gkml] fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;] fnYyh vkSj vU; muds deZpkjh izca/krar= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2019 izkIr gq, FksA

[la- ,y&42012@155@2014&vkbZvkj&¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July 2019

S.O.1223.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour

Court-1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

International Students Hosue, University of Delhi, Delhi, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 20.06.2019.

[No . L- 42012/155/2014-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 02/2015

Shri Tek Bahadur,

S/o.Shri Sarp Bahadur

R/o. H.No. 67, Prachin Mandir,

Outarm Lane, Kingsway Camp,

Delhi.

…Workman

Versus

M/s. International Students House,

University of Delhi,

Mall Road,

Delhi 110007.

…Management

4950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide

letter No.L-42012/155/2014/IR(DU) dated 15.12.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of

which are as under:-

‘Whether the action of the management of International Students House, University of Delhi in terminating the

services of the workman Shri Tek Bahadur, Chowkidar w.e.f. 31/5/1997 (sic.1/3/2012) is legal and fair ? If not,

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Tek Bahadur filed his statement of claim with the averments

that he had joined for the post of Chowkidar under the Management on 2/5/1994 and his last wages were Rs.6656/-per

month. The claimant gave no chance of complaint to the Management and worked with honesty. It is pleaded that on

31/5/1997 the Management had illegally terminated his services and for that he had raised an industrial dispute bearing

ID No.771/99 which was decided in his favour by Shri T.R. Nawal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Delhi vide Award

dated 21.10.2002. The Management approached Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.(Civil) No.5235/2003 which resulted into

dismissal and Award of Labour Court was upheld. Thereafter, the claimant was reinstated into service on 2.6.2005 but

the Management started harassing the workman and finally the Management illegally terminated the workman from

service on 1/3/2012 without any prior notice or notice pay or compensation, when he had gone for duty on 1.3.2012. The

claimant made a complaint dated 5.3.2012 to the Asstt.Labour Commissioner but to no avail. Demand notice dated

11/4/2012 was sent to the Management through speed post. It is alleged that termination of services of the workman is in

gross violation of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act. The workman is totally unemployed since the date of his

termination. Demand notice dated 11.4.2012 was sent to the Management but to no avail. He has prayed for his

reinstatement into service with full back wages & all consequential benefits.

The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections inter alia that the claimant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It has been

stated that the workman had been issued memos many times viz. memos dated 27.8.2007, 30.8.2007, 11.10.2007,

11.10.2007, 18.10.2007, 19.6.2009, 17.6.2009, 1.7.2009, 1.10.2010, 12.7.2011, 22.12.2011, 28.2.2012, 15.3.2012 and

30/3/2012 and he refused to receive the same. While denying the allegations that services of the claimant were illegally

terminated or that he was not taken on job on 1/3/2012, it has been stated that workman was issued with number of

memos which were sent to him at his home address also but the same were also not received by the workman

deliberately. Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.

The claimant/workman filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the claim petition and denied the

allegations of the Management.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 3/1/2017 :-

(i)

Whether the claim filed by the claimant is not legally maintainable in view of preliminary objections ?

(ii)

In terms of reference ?

(iii)

Relief.

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.WW1/28. On the other hand, the Management examined three witnesses namely MW1

Shri Shiv Kumar, Consultant Section Officer, MW2 Shri Mahesh Chander Arora – Mess Steward and Shri Narender

Singh – Security Guard, who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW1/A to Ex.MW3/A and relied on the documents

Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/25.

I have heard Shri Vinod Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Shiv Ram Singh, A/R for the Management. I

have also gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 to 3 :-

These issues being co-related are taken up together and the same can be disposed of by common discussion.

From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it stands proved that there existed

relationship of employer-employee between the Management and the claimant inasmuch as the claimant had been

working as Chowkidar under the Management since 1994. Earlier also, services of the claimant were terminated on

31/5/1997 by the Management , to which he raised an industrial dispute bearing ID No.771/99 which was decided in his

favour by Shri T.R. Nawal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi vide Award dated 21.10.2002 (Ex.WW1/1 colly.).

W.P.(Civil) No.5235/2003 so filed by the Management was dismissed vide order dated 7.12.2004 (Ex.WW1/2).

Thereafter, the claimant was reinstated into service on 2/6/2005. He continued to work under the Management till his

services were allegedly terminated w.e.f. 1.3.2012. As such, the claimant the claimant falls within the definition of

“workman” as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claim

petition is maintainable. However, it would not be out of place to mention here that in the reference order in question,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4951

date of termination of the workman has been inadvertently shown as 31/5/1997 instead of 1.3.2012, which fact is

apparent because earlier also the services of the claimant were admittedly terminated by the Management on 31/5/1997.

Now the question arises for consideration is whether services of the claimant were terminated by the

Management in proper & legal manner and adhering to the provisions of the Act, or not.

10.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R appearing for the Management strenuously argued that work &

conduct of the workman was not satisfactory and that is why memos Ex.WW1/16, Ex.WW1/8, WW1/20 and

Ex.WW1/24 were issued to him, to which the workman had submitted his replies Ex.WW1/17, Ex.WW1/19,

Ex.WW1/21 and Ex.WW1/23, taking sham excuses. He further stated that instead of filing any reply to the memo (dated

28/2/2012) Ex.WW1/24, the workman/claimant approached the Labour Commissioner & stopped coming for duty and

filed reply only on 29/3/2012. He also referred to the memos Ex.MW1/1, MW1/3 to Ex.MW1/5, Ex.MW1/7,

Ex.MW1/12, Ex.MW1/3, Ex.MW1/15, MW1/16 and Ex.MW1/18 to stress that the workman was never serious towards

his assigned duties, inasmuch as he was found sleeping in the University premises during duty and on one occasion, he

absented from duty for long duration. He further submitted that since the workman/claimant had refused to receive

memo dated 30/3/2012 (Ex.MW1/19-A and 19-B), the management could not initiate any proceedings against the

workman.

11.

On the contrary, learned A/R appearing for the workman submitted that services of the claimant/workman were

illegally terminated by the Management inasmuch as no notice or notice pay or compensation amount was paid to the

workman/claimant prior to terminating his services w.e.f. 1/3/2012 and same is in violation of the provisions of Section

25-F of the Act.

12.

Perusal of the record shows that the claimant had been working as Chowkidar under the Management since

1994 and in the year 1997 his services were terminated. However, pursuant to the Award passed by Labour Court,

claimant/workman was reinstated into service on 2/6/2005. The claimant has filed on record extract/copy of Attendance

that claimant had continuously worked with the Management/ University of Delhi from June, 2005 till February, 2012.

13.

The Management has examined MW2 Mahesh Chander Arora – Ex. Caretaker and MW3 Narender Singh –

Security Guard to corroborate its plea that the claimant/workman was not diligent in duty and was issued memos for

dereliction of the duties assigned to him. Even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments as contended by learned A/R

for the Management that the work & conduct of the claimant/workman was not satisfactory and number of memos were

issued to him, to which he filed replies with sham/lame excuses, in that eventuality also the Management was under

moral and legal obligation to issue charge sheet to the claimant/workman and hold domestic enquiry against him under

the principle of natural justice, prior to his termination. MW1 Shri Shiv Kumar has admitted in his cross examination

that no charge sheet was issued to the claimant and even no domestic enquiry was conducted against him. 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.

14.

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

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.

4952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15.

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.

16.

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. 1/3/2012 is held to be illegal and void.

17.

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.

18.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R appearing for the Management relied on the judgements in the

case of Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Sheety, (2010) 9 SCC 126; Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 1306 and Vice Chancellor Lucknow University Vs. Akhilesh

Kumar Khare and another, Civil appeal No.5731 of 2011 –decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8/9/2015, to

stress that instead of reinstatement with back wages, monetary compensation may be awarded as the claimant was a daily

wager.

21.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of

the Act although may be set aside but an Award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The

award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wagers be not found to be proper and instead compensation be

awarded.

22.

It has come on record that the claimant worked under the Management from May, 1994 till his termination

w.e.f.1/3/2012. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the Management.

Moreover, the job of the workman as Chowkidar is considered to be of perennial and regular nature. Though claimant

has pleaded and testified that he is totally unemployed since his termination. No evidence has been adduced by the

Management to show that the claimant/workman is gainfully employed. 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 :

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 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.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4953

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.”

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 29^th 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 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.

Award is passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

Date :4.6.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

4954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1224-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

vk;qDr] ,oa fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; muds deZpkjh ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 162@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA

[la- ,y&42012@43@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1224.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 162/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi and others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 20.06.2019.

[No . L-42012/43/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

ID No. 162/12

Smt. Bimla Devi,

S/o. Late Shri Arjun Singh,

Through

Municipal Employees Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054.

…Workman

Versus

The Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi

Now at Dr.SP Mukherjee Civil Centre,

JL Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002.

…Management

Through its Commissioner

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-42012/43/2012/IR(DU) dated 09.11.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

‘Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in not regularizing the services of

the deceased workman Shri Arjun singh s/o. Shri Panna Lal from the date of initial appointment w.e.f.

28/6/1976 s daily wager mate till 31.8.1994 (as Shri Arjun expired on 1/9/1994) and accordingly payment of

salary, as that of daily wager and of a regular employee to Smt. Bimla Devi w/ late Arjun Singh for the period

from 28.6.1976 (as date of appointment of deceased workman Shri Arjun Singh is 1.9.1994 sic 28/6/1976) to

31.8.1994 (date of death of Arjun singh) is justified or not ? If not, what relief the deceased workman’s wife

Smt. Bimla Devi is entitled to and from which date ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Smt. Bimla Devi filed her statement of claim with the

averments that her husband Arjun Singh s/o. Shri Panna Lal joined the employment of the aforesaid Management as

daily wager mate w.ef. 28.6.86 and he was initially posted in CSE Department, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi. He was illegally

placed under suspension we.f. 16.11.1979 which order was subsequently revoked vide order dated 5/8/80. The workman

immediately reported for duty and submitted his joining report to ZE (Dr.) Civil Lines Zone but he declined to assign any

duty to Shri Arjun Singh who was directed to report to Head Clerk, CSE Department and from there he was again

directed to report to DDA authorities on the plea that the department has already been transferred to DDA but none

allowed him to join duties. Consequently, the workman sent a legal demand notice dated 19/12/1980 to the Management

but to no avail. Thereafter he filed an LCA bearing No.636/83 for claiming wages for the period from 16/11/1979 which

was allowed vide order dated 7-11-1986 passed by Shri R.C.Yaduvanshi, the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.V.

Even thereafter the Management did not pay him due amount and as such he got recovery certificate dated 15/7/1987

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4955

issued for Rs25981/- and the said amount was duly recovered. Thereafter the workman filed another LCA bearing

No.521/87 for claiming his due wages for the subsequent period from 8/11/1986 onwards and during pendency of the

said LCA, Shri Arjun Singh expired on 1/9/94 and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi –claimant herein was impleaded as his

legal heir and vide order dated 28/8/1995 she was held entitled to get wags of her husband for the period from 8/11/1988

to 31/8/1994. The said order dated 28/8/1995 ws challenged before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.(C) No.1646/96

which was dismissed vide order dated 23/2/2000. However, due amount of Rs.107413-75 paise was recovered only after

issuance of recovery certificate against the Management. Thereafter Smt Bimla Devi raised an industrial dispute bearing

ID No.95/2002 for her appointment on compassionate grounds which was decided in her favour by Shri Lal Singh,

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.II, Delhi vide Award dated 18/7/2003 and with great difficulty, the

Management issued order of appointment dated 3/1/2007 in her favour and she joined on the same date on 3/1/2007. It

is pleaded that the deceased workman Shri Arjun Singh was in continuous service of the Management for about 18 years

from 28/6/76 till his death but his services were not regularized by the Management and as such he is entitled to

difference of salary of a daily wager and of a regular employee from 28/6/76 till 31/8/1994, as he died on 1/9/94, on the

principle of “equal pay for equal work” and because the job against which he was working was of a permanent and

regular nature. Action of the Management in treating the workman as a muster roll worker amounted to unfair labour

practice as provided in Section 2(ra) read with item No.10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. It is also pleaded that even

otherwise the Management has regularized all its employees who were engaged during the year 1976 w.f. 1/4/1981 and

as such the workman Arjun Singh is also entitled to get difference of salary at least from 1/4/198 till the date of his death.

Hence the prayer.

Despite number of opportunities granted to the Management, it did not file any written statement and

consequently, defence of the Management herein was struck off vide order dated 6/9/2013.

In order to prove her case, the claimant Smt. Bimla Devi examined herself as WW1 and filed her evidence by

way of affidavit ExWW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/ to Ex.WW1/19. She was cross examined at length

but nothing material came out to shake her testimony. She also got examined WW2 Shri Surender Bhardwaj, General

Secretary of the Municipal Employees Union who also filed his affidavit ExWW2/A and proved espousal resolution as

Ex.WW1/17.

I have heard Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, learned A/R for the claimant as none appeared on behalf of the Management

to advance arguments. I have also gone through the records carefully

It is evident from the pleadings and unrebutted testimony of WW1 as well as documents filed on record that

claimant’s husband Shri Arjun Singh s/o. Shri Panna Lal was engaged by the Management as daily wager mate w.e. f.

28.6.86. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 16/11/79 (Ex.WW1/3) which was subsequently revoked vide

order dated 5/8/80 (Ex.WW1/4). He had reported for duty but was declined to do so and thereafter, the workman sent a

legal demand notice dated 19/12/1980 (Ex.WW1/5) to the Management but to no avail. Thereafter he filed an LCA

bearing No.636/83 for claiming wages for the period from 16/11/1979 which was allowed vide order dated 7-11-1986

(Ex.WW1/7) passed by Shri R.C.Yaduvanshi, the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.V. Even thereafter the

Management did not pay him due amount and as such he got recovery certificate dated 15/7/1987 (Ex.WW1/8) issued for

Rs.25,981/- and the said amount was duly recovered. Thereafter the workman filed another LCA bearing No.52/87 for

claiming his due wages for the subsequent period from 8/11/1986 onwards and during pendency of the said LCA, Shri

Arjun Singh expired on 1/9/94 and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi –claimant herein was impleaded as his legal heir and vide

order dated 28/8/1995 (Ex.WW1/9) she was held entitled to get wags of her husband for the period from 8/11/1988 to

31/8/1994. The said order dated 28/8/1995 was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.(C) No.1646/96

which was dismissed vide order dated 23/2/2000. However, due amount of Rs.107413-75 paise was recovered only after

issuance of recovery certificate (Ex.WW1/10) against the Management. Thereafter Smt. Bimla Devi raised an industrial

dispute bearing ID No.95/2002 for her appointment on compassionate grounds, which was decided in her favour by Shri

Lal Singh, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.II, Delhi vide Award dated 18/7/2003 (Ex.WW1/12). It emerges

from the record that Shri Arjun Singh – husband of the claimant herein worked with the Management from 28/6/1976 till

31/8/1994, as he expired on 1/9/1994. Factum of his death stands proved from the death certificate Ex.WW1/11 filed on

record. Thus, it stands proved on record that Shri Arjun Singh had continuously worked as daily wager mate under the

Management for about 18 years.

Now the short question arises for consideration is whether the Management was under moral and legal

obligation to regularize the services of the workman Arjun Singh, or not.

It is fairly settled that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or

temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed/regularized in service. Even such

workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working

against a sanctioned post. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food

Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

4956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person,

only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry

into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be

given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

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

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional provision.”

Our own High Court in the case of Project Director, Department of Rural Development Versus its

Workmen through D.P.V.V.I.E. Union (W.P. –Civil No. 17555/2005 – decided on 29/3/2019) after referring to

number of judgments including the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

other Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and of Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Lamba and others Vs. GNCTD WP

(Civil) No.958/2018, has observed in para 27 as under :-

“In my view, the rigors applicable for grant of regularization in cases of public employment cannot be read in

such a manner so as to take away the wide powers of an Industrial Tribunal under the ID Act. It needs no

reiteration that the basic tenets of service law are very different from those of labour law and therefore, the

safeguards put in place to protect the interests of workmen cannot be conflated with the service rules and

regulations applicable to government employees in the public sector. Both of them stand on different footing

and cn neither be tested on the same touchstone nor enforced on the same manner. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that neither the decision in Uma Devi (supra) and Anil Lamba (supra) has any application to the facts of

th present case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) shows that with respect to the

regularization of temporary employees, the Supreme Court itself had specifically cared out an exception for

those contractual employees who, though appointed regularly, had completed at least 10 years of service. In the

facts of the present case, the respondents/workmen have as on dat completed more than twenty-two years of

service, and therefore, even as per the decision in Uma Devi (supra), they would be entitled to the regularization

of their services.”

It seems that the Management engaged the workman Arjun Singh as daily wager mate for 18 years, just to

deprive him the status of regular employee and to deprive him full benefits and pay which was being paid to a

regular worker. Item No.10 of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 2(ra) clearly provides that action of the

Management in employing workman as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years,

with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen amounts to unfair labour

practice.

10.

It is a matter of record that the claimant had moved an application under Section 11-3(B) of the Act read with

Rule 15 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for directing the Management to produce documents viz- (i)

Office order/phase manner policy of the Management by virtue of the service of the mate (daily wager) employed on or

after 28/6/1976 in DEMS department, MCD for regularization of such employees and (ii) seniority list of the mate (daily

wager) employed on or after 28/6/1976 in DEMS department, MCD which were regularized as per the phase manner

policy of the Management. Though the said application was allowed vide order dated 8/1/2016 and Management was

directed to produce the aforesaid documents, however the Management failed to produce the same. Non-production of

the documents which were in the power and possession of the Management leads this Tribunal to draw adverse inference

against it. Further, the version of the claimant that the Management has regularized all its employees w.e.f. 1/4/1981,

who were engaged during the year 1976, has gone unassailed and unrebutted inasmuch as the Management has not

adduced any evidence contrary thereto.

11.

Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, this

Tribunal is of the firm view that action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in not regularizing the

services of the deceased workman Shri Arjun singh s/o. Shri Panna Lal who worked w.e.f. 28/6/1976 as daily wager

mate for 18 years, till 31.8.1994 (as Shri Arjun expired on 1/9/1994), was unjust and inappropriate, more so when the

Management has regularized its employees who were engaged in the year 1976, w.e.f. 1/4/1981. Accordingly, it is held

that the deceased workman Arjun Singh was entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 1/4/1981- the date when the similarly

situated workmen were regularized and accordingly, the claimant being the widow/legal heir of the deceased workman

Shri Arjun Singh son of Shri Panna Lal is entitled to get all consequential monetary benefits from the Management

w.e.f.1/4/1981 till 31/8/1994. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 4.6.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4957

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1225-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

MCY;w , ih lh vks ,l fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; muds deZpkjh izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 371@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2019&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July 2019

S.O. 1225.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 371/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

WAPCOS Ltd., New Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on

20.05.2019.

[No . L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K.THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, CITY COURT COMPLEX, ROUSE AVENUE,

NEW DELHI

D.I.D. No. 371/2018

Shri Vijay Kumar Dhanda,

S/o Shri Vijender Singh Dhanda,

R/o SMQ – 105/2013

Air Force Station, Palam,

New Delhi – 110 010

Claimant

Versus

M/s. WAPCOS Ltd.

(A Government of India Undertaking),

Floor Kailash,

26 K.G. Marg,

New Delhi

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised by Shri Vijay Kumar Dhanda (in short the workman) under the provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired

from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act

empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His

contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a

right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his

service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act.

Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-

section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.

Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant averring that he was appointed on the post of Contract

Engineer by the management was subsequently regularized on the post of Engineer Trainee (Civil). During the period of

his service, the claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management and gave no chance of complaint.

Thereafter, the claimant was transferred to Tanzania. In January 2017, the CMD of the management visited Tanzania

alongwith his PS, Ms.Manisha Dhanker. Ms.Dhanker came as a tourist falsely informing that she is travelling alongwith

her family members, whereas she was alone. After getting leave duly of two days, i.e. 12^thand 13^th April 2017 approved

from the competent authority, helped her as a guest. The Country Manager, Tanzania alleged that the claimant used the

official site car for local transport during her stay at Dares Salaam, made reservation at the Mafia Island Hotel and flights

etc. After conducting a fact finding enquiry recommended for strict disciplinary action against the claimant. However,

the management instead of taking disciplinary action, chose to dismiss the claimant, which is totally illegal and

unjustified. No notice pay or service compensation was paid, this violating section 25-F of the Act. Finally it has been

prayed that the claimant may be reinstated in service with full back wages.

4958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of written statement by the management. In the meanwhile, it was

stated by Shri Ajit Singh, A/R for the claimant that a reference has been made by the appropriate Government to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.2 where the terms of the reference is the same as the relief

claimed herein. Hence, the learned A/R for the claimant wanted to withdraw the instant case. Statement of Shri Ajit

Singh, learned A/R for the claimant, recorded to this effect separately.

In view of the circumstances enumerated above, the present case is dismissed for want of prosecution. An

award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : 14.05.2019

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1226-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

vk;qDr ¼iwoZ½ iwohZ fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krar= 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 116@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA

[la- ,y&42011@149@2017&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1226.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commissioner (East) East Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received

by the Central Government on 20.05.2019.

[No . L- 42011/149/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 116/2018

Shri Anand Pal S/o Shri Girvar Singh,

Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,

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

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi – 110 011

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner (East)

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,

Near Patparganj Industrial Area,

Shahdara,

Delhi 110 032

…Management

Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received

from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/149/2017-IR(DU) dated

15.02.2018 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the following terms:

‘Whether Shri Anand Pal S/o Shri Girwar Singh is entitled to the wages of acting Chaudhary with effect from

01.04.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 attached to the same post with all consequential benefits? If so,

what directions are necessary in this respect?’

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman, Shri Anand Pal filed his statement of claim averring

therein that he was appointed as Mali and has been performing duty of acting Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1999

under Civil Lines Zone. He was thereafter transferred to Shahdara North Zone. It is further averred that the workman has

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4959

been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1999 by the competent officers of Horticulture Department and

was initially posted under Deputy Director of Horticulture, Civil Lines Zone but he has been denied the pay scale of

Chaudhary revised from time to time. No qualification is prescribed for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary.

Management has fixed different pay scales to their employees including mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance to their job

and non grant of proper pay scale of Chaudhary to the workman is forced labour and management is indulging in unfair

labour practice. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2550-3200 revised from

time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary, i.e. Rs.3050-4590 for his performing the duty of Chaudhary

with effect from 01.01.2004. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair

labour practice.

It is also averred in para 8 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand

vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who are

working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon’ble

Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-

VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005. There is also reference to the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the

matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of

wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was turned down by the Hon’ble High Court in

judgement dated 27.07.2011.

It is also averred that similarly situated workmen (Mali and Chowkidar) who were performing duty of

Chaudhary were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post.

Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of MCD vs. Sultan Singh & others decided all the doubts and

allegations made by the management in their detailed judgement holding grant of higher wages of Chaudhary to those

malis/chowkidars who have been performing the responsibility of the higher post from the date when they were directed

to work as Chaudhary treating them as ad-hoc Chaudhary. Finally it has been prayed that the workman be allowed

payment of acting Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.3053-4590.

Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, of the case not

being an industrial dispute as no demand notice has been served upon the management, non-filing of document to

substantiate their claim, delay and laches etc. The workman has never worked on the post of Chaudhary. The workman

was regularized on the post of mali on 01.04.1990 hence he cannot claim benefits of the post of Chaudhary. The

workman has also not passed the Trade Test. Recruitment to the post of Chaudhary is totally different from that of the

mali and only persons having qualification of 10^th pass with Agriculture coupled with clearing of trade test can be

considered for the post of Chaudhary as mentioned in Annexure B. Management has denied the other material averments

made in the statement of claim. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein is liable to be dismissed,

being devoid of merits.

From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 04.10.2018, following issues were framed:

(i)

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

(ii)

In terms of reference

Claimant has examined himself as WW1 and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3 to substantiate his

claim. Shri Pratap Singh, Assistant Director (Horticulture) was examined on behalf of the management, who relied on

document Ex.MW1/1. No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Chiranjiv Kumar, A/R for the management. My

finding on the issues concerned in the controversy are as under:

Findings on issue No. (i)

It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the

management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General

Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the

management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In

this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa

Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the

union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by

observing as under:

‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be

sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be

parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of

the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of

workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer

does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that

the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in

4960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does

not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.

10.

Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for

adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal

or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the

pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that there

is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate delay in

approaching this Tribunal by the workman.

11.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager (2014) Lab.I.C.

4266 - (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the appropriate

Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of the pleadings

on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’ (supra) and

State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there is no inordinate

delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour

of the workman and against the management.

Findings on issue No.(ii)

12.

Now, the only issue which requires determination in the case on hand is whether the workman herein is entitled

for grant of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear from

statement of claim that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali and later on he was regularized on the same

post of mali alongwith usual allowances.

13.

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

It is clear from perusal of document (List of Chaudharys working in Civil Lines Zone) Ex.WW1/1 that name of the

workman, finds mention at serial No.19 and is shown to be working as Chaudhary since April 1999. Workman, in order

to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement

of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he was doing work of Chaudhary/officiating

Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1999.

14.

To my mind, as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting

Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon’ble

High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal (WP 5550 of 2010), workman herein is

also entitled for the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary. Operating portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the

Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:

“28.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as

they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they

worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent

to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post

of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not

claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the

post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications are

entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make

out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no

illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”

15.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi before the Hon’ble Apex Court

vide IA No.2 WP for special leave S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly

deprecated the stand taken by the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not

qualified the test etc. It was clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary,

as such, workmen were entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything

else except the fact that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary.

16.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to

implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are required

to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. The Hon’ble High

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4961

Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting Chaudhary is

entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher post, on adhoc or

temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or regulations specifically

provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598),

yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of benefits to similarly situated

employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar

Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal

and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained

finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments,

cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically

situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination

and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service

matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that

all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely

because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as

acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the

same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the

Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as

fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was

judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the

Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit

thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision

touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of

India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said

judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or

it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of

the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and

delays or acquiescence.”

17.

In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that Shri Anand Pal, the workman herein, is entitled to

the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from April 1999 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the

difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties

and functions of Garden Chaudhary, i.e. 01.04/1999, till date. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to

the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : May 14, 2019

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1227-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

egkfuns'kd] vkWy bafM;k jsfM;ks] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krar= 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA

[la- ,y&42012@36@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1227.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director General, All India Radio, New Delhi and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 20.06.2019.

[No. L- 42012/36/2001-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

4962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, ROOM No.207 : ROUSE AVENUE COURTS

COMPLEX: NEW DELHI

ID No. 2/2004

Shri Ramesh S/o. Shri Ram Kishan,

C/o. Delhi Labour Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054.

…Workman

Versus

M/s. All India Radio through

Its Director General,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present case are that the workman Shri Ramesh having been joined

the services of the Management as Labourer w.e.f.20/4/1999 was being treated as Muster roll employee and was paid

as per minimum wages. However, his service were terminated w.e.f. 3/5/1999. He approached the Conciliation Officer

but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. The appropriate Govt. vide order bearing No.L-42012/36/2001-

IR(DU) dated 12/12/2003 had referred the dispute to this Tribunal in respect of two persons namely Ramesh and Shyam

Lal. Notice of the reference was issued to the parties and the claimant/workman filed statement of claim, stating that

termination of his service was wholly illegal, unjust and malafide inasmuch as the management indulged in unfair labour

practice and they have employed fresh hands namely Vidhan etc. after terminating his services and even workmen junior

to him namely Umesh, Deen Bandhu, Montu, Barsati Lal and Keshav have been retained. As such the termination is in

violation of section 25-G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short “the Act) read with Rules, 76 & 77 of ID

(Central) Rules, 1957. Prayer was made for reinstatement into service with full back wages.

Initially the Management did not file any written statement and the matter was proceeded ex parte vide order

dated 14/12/2004. During the proceedings, the claimant Shyam Lal had abandoned his claim. After the claimant

examined himself, my learned Predecessor passed ex parte Award dated 24/2/2006 in favour of the claimant Ramesh and

against the Management, holding that since services were illegally terminated, he was entitled to reinstatement with full

back wages. The said Award was assailed by the Management vide W.P.(Civil) No.15493/2006 and Hon’ble High Court

vide order dated 3/3/2014 set aside the Award and remanded the matter back to this Tribunal for a fresh adjudication by

giving the Management an opportunity to file a reply to the claim petition and parties to lead their respective evidence.

The Management filed written statement stating that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the

Management and claimant as the claimant was not employed in any capacity and even as per the case of the claimant

himself, he served only for 12 days and since he had not worked for 240 days, he was not entitled to any relief. It is

alleged that the claimant has made attempt to cheat the Management by fabricating and forging documents. Prayer has

been made for dismissal of claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23/4/2014 :-

(i)

Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?

(ii)

As in terms of reference ?

To prove his case, the claimant Ramesh examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and

relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Naresh Kumar,

UDC who also tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A & relied on document Ex.MW1/1.

I have heard Shri Ankit Mutreja, A/.R for the claimant and Shri Saurabh Rastogi, A./R for the Management and

have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4963

Issue No.1 and 2 :

Both these issues are taken up together as they can be disposed of conveniently by common discussion.

The affidavit Ex.,WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. It is

manifest from the averments made in the claim petition as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant claims to have

worked on muster roll basis only for 12 days w.e.f. 20/4/99 till 3/5/1999 when his services were illegally terminated by

the Management. The claimant has simply filed on record four documents viz. copy of the ex-parte Award dated

24/2/2006 as Ex.WW1/1; copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court dated 3/3/2014 (Ex.WW1/2) whereby the Award

Ex.WW1/1 was set aside and matter was remanded to this Tribunal for fresh adjudication; copy of the application dated

18/3/2014 (Ex.WW1/3) moved to PIO, Prasar Bharti Secretariat, PTI Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi seeking

certain information under RTI Act and its reply dated 16/4/2014 as Ex.WW1/4. In cross examination he admitted that

he has not filed any appointment letter or any other document regarding his appointment/engaged, as the same was not

issued to him.

Excepting for his bald statement, the claimant has not filed on record any document to show that he actually

worked under the Management. He has also not examined any other co-worker to prove that he actually worked under

the Management even for a short span of 12 days. On the other hand, Shri Naresh Kumar MW1 has categorically stated

that at no point of time, the claimant was the employee of the Management. Temporary pass Ex.WW1/6 filed on record

pertains to Shyam Lal and not to the claimant herein namely Ramesh. As such, the claimant has failed to prove that

there existed relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

10-

Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the claimant had worked under the Management from

20/4/1999 to 3/5/1999 i.e. for about 12 days, the claimant has not adduced any cogent evidence to show that the persons

junior to him namely Umesh, Deen-bandhu, Barsati Lal, Keshav and Shyam Lal were retained by the Management.

Suggestion to this effect has also been denied by Shri Naresh Kumar, MW1. Therefore, there is nothing on record to

show that the officials junior to the claimant were retained by the Management, in violation of the provisions of Section

25-G of the Act.

11.

There is another aspect of the matter. There appears inadvertent error in para 4 of the ex parte Award dated

24/2/2006 inasmuch the claimant Ramesh had allegedly worked with the Management for 12 days w.e.f. 20/4/99 to

3/5/1999 but in para 4 his engagement has been written as employed w.e.f. 20/4/1989. This error is apparent on the

face of record. It also appears that in view of aforesaid inadvertent error, relief of reinstatement with full back wages

was awarded to the claimant instead of lumpsum payment vide aforesaid exparte Award. During the course of

arguments, learned A/R for the Management submitted that pursuant to the ex-parte Award passed in favour of the

claimant, a sum of Rs.4,31,323/- by cheque dated 17/9/2013 drawn on SBI, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi has already

been paid to the claimant in the proceedings under Section 17-B of the Act.

12.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the claimant has not been able to

prove that there existed relationship of employer-employee between the parties and that the Management had illegally

terminated his services in utter violation of provisions of Section 25-G of the Act.

Relief :

13.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claimant is not entitled to

relief whatsoever. Award is passed accordingly.

Date :3.6.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

4964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ. 1228

1228

1228.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस महािनदेशक, कीय िव ुत अनुसंधान सं!थान, सदािशवनगर, ब$गलोर 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, ब$गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 47/2012) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 28.06.2019 को

(ा5 6ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/65/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1228.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby

publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director General, Central

Power Research Institute, Sadasivanagar Bangalore and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 28.06.2019.

[No. L-42012/65/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 25^TH JUNE 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 47/2012

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

Central Power Research Institute

Employees Union,

No. 822, 1^st Main Road,

Yeshwanthpur,

Bangalore - 560 022.

The Director General,

Central Power Research Institute,

Prof. Sir C.V Raman Road,

Sadasivanagar, P.B. No. 8066,

Appearance

Authorised Representative for I Party : Mr. T.S Anantaram

Advocate for II Party

: Mr. M.R.C Ravi

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-42012/65/2012/IR(DU) dated 09.11.2012 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 CPRI Represented by its Director in making ‘Dies Non’ for

17 days in respect of Sh. K. Channaiah, General Secretary of the CPRI Employee’s Union is justified or

not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference order notice was issued to both Parties, both have appeared and filed their respective

statements. The 2^nd Party filed an application on 17.05.2013, stating that 2^nd Party is not an industry as defined under

section 2(J) of Industrial Dispute Act, to come under the jurisdiction of Tribunal/Court. It was further stated that the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4965

award dated 25.02.2013 passed by this Tribunal holding that the 2^nd Party Institute is not an Industry, and this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute or complaint under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.

After giving audience to the 1^st Party my Learned Predecessor in Office vide order dated 31.07.2013 though

rejected the application, stayed the matter till final disposal of W.P No. 21753/2013 wherein the award passed in

CR No. 54/2007 is assailed.

On 29.03.2013 Learned counsel for the 2^nd Party produced the copy of orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in

W.P No. 21753/2013. To give opportunity to the 1^st Party to make submission in this regard, notice was issued. Notice

has returned unserved with the shara “NOT CLAIMED”.

The C.C of the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 21753/2013 is placed on record. It is a matter

of record that both parties in the present were the parties in CR No. 54/2007. The case was adjudicated on

02.02.2013. The reference was rejected by holding that, 2^nd Party/Central Power Research Institute is not an Industry.

Subsequently said order challenged by the 1^st Party before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 21753/2013.

Same is dismissed, vide order dated 27.02.2018. Wherefore, the award passed by this Tribunal in CR 54/2007 is

applicable to the present case in all force. The 2^nd Party since not an Industry under section 2(J) of the Industrial Dispute

Act this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the referred dispute. Hence,

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s L D C, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 25^th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ. 1229

1229

1229.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस कायकारी िनदेशक, भेल, ब$गलोर, 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, ब$गलोर के पंचाट

(संदभ सं1या 05/2011) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 24.06.2019 को (ा5 6ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1229.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Executive

Director, BHEL, Bangalore & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on

24.06.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

4966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 17^TH JUNE 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

I.D No. 05/2011

I Party

II Party

Sh. S. Srinivasa Murthy,

S/o Late Sridhar Murthy,

No. 4093, 14^th Main,

Rajajinagar II Stage,

Near Mitra High School,

Bangalore - 560 021.

The Executive Director,

BHEL, P B No. 2606,

Mysore Road, Bangalore - 560 026

1. The Manager - PPC &

Disciplinary Authority (CE),

BHEL, P B No. 2606,

Mysore Road, Bangalore - 560 026

2. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,

Government of India Undertaking,

Regd. Office, BHEL House,

Siri Fort, New Delhi - 110 049.

Appearance :

Advocate for I Party : Mr. D.R. Vishwanath Bhat

Advocate for II Party : Mr. B.C. Prabhakar

AWARD

This is an Industrial Dispute brought by an Individual workman under section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute

Act. As per the claim statement the 1^st Party workman was working with the 2^nd Party as an Electrician from 01.07.1978.

While he was working as Artisan Grade-III, he was issued two charge sheets dated 24.04.2008 and 31.07.2008

respectively. He denied the charges; two separate enquires were held by appointing two Enquiry Officers. During the

enquiry period he was not paid subsistence allowance, enquiry was held in total contraversion of the provisions of the

Standing Order. He was not provided with sufficient opportunity to defend himself during both Enquiries. The Enquiries

was not held in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice, nor in accordance with the Provisions of the Certified

Standing Orders; on conclusion of enquires the Enquiry Officers submitted their findings holding that the 1^st Party

committed misconduct in respect of both charges. The Disciplinary Authority with prejudicial and biased mind issued

2^nd Show Cause Notice, he submitted his reply; without considering the evidence and the statement of the 1^st Party

workman in a proper prospective the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service, the punishment imposed is

harsh, excessive and highly disproportionate. The dismissal order is passed by an incompetent person. He has no source

of income and he is unemployed. Hence, the prayer for reinstatement into original post with consequential benefits etc.

The claim is contested by the 2^nd Party denying all the allegations and justifying their action taken against him.

On the rival pleadings touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiries my Learned Predecessor framed

Preliminary Issue thus:-

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the 2^nd Party against the 1^stParty is fair and proper?”

Both Enquiry Officers were examined as witness for the management; regarding Enquiry pertaining to charge

sheet of 24.04.2008 Enquiry Records were marked as Ex R-1 to Ex R-13 and regarding Enquiry pertaining to charge

sheet of 31.07.2008 Enquiry Records were marked as Ex R-14 to Ex R-26. The witnesses were cross examined.

The 1^st Party workman did not lead rebuttal evidence; it was the submission at the Bar that he expired around

the year 2014 itself. Notice sent to his address though was received by his wife no step is taken to bring the Legal Heirs

of the deceased workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4967

Regarding the charge sheet dated 24.04.2008 RW-1 was the Enquiry Officer he identified the enquiry records,

along with the charge sheet the management had given list of 3 documents and 4 witnesses. However during the course

of the enquiry 10 documents were marked for the management and 5 documents were marked for the 1^stParty workman.

The 1^st Party had requested for permission to engage the services of an advocate which was denied under the Certified

Standing Order. However, he was permitted to avail the service of a Co-employee and he named one but the said

co-employee did not participate in the enquiry and 1^st Party cross examined the management witness by himself. After

completion of the evidence of the management the 1^st Party was cross examined and gave his evidence. After giving

audience to both the parties the Enquiry Officer (RW-1) proceeded to submit his report.

Before this Tribunal the Enquiry Officer admits that on 29.07.2008, 9 documents were exhibited for the

management without taking the consent of the CSE; in the absence of rebuttal evidence how the case of the 1^stParty was

prejudiced on marking additional documents and examining additional witness cannot be inferred in the absence of

rebuttal evidence. In the given circumstances, it is inevitable for me to hold that the enquiry on the charge sheet dated

24.04.2008 is fair and proper.

With regard to charge sheet dated 31.07.2008 RW-2 was the Enquiry Officer through him enquiry records were

marked as Ex R-14 to Ex R-26. Going by the Enquiry Records the CSE appeared before the Enquiry Officer on

29.01.2009 the charges were read over to him and the procedure was explained, he represented to the Enquiry Officer

that he does not require the service of the co-employee and will prosecute the case on his own, the proceedings were

recorded, read over to him and copies were supplied, his signature is taken on the enquiry proceedings of each day. The

management examined two witnesses and 1^st Party chose to examine one witness he was cross examined by the

Presenting Officer, 14 documents were produced by the management and 2 were produced by the 1^st Party. After

hearing both parties the Enquiry Officer proceeded to record his findings.

It has come during the cross examination of the Enquiry Officer that the authors of certain documents were not

examined and none of the witnesses identified the document Ex R-5 to Ex R-13. However, at the stage of considering

the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry in the absence of the rebuttal evidence demonstrating how the procedure adopted by

the Enquiry Officer prejudiced his case. I hold that the enquiry held against the 1^st Party in respect of the charge sheet

dated 31.07.2008 is also fair and proper; that takes us to the merit of the case.

Heard learned counsel for the 2^nd Party on the merits of the case.

10.

The allegation in respect of the charge sheet of 24.04.2008 was, on 11.04.2008 around 10.30 a.m he went to the

chamber of the General Manager without any provocation shouted against him, using singular term, abused and

threatened him, he used filthy slang words in Kannada, on being advised by the General Manager he left the chamber;

misbehaved in the same way with the Manager, HR. During the enquiry the Manager, HR was examined as first witness

(MW-1) he deposed in respect of the incident of 11.04.2008 wherein the 1^st Party abused him filthly attempted to assault

him; however he was taken outside by the workman present over there. The second witness (MW-2) was an eye witness

to the incidence; MW-3 was the Superintendent working in AGM/CE System he is the eye witness to the incident

occurred at 10.30 a.m in the chamber of General Manager/CE-SA; MW-4 is also the eye witness to the incident that

occurred at 10.30 a.m. The Enquiry Officer appreciating the evidence of the management witnesses viz a viz the defence

held that the charges are proved.

The allegation in the charge sheet of 31.07.2008 is frequent and unauthorised absence of CSE between

29.12.2003 to 02.07.2004 and continuous absence from 04.07.2004 to 07.03.2008, he remained unauthorisedly absent for

147 days in different spells during the period 29.12.2003 to 02.07.2004 and was unauthorisedly absent for 1343 days

during the period 04.07.2004 to 07.03.2004.

11.

During the Enquiry, Accounts Officer was the first witness for the management who maintains the details of the

employees in computer; he produced the attendance register extract pertaining to the 1^st Party which reflected the absence

period as alleged in the charge sheet. The second witness was the Assistant Engineer at Planning and Control Division;

he deposed that there is no difficulty in the department to carryout day to day work. The CSE had produced 4 Medical

Certificates along with a letter dated 17.12.2004 addressed to the General Manager and had requested to sanction leave

on medical grounds, he was communicated by the HR Department that he does not have sufficient leave at his credit and

cannot combined Casual Leave with other leave, his leave application since not supported by Medical Certificate and his

leave application was against the leave rules; they were treated as unauthorised absence. The Enquiry Officer has gone

meticulously on the 4 Medical Certificates but these Medical Certificates were found insufficient to cure his unauthorised

absence. One of the Medical Certificate was issued by the Doctor after 1 year of the absence period. The Enquiry

Officer appreciating the management evidence held that the CSE is guilty of the charges.

12.

On a perusal of the Enquiry Records I find that in both the cases the findings are founded on the evidentiary

materials and also on proper appreciation of evidence. The Disciplinary Authority records his satisfaction that the

finding of the Enquiry Officer of the misconduct alleged against the 1^st Party in the first charge sheet manifests, his

insubordination to the superior, his riotous, disorderly and rude manner within the factory premises. His unauthorised

4968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

absence establish his lack of interest in his work. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. In the absence

of the 1^st Party /Petitioner there is no room to set aside the impugned punishment order.

AWARD

The petition is rejected

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 17^th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ. 1230

1230

1230.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस भारतीय अंतद8शीय जलमाग (ािधकरण, कोलकाता, 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,

कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 1/2013) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 26 .06.2019 को (ा5 6ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/135/2012-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1230.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Inland

Waterways Authority of India, Kolkata and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government

on 26.06.2019.

[No. L- 42011/135/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 01 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Inland Waterways Authority of India

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

Dated: 17^th June, 2019

Industry: Inland Waterways

AWARD

By Order No.L-42011/135/2012-IR(DU) dated 14.12.2012 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Inland Waterways Authority of India is coming under the purview of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not and the action of management not to sign in the MOS on agreed points is

justified or not? 2. Whether the management is justified not to fulfil the charter of demands raised for 63 no. of

workers is legal and or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4969

When the case was taken up for hearing today, none waspresent for both the parties, though they have put in

appearance earlier through their respective learned counsel. Both the parties are not appearing before the Tribunal since

10.09.2018. It transpires from record that though this reference is pending in this Tribunal since 12.02.2013 and inspite

of all the opportunities, the statement of claim is not filed by the union. Hence, this Tribunal is not in a position to

proceed further with the case for deciding the issues referred by the Government.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present

in respect of the issues as mentioned in the schedule of the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no dispute for

adjudication.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 17^th June, 2019.

नई दली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ. 1231

1231

1231.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस उप िनदेशक, आ इिडया से युलर िलिमटेड, परदेसीपुरा, इंदौर 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, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 19/2014) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 18.06.2019 को (ा5

6ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40011/01/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1231.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Dy.

General Manager, Idea Cellular Ltd, Pardeshipura, Indore and others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 18.06.2019.

[No. L-40011/01/2014-IR (DU)]

V. K .THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2014

Secretary,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

Pithmpur Sector 1,2,3,4,

Indorama Chouraha,

Distt. Dhar, MP

…Workman/Union

Versus

Dy.General Manager,

Idea Cellular Ltd.,

139-140, Electronic Complex,

Pardeshipura,

Indore

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31^st day of May 2019

As per letter dated 10-3-2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred

to by word ‘Act’, as per Notification No.L-40011/01/2014-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

4970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Idea Cellular Ltd through M/S Royal Security Services in

terminating the services of workman Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav w.e.f. 13-4-2012 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim. In his

statement of claim, workman stated that he approached RLC for conciliation but on failure of conciliation, reference was

sent by the Government to this Tribunal. That the workman was appointed as operator cum security guard with the

management w.e.f. 2-10-2010. He was terminated from services vide verbal order dated 13-4-2012. He was neither given

any appointment order nor any document regarding his appointment. He was paid Rs.5600/- for the first month and then

Rs.4000 per month. He was doing 24 hours duty as security guard. He was staying in the premises of Tower. The other

employees of similar category were paid Rs.20,000/- but he was paid only Rs.4000/- and was forced to do 24 hours duty.

It is further submitted that he worked for more than 240 days during every calendar year. He was orally terminated

without any notice or compensation. The workman prays for his reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.

In spite of service of notice, none appeared for management. No statement of defense was filed by the

management.

Workman filed his affidavit. None was present for cross examination hence the reference proceeded ex parte

against management.

Heard argument and perused the file. The affidavit filed by workman is uncontroverted hence no reason to

disbelieve his statement on oath. It is accordingly held proved on the basis of this uncontroverted affidavit that the

workman was in the service of the employers and has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding

the date of his disengagement. Accordingly, his disengagement is held violative of Section 25-F of the ‘Act’. Keeping in

view the fact that the statement on oath on the point that no notice or compensation was given to the workman on his

termination which is not controverted by management,the case of workman that he was engaged by OP No.1 through OP

No.2 and was in continuous engagement for a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement is

proved. His further allegation that he was not served with any notice or compensation before his disengagement is also

proved. Accordingly, his disengagement is held violative of Section 25-F of the Act.

As regards the relief admissible to the workman, it is established that his engagement was not against a post,

was purely temporary and casual hence relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to him. In my view, keeping in mind all

the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.20,000 will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Idea Cellular Ltd through M/S Royal Security Services in terminating

the services of workman Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav w.e.f. 13-4-2012 is not proper and legal.

(2) Management is directed to pay compensation Rs.20,000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labor & Employment as per rules.

Dated: 31.5.2019

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ. 1232

1232

1232.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस दूरसंचार िजला (बंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, गुना (एमपी) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के (बंधतं) के

/म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 12/2012) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 18.06.2019 को

(ा5 6ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/87/2011-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4971

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1232.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Telecom

District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guna (MP) and others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 18.06.2019.

[No. L-40012/87/2011-IR (DU)]

V. K .THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2012

Shri Devesh,

S/o Shri Moolchand Ojha,

Amodha Road, Shakdhora,

Distt. Ashok Nagar (MP)

Guna

…Workman

Versus

The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Guna

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6^th day of June 2019

As per letter dated 29-12-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred

to by word ‘Act’ as per Notification No.L-40012/87/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Guna (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Devesh, S/o Shri Moolchand Ojha w.e.f. 10-12-09 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Another case CGIT/LC/R/18/12 has been registered on the basis of same reference by the office. Since both the

cases relate to one and same reference, they have been merged together and the proceedings have been recorded in

R/12/2012.

The case of the workman according to his statement of claim is that he was employed as Group D worker by

management w.e.f. 5-3-96 and has been continuously discharging his duty honestly, sincerely and faithfully to the

satisfaction of his superiors till 10-12-09, his appointment was against regular vacancy. He was paid wages on monthly

basis. He had attained qualifying service for being regularized as he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in

each calendar year from the date of his initial appointment. He made several representations to the management

representing them to grant temporary status against Group D vacancy which was rejected and his services were

terminated without assigning reasons without giving statutory notice or compensation to him. According to the workman,

management had violated provisions of Section 25-F,G,H,N of ID Act hence his disengagement is against law. Workman

has requested for relief of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits and regularization setting aside his

dismissal.

Workman filed photocopy of documents which were denied by the management. These documents were not

proved by workman hence they cannot be read in evidence. Case of management according to their statement of defense

is that the workman was not appointed against a vacancy. He was a daily wager. He never completed 240 days in

continuous engagement. He was paid on daily basis. His termination is perfectly legal. Accordingly, it has been prayed

that the reference be answered against the workman.

Later on during proceedings, workman absented himself hence the reference proceeded exparte against him. No

evidence was adduced by workman.

Management has filed affidavit of Assistant General Manager Shri Mahesh Babu Malik as its witness. No cross

examination was done by the workman.

4972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

At stage of argument, none appeared for workman hence argument of learned counsel for management was

heard exparte. Perused record.

Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act required to be referred here and are being reproduced as follows:-

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;

and

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of

India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the

absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily

retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded

the employer retrenches any other workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer

proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and

such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.

The burden of proving the fact that the workman was in continuous service of the employer for a period of 240

days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement is primarily on workman. No evidence has been adduced by the

workman hence the workman has miserably failed to prove his case. On the other hand, uncontroverted affidavit of

management’s witness filed by management as his cross in chief establishes the case of management that the workman

was never in continuous service/ engagement of the management for a period of 240 days in the year preceding his

disengagement. Hence the case of the workman that his disengagement is against law is held not proved. Accordingly,

his disengagement is held justified in law and workman is held not entitled to any relief.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guna

(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Devesh, S/o Shri Moolchand Ojha w.e.f. 10-12-09 is legal

and justified.

(2) Workman Shri Devesh is not entitled to any relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labor & Employment as per rules.

Dated: 6.6.2019

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 3 जुलाई, 2019

का

का.आ. 1233

1233

1233.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

/म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 10/2012) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 18.06.2019 को

(ा5 6ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/88/2011-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 13] 2019@vk"kk<+ 22] 1941

4973

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2019

S.O. 1233.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Telecom

District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guna (MP) and others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 18.06.2019.

[No. L-40012/88/2011-IR (DU)]

V. K .THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/2012

Shri Rajesh Kushwah,

S/o Shri Ramkishan

Village Mawan, Azaad Mohalla,

Dongapura, Tehsil Guna

…Workman

Versus

The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Guna

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6^th day of June 2019

As per letter dated 29-12-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-40012/88/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Guna (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kushwah S/o Shri Ramkishan w.e.f. 22-10-09 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Another case CGIT/LC/R/16/12 has been registered on the basis of same reference by the office. Since both the

cases relate to one and same reference, they have been merged together and the proceedings have been recorded in

R/10/2012.

The case of the workman according to his statement of claim is that he was employed as Group D worker by

management w.e.f. 2-2-03 and has been continuously discharging his duty honestly, sincerely and faithfully to the

satisfaction of his superiors till 20-10-09, his appointment was against regular vacancy. He was paid wages on monthly

basis. He had attained qualifying service for being regularized as he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in

each calendar year from the date of his initial appointment. He made several representations to the management

representing them to grant temporary status against Group D vacancy which was rejected and his services were

terminated without assigning reasons without giving statutory notice or compensation to him. According to the workman,

management had violated provisions of Section 25-F,G,H,N of the ‘Act’ hence his disengagement is against law.

Workman has requested for relief of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits and regularization setting

aside his dismissal.

Workman filed photocopy of documents which were denied by the management. These documents were not

proved by workman hence they cannot be read in evidence. Case of management according to their statement of defense

is that the workman was not appointed against a vacancy. He was a daily wager. He never completed 240 days in

continuous engagement. He was paid on daily basis. His termination is perfectly legal. Accordingly, it has been prayed

that the reference be answered against the workman.

Lateron during proceedings, workman absented himself hence the reference proceeded exparte against him. No

evidence was adduced by workman.

Management has filed affidavit of Assistant General Manager Shri Mahesh Babu Malik as its witness. No cross

examination was done by the workman.

At stage of argument, none appeared for workman hence argument of learned counsel for management was

heard exparte. Perused record.

4974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2019/ASADHA 22, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 25-F,G,H of the ‘Act’ require to be referred here and are being reproduced as follows:-

25F. 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: