4522 GI/2019

(6699)

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- 37]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 8—flrEcj 14] 2019] 'kfuokj@Hkknz 17—Hkknz 23] 1941

No. 37]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 8— SEPTEMBER 14, 2019, SATURDAY/BHADRA 17— BHADRA—23, 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

( य

य

य िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 4 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1650

1650

1650.—केीय सरकार, सरकारी थान (अािधकृत अिधभोिगय क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971

का 40) क धारा 3 ारा द! शि#य का योग करते $ए नीचे सारणी के तंभ (1) म( उिलिखत अिधकारी को, जो

सरकार का एक राजपि-त अिधकारी है, उ# अिधिनयम के योजन के िलए संपदा अिधकारी िनयु# करती है, जो उ#

सारणी के तंभ (2) म( त/थानी िवि1 म( िविन2द1 सरकारी थान के संबंध म( अिधका3रता क थानीय सीमा4 के भीतर

उ# अिधिनयम ारा या उसके अधीन संपदा अिधकारी को द! शि#य का योग और उन पर अिधरोिपत कत56 का

पालन करेगा ।

सारणी

अिधकारी का नाम

सरकारी थान के वग और अिधकारता क थानीय सीमाएं

(1)

(2)

िनदेशक या उपिनदेशक (शासन), काया लय महािनदेशक,

अंतरा ीय पया वरणीय लेखापरीा एवं सतत् िवकास क,

जयपुर ।

महािनदेशक,अंतरा ीय पया वरणीय लेखापरीा एवं सतत् िवकास

क, जयपुर के शासिनक िनयं ण के अधीन सरकारी थान ।

[फा. सं. ए-11013/12/2019-ईजी]

िनम5ला देव, उप सिचव

6700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2019

S.O. 1650.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the

Table below, being a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the estate officer for the purpose of the said Act, who

shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on estate officer by or under the said Act, within the

local limits of the jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in corresponding entry in column (2) of the said

Table.

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Categories of the public premises and local limits of

jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Director or Deputy Director (Administration), office

of the Director General, International Centre For

Environment Audit & Sustainable Development,

Jaipur.

Public premises under the administrative control of Director

General, International Centre For Environment Audit &

Sustainable Development, Jaipur.

[F. No. A-11013/12/2019-EG]

NIRMALA DEV, Dy. Secy.

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग)

नई द ली, 27 अगत, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1651

1651

1651.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म( वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क( सरकार भारत के धान कसलावास, दुबई म( 8ी हरीश िब1, िनजी सहायक को दनांक

27 अगत 2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधका3रय के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा4 के िनव5हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/03/2018]

टी. अजु<=ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2019

S.O. 1651.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri HARISH BISHT,

Personal Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the Consular services

with effect from 27^th August 2019 .

[No. T-4330/03/2018]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6701

नई द ली, 27 अगत, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1652

1652

1652.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म( वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क( सरकार भारत के उBायोग, िनकोिसया म( 8ी तCण गुEा, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

27 अगत 2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा4 के िनव5हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

टी. अजु<=ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2019

S. O. 1652.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri TARUN GUPTA,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Nicosia to perform the

Consular services with effect from 27 August 2019.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

नई द ली, 2 िसतबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1653

1653

1653.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म( वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क( सरकार भारत के धान कसलावास, दुबई म( 8ी शिश िसहा, िनजी सहायक को दनांक

02 िसतबर 2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधका3रय के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा4 के िनव5हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/03/2018]

टी. अजु<=ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2019

S.O. 1653.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri SHASHI SINHA,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the Consular

services with effect from 02 September 2019 .

[No. T-4330/03/2018]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

6702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पै ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली, 5 िसत बर, 2019

का. आ

का. आ. 1654

1654

1654.—क(ीय सरकार, पेGोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज5न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म(, तिमलनाडु राTय Uे- के भीतर उ# अिधिनयम के

अधीन, भारत पेGोिलयम कापVरेशन िलिमटेड (बीपीसीएल) क इCगुर - देवनगुंथी पाइपलाइन प3रयोजना के सUम

ािधकारी के कृ/य का पालन करने के िलए, बीपीसीएल म( ितिनयुि# पर 8ी बािशयम टी, (िजलािधकारी के िनजी

सहायक (िनवा5चन) ितCपुर) को ािधकृत करती है।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27006]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5^th September, 2019

S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes to Mr. Bashyam T (Personal

Assistant (Election) to the Collector Tirupur) on deputation to Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd. (BPCL) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority(s) in the State of Tamil Nadu for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited’s Irugur

Devangonthi pipeline project under the said Act.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/6/2018-OR-I/E-27006]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 5 िसत बर, 2019

का. आ

का. आ. 1655.—क(ीय सरकार, पेGोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज5न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म(, तिमलनाडु राTय Uे- के भीतर उ# अिधिनयम

के अधीन, भारत पेGोिलयम कापVरेशन िलिमटेड (बीपीसीएल) क इCगुर - देवनगुंथी पाइपलाइन प3रयोजना के सUम

ािधकारी के कृ/य का पालन करने के िलए, बीपीसीएल म( ितिनयुि# पर सु8ी स. मु!रसी ( सहायक आयु# 2, िनषेध

और उ/पादक शुक िवभाग,चेXई ) को ािधकृत करती है।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27006]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5^th September, 2019

S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes to Mrs. S Mutharasi (Asst.

Commissioner-2 Prohibition and Excise Dept. Chennai) on deputation to Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd. (BPCL) to perform

the functions of Competent Authority(s) in the State of Tamil Nadu for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited’s Irugur

Devangonthi pipeline project under the said Act.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/6/2018-OR-I/E-27006]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6703

शुि

शुि – प

प

नई द ली, 9 िसत बर, 2019

का

का. आ. 1656

1656

1656.—केीय सरकार, पेGोिलयम और खिनज पाईप लाईनस (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज5न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) ारा दत शि#य का योग करते $ए, भारत के राजप-

सं. 51, भाग ॥, खZड 3, उपखZड (ii), , , , तारीख दसबर 17-दसबर 23, , , , 2017 म( पृ\ सं. 9785 एवं 9818 पर कािशत

भारत सरकार के पेGोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं-ालय क अिधसूचना सं. का. आ. 2861 तारीख 18 – दसबर 2017 तथा

भारत के राजप- सं. 3, भाग ॥, खZड 3, उपखZड (ii) तारीख जनवरी 13–जनवरी 19, , , , 2019 म( पृ\ सं. 400 एवं 401 पर

कािशत भारत सरकार के पेGोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं-ालय क अिधसूचना सं. का. आ. 104 तारीख 10 जनवरी,

2019 म( िन]िलिखत संशोधन करती है, अथा5त् :-

अनु

अनुसूची

सूची

िजला- ल^खीसराय

राTय : िबहार

के थान पर

पढ़ा जाये

मौज़ा/bाम

अंचल

िजला

मौज़ा/bाम

अंचल

िजला

परसामां-169

हलसी

ल^खीसराय

परसामां-169

रामगढ़ चक

ल^खीसराय

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-28108]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सिचव

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 9^th September, 2019

S. O. 1656.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

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

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

number S.O. 2861 dated 18 December 2017, published at pages 9785 and 9818 in Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) of

the Gazette of India No. 51 dated December, 17 - December 23, 2017 and S.O. 104 dated 10 January, 2019, published at

pages 400 and 401 and in Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) of the Gazette of India No. 3, dated January

13 - January 19, 2019, namely:-

SCHEDULE

District : Lakhisarai

State : Bihar

For

Read

Name of

Mouza

Anchal

District

Name of

Mouza

Anchal

District

Parsaman-169

Halsi

Lakhisarai

Parsaman-169

Ramgarh Chak

Lakhisarai

[F. No. R-11025(11)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

6704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

शुि

शुि – प

प

नई द ली, 9 िसत बर, 2019

का

का. आ. 1657

1657

1657.—केीय सरकार, पेGोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाईनस (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज5न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) ारा दत शि#य का योग करते $ए, भारत के राजप-

सं॰ 51, भाग ॥, खZड 3, उपखZड (ii),

ii),

ii), तारीख दसबर 17-दसबर 23, , , , 2017 म( पृ\ सं. 9754 (अँbेजी संकरण म() पर

कािशत भारत सरकार के पेGोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं-ालय क अिधसूचना सं. का. आ. 2860 तारीख 18 दसबर

2017 तथा भारत के राजप- सं. 3, भाग ॥, खZड 3, उपखZड (ii) तारीख जनवरी 13–जनवरी 19, , , , 2019 म( पृ\ सं. 402

(अँbेजी संकरण म() पर कािशत भारत सरकार के पेGोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं-ालय क अिधसूचना सं. का. आ. 105

तारीख 10 जनवरी, 2019 म( िन]िलिखत संशोधन करती है, अथा5त् :-

अनु

अनुसूची

सूची

िजला

िजला- जमुई

जमुई

राय : िबहार

के थान पर

पढ़ा

पढ़ा जाये

जाये

मौज़ा/&ाम

अंचल

सव'

सव' /

(लाट

न*बर

+ेफल

मौज़ा/&ाम

अंचल

हे-टेयर

सव'

सव' /

(लाट

न*बर

+ेफल

हे-टेयर

हे-टेयर एयर

एयर

वग.

मीटर

हे-टेयर

हे-टेयर एयर

एयर

वग.

मीटर

महेसरी–

22/9

(टोला-

मनरवाटाँड़)

सोनो

महेसरी –

22/8

(टोला-

िबहरघाट)

सोनो

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-28108]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सिचव

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 9th September, 2019

S. O. 1657.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

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

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

number S.O. 2860 dated 18 December 2017, published at page 9754 (in English version) in part II, Section 3, Sub-

Section (ii) of the Gazette of India No. 51 dated December 17 - December 23, 2017 and S.O. 105 dated 10 January 2019,

published at page 402 (in English version) in part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) of the Gazette of India No. 3, dated

January 13 - January 19, 2019 namely:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6705

SCHEDULE

District : Jamui

State : Bihar

For

Read

Name of

Mouza

Anchal

Survey

/ Plot

No.

Area

Name of

Mouza

Anchal

Survey

/ Plot

No.

Area

Hectare Are

Square

Metre

Hectare Are

Square

Metre

Mahesri–

22/9

(Tola-

Manrwatanr)

Sono

Mahesri–

22/8

(Tola-

Biharghat)

Sono

[F. No. R-11025(11)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

अंत0र+ िवभाग

ब(गलूर, 4 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1658

1658

1658.—क(ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म( एतfारा अंत3रU िवभाग के िन निलिखत काया5लय, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक

कम5चा3रय ने hहदी का काय5साधक iान ाj त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

सेमी-कंड^ टर लेबोरेटरी,

अंत3रU िवभाग, भारत सरकार,

से^ टर-72, सािहबजादा अजीत hसह नगर,

(चंडीगढ़ के समीप),

मोहाली (पंजाब) – 160071

[सं. 8/1/10/2011-hह.]

के. वी. रमणा बाबू, अवर सिचव

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 4^th September, 2019

S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of

the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following Office of the Department of Space,

whereof more than 80 percent staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

Semi-Conductor Laboratory,

Department of Space, Government of India,

Sector-72, Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar,

(Near to Chandigarh),

Mohali (Punjab) – 160071

[No. 8/1/10/2011-H.]

K. V. RAMANA BABU, Under Secy.

6706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई द ली, 30 अग त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1659

1659

1659.—औkोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( केीय सरकार

मेसस5 महाबंधक, भारत सरकार hमट, नोएडा, नोएडा (यू.पी.) और अय एवं उनके कम5चारी के बंधतं- के संबl

िनयोजक और उनके कम5कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िन2द1 औkोिगक िववाद म( केीय सरकार औkोिगक अिधकरण एवं 8म

यायालय, नई दली-2 के पंचाट (संदभ5 संmया 23/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 09.08.2019 को

ाE $ए थे।

[सं. एल-13011/04/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30^th August, 2019

S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, New Delhi -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation toThe

General Manager, India Govt. Mint, Noida, NOIDA (U.P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 09.08.2019.

[No. L-13011/04/2013-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 23/2014

Date of Passing Award- 29^th July, 2019

Between:

General Secretary,

Noida Mint Shrmik Sangh (Regd.)

D-2, Sector-1, P.O-78,

Dist- G.B. Nagar,

NOIDA (U.P.)- 201301

… Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

India Govt. Mint, Noida,

D-2, Sector-1, G.B. Nagar,

NOIDA (U.P.)

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri S.S. Shorang, (A/R)

…For the Workman

Shri J.P. Sharma, (A/R)

…For the Management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6707

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management India Govt. Mint Noida, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of

sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 13011/04/2013

(IR(DU) dated 03.03.2014 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of management of Noida, Mint Noida through its General Manager for implementing the

new medical schemes from 01.05.2013 by replacing the old scheme as per the settlement dated 15.09.2008 for

the employees of Noida Mint, Noida is fair and just. If not to what relief the claimant union is entitled to and

from which date.”

The claimants have stated that pursuant to the decisions taken by the Government of India to corporatize the

units working under the department of Economic Affairs, 9 units including India Government Mint Noida came under

the newly formed company incorporated under the companies Act having name “Security Printing Minting Corporation

of India Limited”(SPMCIL) w.e.f. 13.01.2006. With an intention of safeguarding the interest of the employees those

previously working under the Government of India were relocated to the corporation, with the approval of the competent

authority. Several meetings were held in the Ministry of Finance between the union representatives and the

representatives of the units of the corporation. A proposal was approved in the meeting for drafting of a tripartite

agreement by the core group comprising the representative of the government, management of the company SPMCIL

and the representatives of the recognized and the registered union functioning in the units of the SPMCIL. It was also

agreed that the final draft of the tripartite agreement would be registered with the labour law authorities on mutual

understanding of the parties to the agreement. Accordingly a core committee was constituted which held series of

meetings, wherein different issues including the provision of a medical policy for the employees were discussed. A

memorandum of settlement was prepared in terms of section 12(3) of the ID Act and presented before the Chief Labour

Commissioner.

The Noida Mint is having approximately 238 workers and the same is an industry coming under the definition

provided under section 2(j) of the ID Act. The claimant union is a trade union operating in Noida Mint engaged in the

well being of the employees as its members. As per the clause 15 of the memorandum of settlement the corporation was

required to formulate a medical benefit scheme for its employees which shall not be inferior to the CGHS facilities

available to the central government employees. It was also decided that the employees contribution shall not exceed the

rate of contribution prescribed for CGHS beneficiaries and the pensioners including pro-rata pensioners would be the

beneficiaries under the scheme. The government also decided that CGHS facility shall be extended to the employees of

SPMCIL until a separate medical benefit scheme is notified.

Ultimately the company SPMCIL came up with the medical policy 2013 which was made effective from

01.05.2013 as per their notification dated 23.04.2013. On going through the said medical policy, the claimant union came

to know that the said policy is much inferior to CGHS and in contravention to article-15 of memorandum of settlement.

The new policy has no provision for availing alternative therapy of treatment, few hospitals were impaneled as per the

whims of the management, no provision for better facilities proportionate to increase in salary etc have been provided.

The policy also prescribes for reduction of amenities after retirement of the employees. Not only that there was a ceiling

for reimbursement of expenses on OPD treatment. The hospital accommodation facilities under the scheme were found

much inferior to the facilities compared to CGHS. Though in the policy there is a provision for payment of contribution

of lumpsum amount of 120 months in the line of CGHS the medical facilities is not at par with CGHS. Whereas CGHS

provides medical facilities in every corner of India the medical policy brought by the company is not available beyond

the city where the Units are situated.

Thus, after proper espousal an Industrial Dispute was raised by the claimant union before the Regional Labour

Commissioner Dehradun on 25.05.2013. The management company participated but did not accede to the demand of the

union for bringing in changes to the policy. The conciliation since failed a report to that effect was submitted to the

Appropriate Government who referred the matter for adjudication to this tribunal.

Being noticed the management company appeared and filed Written Statement. It took a stand that the

management of SPMCIL had organized meetings of apex by bipartite forum between the management and the employees

representatives to discuss and resolve various issues and policy matters including SPMCIL medical policy. After much

deliberation SPMCIL medical policy 2013 was prepared and notified. The claimant union without going through the

details of the scheme has alleged about the disparity in the scheme with reference to the CGHS. While refutting the

allegations of the claimant union the management submitted that the medical policy was notified on 23.04.2013 and soon

thereafter a clarification was issued vide notification dated 15.01.2014 to the effect that it covers the medical treatment

through alternative system also and the employees have the option to avail the same. Though the employees of different

units under SPMCIL are not very large in number, the policy has empanelled good number of hospitals. The Noida Mint

has only 273 employees and as against that 27 hospitals in Noida, Ghaziabad and Delhi have been empanelled for the

6708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

facility to be availed by the employees. It has also been pleaded by the management that as per the basic pay and Pay

levels recommended by the 6^th CPC entitlements have been crystallized. This practice is also prevalent in the PSUs. So

far as the ceiling of reimbursement of OPD treatment expenses are concerned the management has stated that following

the CGHS medical policy, this ceiling is applicable in case of treatment through AMA or AMA empanelled hospitals

with a view to put a check on the misuse and inflated bills. The accommodation in the Hospitals is available on the basis

of the pay levels and never contravenes the agreement of the bipartite settlement. So far as the retired employees are

concerned the management has stated that the facilities of the SPMCIL health policy are equally extendable to them.

With these assertions the management has prayed for dismissal of the claim as baseless.

The claimant/union filed replication stating therein that the SPMCIL medical policy was notified on 23.04.2013

and made effective from 01.05.2013. When discontent among the employees surfaced the management came up with

another notification extending alternative treatment facilities which is a misleading fact. No treatment facility in

alternative system like Ayurveda, Unani etc have been made available to the employees. Nor any such hospital is

available for such therapy. The workman also objected that all the 27 hospitals empanelled for the government of India

Mint Noida are located in the vicinity of Noida whereas the employees are residing in different areas of Delhi,

Ghaziabad, Meerut, Sahibabad, Lajpat Nagar, Dsana, etc. The families of the employees living in those areas have to

travel more than 15 Kilometers to avail the facilities of the empanelled Hospitals. No specialized hospitals have been

empanelled to provide specialized treatment for diseases like cancer, thyroid, neurology, psychiatric etc. In this regard

the medical scheme of SPMCIL is much inferior to CGHS. It has also been objected that the ceiling for OPD treatment is

harassing and opposed to the policy of CGHS. While drawing an analogy on the medical policy under the CGHS and

SPMCIL the claimant/union has stated that the entire policy goes contrary to artice-15 of the memorandum of settlement

dated 15.09.2008 in as much as rate of contribution is concerned.

On this rival pleading the following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

Whether the action of the management of Govt. India Mint Noida, through its General Manager

implementing the new medical schemes from 01.05.2013 by replacing the old scheme as per settlement dated

15.09.2008 for the employees of Noida Mint, Noida is fair and just. If so its effects?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

On behalf of the claimant Union the General Secretary of the Union testified as WW1 and proved the documents in a

series of Exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/3 these documents include the memorandum of settlement dated 15.09.2008, the

disputed medical policy of SPMCIL etc. Similarly on behalf of the management the Deputy Manager HR India

Government Mint Noida testified as MW2 and also produced the documents which have been marked in a series of

MW1/1 to MW1/6 and the documents include the SPMCIL health scheme, the notification directing inclusion of pro-rata

optees, combined optees alongwith the company appointed employees as beneficiaries of the scheme, the notification

relating to provisions of alternative medicines under the scheme, and another notification clarifying the doubts on the

disputes raised by the Union relating to disparity between CGHS and SPMCIL. Alongwith this a list has bee furnished

showing the names of the hospitals empanelled for IPD and OPD facilities for the beneficiaries.

The Ld. A/R for the workman argued that the management has discriminated the employees of the Government

Mint Noida with that of all categories of employees working under central government departments. He also argued that

at the beginning vivid discussions were made regarding the health scheme between the representatives of the employees

union and the officials of the management. The decision so arrived were contained in a memorandum of settlement. But

the management while preparing the scheme made a departure from the agreed terms which are prejudicial to the interest

of the employees. In reply the Ld. A/R for the management pointed out to the different provision of both the scheme and

also submitted that the management being fully aware of the objections raised by the Union issued a clarification vide

MW1/5 and this is a comparison table of both the schemes. He thereby argued that the argument of the workman is

baseless.

The memorandum of settlement arrived between the parties has been filed and relied upon by both the parties.

This Memorandum at clause 15 shows that in a meeting held between the Joint Secretary department of economic affairs

and other officials in one side and the representative of recognized union on the other side had agreed for formulation of

a medical benefit scheme which shall not be inferior to the CGHS and the contribution shall not exceed the contribution

payable under CGHS. Both parties have accepted this document. Thus, in view of the reference received it is now to be

adjudicated if the SPMCIL launched scheme is at par with the CGHS or inferior thereto.

On behalf of the claimants it has been pointed out that the scheme launched by the management suffers from

many disparities. He pin pointed his statement to say that the numbers of hospital included under the new scheme are

located in an around Noida and families of the employees staying outside Delhi have no access to these hospitals. In

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6709

reply the witness of the management examined as a MW1 by refereeing to a document marked as MW1/6 submitted that

the 15 hospitals included by notification dated 17.04.2017 are at New Delhi, Ghaziabad, Meerut, Noida etc. While

meeting the argument of the claimants that no super specialist hospitals have been included in the list he submitted that

these hospitals include heart institute and max super specialist hospital etc. Thus, the objection of the claimant that the

scheme is opposed to CGHS appears unfounded. The list of hospitals includes super specialist hospital and spread over

Delhi and surrounding areas. It cannot be held that unlike CGHS it has no empanelled hospitals all over India since the

authorities have taken care of empanelling the hospitals in the vicinity of the unit of SPMCIL.

The other objection taken by the claimants is that unlike the CGHS there is no provision for availing alternate

medicines facilities like Ayuerved, homeopathy, Unani etc. On behalf of the management a document has been placed on

record and marked as WW1/4. This is a notification dated 15.01.2014i.e. prior to the reference made by the Appropriate

Government on 03.03.2014 regarding the facility of alternate method of treatment. The witness examined on behalf of

the workman though stated that the empanelled hospitals are not providing the facilities the same is a question of fact to

be proved and cannot be adjudicated in terms of the reference. Hence it is held that there is no disparity between the

health scheme of SPMCIL and CGHS in this regard. On behalf of the management two other documents have been filed

as MW1/3 which contains the important steps taken by the management for implementation of SPMCIL medical policy

2013 and WW1/5 a comparative table prepared to clarify the multiple issues over the implementation of SPMCIL

medical policy 2013. A careful perusal of this document MW1/5 removes all the doubts relating to the disparity between

CGHS and SPMCIL health scheme 2013 with regard to the entitlement proportionate to the pay scale, reimbursement of

expenditure for OPD treatment, specialized treatment entitlement of hospital stay etc. Not only that this document

MW1/5 also indicates some extra benefits allowed to the employees which are not provided under CGHS. One example

is availing the medical facility during tour, whether or not empanelled hospital is available or not.

Hence, on hearing the argument advanced by both the parties and on perusal of the documents relied upon by

both the parties it is held that the new medical scheme implemented with effect from 01.5.2013 by SPMCIL replacing the

old scheme to the employees of Noida Mint is fair and the workmen are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. It is

also held that the health scheme 2013 of SPMCIL is no way inferior to the CGHS. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in against the workman. Send a copy of this award to the

Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

29^th July, 2019

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 30 अग त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1660

1660

1660.—औkोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( केीय सरकार

मेसस5 महािनदेशक, सीपीडn यूडी, भवन, द ली और अय एवं उनके कम5चारी के बंधतं- के संबl िनयोजक और उनके

कम5कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िन2द1 औkोिगक िववाद म( केीय सरकार औkोिगक अिधकरण एवं 8म यायालय,

नई दली-2 के पंचाट (संदभ5 संmया 85/2012) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 09.08.2019 को ाE $ए

थे।

[सं. एल-42011/72/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

6710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30^th August, 2019

S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, New Delhi -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation toThe

Director General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 09.08.2019.

[No. L-42011/72/2011-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 85/2012

Date of Passing Award- 25^thJuly, 2019

Between:

Shri Matadin Sharma,

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan, CPWD,

20 Subhash Road, Dehradun -248001

… Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer, (E)

CPWD,

Sanjay Place,

Agra (U.P.)- 282002.

The Director General,

CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan,

Delhi- 110001

…Managements

Appearances:-

Shri Satish Sharma, (A/R)

…For the Workman

Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (A/R)

…For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of CPWD, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section

(1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 42011/72/2011 (IR(DU) dated

02.02.2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD (i) imposing penalty of stoppage of increments vide order

No. 7(6) 89LCED/1824 dated 19/08/1989 on Shri Matadin Sharma, Khalasi (ii) in not granting in-situ

promotion w.e.f. 01/04/1993 and ACP on completion of 12/24 years to him and (iii) in denying the

compassionate appointment to Shri Sanjay Upadhyay son of the deceased workman is legal and justified? What

relief the family of the deceased workman is entitled to?’’

As per the claim statement filed on behalf of the claimant through. All India CPWD (MRM) karamchari

Sangathan the deceased workman Matadin was working as a Khalasi in CPWD w.e.f. 21.05.1965. While in service he

died on 14.09.2005. The family and the dependents of the deceased workman made representation for compassionate

appointment of his son in the place of Matadin and for sanction of family pension. The management rejected the prayer

for compassionate appointment and sanctioned the family pension. The amount determined as pension for the family was

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6711

not proper since the appropriate pay scale was not allowed to the workman prior to his death. On behalf of the claimant it

has been stated that from 12.02.1976 to 06.04.1978 and again from 06.03.1981 to 22.07.1982 he was placed under

suspension and on 22.07.1982 he was removed from service on account of his conviction in a criminal case by the trial

court. The judgment of conviction was challenged by the workman in the higher forum and the Hon’ble High Court by

judgment dated 20.12.1984 set aside the said judgment of conviction. Pursuant thereto the workman approached the

management and he was reinstated to service on 21.11.1986. The management in a mood to take revenge started one

domestic inquiry and after the inquiry imposed a punishment withholding his next annual increment.

The further contention of the workman is that when he was reinstated to service on 21.11.86 pursuant to the

order of acquittal, his pay was fixed at the base level i.e. at Rs. 750/- though he was entitled to the annual salary hike of

the said year and the next year. Not only that the claimant had qualified in the departmental trade test in the year 1975 but

no financial up gradation was allowed to him thereafter. Thus, on the basis of this averment, on behalf of the workman it

has been pleaded that he was made a victim of unfair labour practice by the management. The prayer of the workman in

the claim petition is that the pay of deceased workman be fixed at the appropriate level for determination of the lawful

family pension amount. He should be given the benefit of in-situ promotion and ACP etc w.e.f 1975 and his son Sanjay

Upadhay be given appointment in the management CPWD on compassionate ground.

Being noticed the management CPWD appeared and filed WS refutting the stand of the workman. It has been

specifically pleaded that the deceased workman was an indisciplined employee and in the habit of misbehaving his

seniors under the influence of alcohol. On such an allegation a domestic inquiry was conducted and he was found guilty.

As a mode of punishment one annual increment was directed to be stopped. After the death of the workman his family

was allowed family pension proportionate to his salary and the workman was not entitled to in-situ promotion or ACP as

claimed by him. It is the further stand of the management that the application for compassionate appointment of the son

of the deceased workman was considered by the management but it was found that there was no vacancy in the 5% quota

of the total cadre strength kept identified for compassionate appointment. A letter to that effect was communicated to the

son of the workman.

The other stand of the management is that the deceased workman Matadin had earlier filed an Industrial Dispute

before the CGIT Lucknow which was registered as ID No. 85/2002. In that proceeding the industrial adjudicator refused

to grant the relief like in-situ promotion as claimed by him and returned a finding to the effect that the candidature of the

workman Matadin for promotion was considered twice in the year 1975 and in the year 1988. But on both the occasion,

he was found unfit for in-situ promotion to the next higher grade i.e. Assistant Operator. The industrial adjudicator also

came to hold that mere passing of the trade test would not make a person entitled to automatic promotion.

The further stand of the management is that the workman remained suspended from 12.02.76 to 06.04.78 and

again from 06.03.81 to 22.07.1982. Finally his service was terminated w.e.f. 22.07.1982 and he remained out of duty till

the judgment of the acquittal dated 20.12.1984. That judgment was communicated to the management on 04.02.1985 and

the workman was taken to service on 21.11.1986. The continuity of service of the workman was badly disturbed and thus

on 21.11.1986 he was deemed to have been appointed afresh on the entry level salary.

On this rival pleading following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

1. Whether enquiry conducted by the bank was just, fair and proper?

2. Whether penalty of stoppage of increments commensurate to the misconduct of the claimant?

3. As in terms of reference.

On behalf of the workman the wife of the deceased workman gave an authority to the General Secretary of the

union to testify on her behalf for her ill health. The said General Secretary was examined as WW1. He proved the

documents marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/2. The said documents include the copy of the application submitted

for compassionate appointment and letter of espousal by the union. On behalf of the management the executive engineer

of CPWD testified as MW1 and filed documents marked in a series of MW1/1 to MW1/5. These documents include the

FIR lodged against the workman, charge against the workman, the award passed by the CGIT lucknow on the Industrial

Dispute raised by the workman, the office memorandum prescribing a time limit for entertaining applications for

compassionate appointment and the photocopy of the registered post letter sent to the son of the workman which returned

with report that the addressee is dead.

At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that the dispute raised in this

proceeding regarding the pay scale and in-situ promotion, ACP etc by the workman has already been adjudicated and set

at rest. To justify the same a copy of the award passed by the Presiding Officer CGIT Lucknow in Id No. 85/2002 has

been filed and marked as MW1/3. In view of the submission it is now to be examined if the relief as mentioned in the

reference by the Appropriate Government can be granted.

6712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

POINT No. 1

If the action of the management in not granting in-situ promotion w.e.f 01.04.1993 and ACP on completion of

12/24 years is just and proper.

Before the reference was sent by the Appropriate Government the workman had died. His cause was espoused

by the union. The wife or any of the family members of the workman did not come forward to be examined as a witness.

The General Secretary of the union examined as WW1 has only deposed about the discrimination caused to the workman

without producing any document to prove that the workman was entitled to first or second ACP on completion of 12/24

years of service. There is also no document placed on record to show that the workman had also qualified himself in the

departmental trade test before 1975 to make himself eligible for in-situ promotion. On the other hand the management

has filed the copy of the award passed by the CGIT Lucknow. In which the reference was about the legality of refusal for

promotion despite the passing of the trade test. The presiding officer in his award has clearly held that the passing of

trade test alone shall not entitle the workman for promotion when he was found otherwise not suitable. In the award the

said presiding officer has also observed that for the involvement of the workman in criminal case there was a disruption

in the continuity of the service and he is not entitled to ACP, on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service. That

having been adjudicated earlier the present proceeding cannot be held on the same issue for the second time.

POINT NO. 2

If the action of the management in stopping the increment by order dated 19.08.1989 is legal and justified.

On behalf of the workman it has been asserted that the imposition of the penalty was one sided and no proper

opportunity of defence was allowed. But from the award marked as exhibit MW1/3 it appears that this aspect was taken

into considered during adjudication and the finding was given against the workman. The witness examined on behalf of

the workman during cross examination has stated that no departmental appeal was preferred by the workman in this

regard. Hence, this tribunal concludes that the finding of the departmental proceeding has attained finality and there is no

proceeding pending as per the reference received from the government about the legality and fairness of the domestic

inquiry. Hence it is held that no relief in this regard can be granted during this adjudication.

POINT NO. 3

Whether the action of the management in not extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the son of

the deceased workman is just and proper.

Compassionate appointment is a scheme floated by the government to save the families of the government

servant from misery on account of the untimely death of their soul bread earner. This provision is subject to fulfillment of

certain conditions by the person seeking the benefit and one cannot claim the same as a matter of right. In this proceeding

as has been observed in the preceding paragraph neither the wife nor the son of the deceased workman came to the

witness box to depose. In the WS the management has taken a plea that the application for compassionate appointment

was considered and rejected for non availability of vacancy. A circular to that effect has been filed and marked as exhibit

MW1/4. This is an office memorandum issued by the DOPT regulating the compassionate appointment which prescribes

that compassionate appointment can be allowed to genuine and deserving cases subject to availability of vacancy in the

prescribed proportion for a year which is 5% of the vacancy. The management of this case has filed an order marked as

annexure-E which reveals that the Superintending Engineer CPWD had written a letter to Sanjay Upadhay son of the

deceased workman Matadin intimating the reasons for refusal of his application for compassionate appointment. The

witness examined by the management submitted that the letter issued to Sanjay Upadhay returned with an endorsement

that the addressee is dead. No rebuttal evidence has been filed. The postal envelop containing the endorsement has been

marked as exhibit MW1/5.

In view of the death of the person claiming compassionate appointment and there being no other application

pending by any other claimant it is held that this issue has become infractuous for consideration.

Hence, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record this tribunal comes to a conclusion that the

claimant is not entitled to any relief as sought by the claimant as per the reference received from the appropriate

government.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6713

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered accordingly and the claimant is held not entitled to any relief as per

the reference. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of

the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

25^th July, 2019

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 30 अग त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1661

1661

1661.—औkोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( केीय सरकार

मेसस5 जनरल मैनेजर, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, करनाल, ह3रयाणा और अय एवं उनके कम5चारी के बंधतं- के संबl

यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ5 संmया 278/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 28.08.2019 को

ाE $ए थे।

[सं. एल-40012/23/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 30^th August, 2019

S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 278/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telecom Karnal, Haryana & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 28.08.2019.

[No. L-40012/23/2013-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No. 278/2013

Registered on:-28.06.2013

Sh. Bali/ S/o Sh. Omi, Resident of Village Jeet Garh,

Gari Sikanderpur, PO Kaveri, Tehsil & Distt. Panipat.

…Workman

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through General Manager, Telecom District, Sector 8, Karnal, Haryana.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its SDO, Panipat.

Bharat Sanchar ZNigam Ltd. through A.O. Tar Ghar,

Room No. 3, Panipat.

…Respondents

6714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on:-05.08.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/23/2013-IR(DU) Dated 27.05.2013, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Bali

S/o Sh. Omi w.e.f. 23.05.2011 is just, fair and legal? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to

and from which date?”

Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment

that he was appointed as Peon from April 2007 and was working and performing his duties under the supervision and

control of respondent no.3 regarding the receiving of cheques from the customer, collecting the cheques from the cheque

box at Tar Ghar, Room No.3, Panipat. The workman/claimant rendered his services as per satisfaction of the

management and due to high prices, it became very difficult for the workman to have two times meal for his family

members when he requested the management to increase the payment of wages and in spite of enhancing his salary,

respondent-management with mala fide intention and ulterior motive terminated the services of the workman illegally

against the principle of natural justice and in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, from 23.05.2011. He was

not allowed to resume his duties on 23.05.2011 and representation made by the workman was also of no effect. The

management did not issue notice as required under the law and accordingly did not pay the compensation in lieu of one

month salary at the time of terminating the services. The workman/claimant worked about 4 years without any break

prior to his termination and his services wrongly and illegally were terminated without any enquiry. However, as per

Government notification dated 10.12.2004, even the services of the daily wagers should be counted towards pension and

their services should be treated as continuous and he was entitled for absorption in regular employment without any

break. The claimant/workman has made an application under Industrial Disputes Act before Conciliation Officer, in the

office of Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Karnal, but the management did not resolve the dispute and has not

taken back the claimant/workman in services resulting this reference by the Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram

Mantralaya, Delhi. It is prayed that management kindly be directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages with

continuity of service and all consequential benefits as per rules mentioned under the Government notification in the

interest of natural justice.

Respondents/managements have filed its written statement, alleging therein that the reference is bad according

to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The claimant was not engaged by the management on regular basis not any

monthly salary/wages was paid to workman/claimant as such, there was no master and servant relationship with the

workman. It is further alleged that he might have worked on need basis only as and when required and paid accordingly.

The claimant was not the workman of the BSNL as defined under the ID Act. The documents placed before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner is manipulated/manufactured documents. The claimant was not appointed or engaged in process

of the recruitment in accordance with the relevant rules in an open competitive process against the sanctioned post.

Therefore, he has no locus standi to raise the dispute or claim continuance in the service as such, this Tribunal has no

right to regularize the service of such an employee in the light of the judgment of Uma Devis casefollowed by State of

Rajasthan & Others Vs. Daya Lal & Ors. The management has stated that workman was never appointed as Peon from

April 2007 on cash counter at customer service centre under respondent no.3 to collect the cheques from the customers

as such, statement made by the workman in his claim petition is false. It is further alleged that he might have collected

the stationery and documents attached but documents filed by claimant are manufactured and procured and its

authenticity cannot relied upon unless it is proved. Claimant was not working under the supervision and control of

respondent no.3. Workman/claimant was never engaged as casual labour nor paid any monthly wages as such, the

question of refusal to his request does not arise. The management has not issued the termination order or retrenchment to

the claimant as is alleged hence, question of issuing notice does not arise at all. In view of the position explained, it is

prayed that claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed and reference may be answered in negative to the

government.

Workman has filed its replication/rejoinder, alleging therein that he had been working with the management

since April 2007 till 23.05.2011 and drawing his salary from SDO directly. The nature of work of the workman was of

permanent nature and time slot was 9 am to 5 pm. As a Peon, he has been rendering all the services like collection of

cheques from Model Town Box used to go to GMTD(General Manager Telecom Deptt.) Karnal to bring the goods like

printed, carton, bill books, diaries etc. and used to do all the work of Peon. He has completed more than 240 days in each

calendar year. Documents filed by the workman are not manipulated, manufactured as is alleged by the management. It

is further stated that bill books which are issued by the SDO, an official of BSNL in favour of the workman to collect

material from their Karnal Office. Remaining facts alleged in the replication/rejoinder are same which are alleged in the

claim statement as such, it does not require to be mentioned again in order to avoid repetition of the facts.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6715

In support of his case, workman Bali has submitted his affidavit as Ex.A-1 along with documents Ex.W1 to

W22 in the line of the facts alleged in the claim petition. During the course of cross-examination, this witness has

accepted that he has neither any document regarding the appointment nor payment of salary given by the management of

BSNL. In respect of the documents filed by the workman Ex.W1 to W22 this witness has asserted that these are not

forged documents as is suggested by the management-counsel. This witness has categorically stated that photocopies of

the documents produced by him are got photocopied at the time when SDO used to sent him for work assigned with

original documents itself. This witness has further stated that original documents are with the management and he was

appointed by the SDO Mauji Ram in the year 2006. Workman has stated that salary is not paid by Mauji Ram from his

pocked. Thus, this witness has tried to prove that photocopies of the documents filed by him as Ex.W1 to W22 in fact got

prepared by him when original was provided for the relevant works mentioned in the documents itself.

Management has examined Ramphal Singh Hooda, Accounts Officer, Panipat, who has filed his affidavit

Ex.MW1 as evidence. During cross-examination, he has accepted that he was working with the management since 1978

and presently holding the post of Accountant, Panipat, BSNL. This witness has further accepted that there was a Taar

Ghar of BSNL at Panipat, which has been now closed. This witness has also accepted that record of the claimant is not

maintained in the office because he is required for the job as and when required. This witness has also accepted that he is

not in a position to say that whether the services of the workman had been availed by the management or not because he

was not in the office at that time. This witness further stated that he cannot tell the name of SDOs and employees who

worked in the year 2004-2009 at Panipat Office of BSNL. This witness has also accepted that General Manager used to

sit at Karnal head office from where materials are secured for the purpose of smooth functioning of the management.

Ramphal Singh Hooda has denied the suggestion made by the workman-counsel that he was employed by the

management during the relevant period.

I have heard the oral arguments as well as written arguments filed by Sh. S.C. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, Ld. Counsel for the management and perused the file carefully.

Learned counsel or the workman has submitted that workman has joined with the management in the month of

April 2007 and worked till his retrenchment/termination on 23.05.2011. It is also submitted that workman was

performing his duties directly under the management office situated at Taar Ghar Panipat, under the control and

supervision of SDO Mouji Ram and performed all the duties assigned and stated in the claim statement. Learned counsel

of the workman has vehemently argued that services of the workman was taken in utter violation by adopting unfair

labour practice for more than 5 years and he was retrenched/terminated without giving notice or retrenchment

compensation. Learned counsel has further contended that there is no specific denial by the management regarding the

employment of the workman with the management instead management has alleged that he might have worked on need

basis occasionally as and when required and was paid accordingly but nothing is placed on record in the form of

documents to show that as and when he was engaged and payment was made to the workman. Learned counsel of the

workman has placed reliance of the cases of Maharashtra State Road Transport and another Vs. Casteribe Rajya

Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana(2009) 8 SCC 556,Durgapur Casual Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation of

India, Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2014 decided on 09.12.2014 and AIIMS New Delhi Vs. Uddal & Others, 2014(142)

DRJ 569, decided on 21.04.2014.

Per contra, learned counsel of the management vehemently argued that claimant is neither workman nor

appointed by the respondent-management for the work of management as Peon from the month of April 2007. It is also

contended that there was no master and servant or employer and employee relationship between the workman and

management and as such, respondent-management has no liability towards the workman. Learned counsel of the

management has also submitted that workman has utterly failed to submit cogent evidence in order to prove the direct

relationship with the respondent-management. Learned counsel argued that the facts alleged in the written statement

regarding the workman as he might have worked on need basis occasionally as and when required and was paid

accordingly does not denote that he was the employee of the management as is alleged by the workman in his claim

petition. It is also submitted that workman has failed to prove by reasonable and conclusive evidence that he was paid

Rs.3,000/- as salary by the management. The documents filed by the workman could not be proved by the original

documents and it is concocted and fabricated documents which could not be relied by the Tribunal. Learned counsel of

the management has placed reliance in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola &

Ors., Civil Appeal No.1799-1800 of 2019, decided on 20.02.2019.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of the

management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of

his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he was worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a

calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltv. Vs. Sowaran Singh(2005) 8

Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai

Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.

6716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

So far as the argument regarding the claimant being a workman is concerned. In this regard, reference can be

made to the decision of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,wherein, the

Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of

“workman” has observed as follows:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty

for fixed hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or

contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a

person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In these circumstances,

it stands proved that there existed relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

11.

Admittedly, management has not submitted any document regarding the employment of the workman in the

establishment in spite of the fact that it has admitted that workman might have worked on need basis occasionally as and

when required and was paid accordingly. Learned counsel of the management has drawn my attention towards the

judgment of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.(supra), in which a similar fact was alleged in the written statement and

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if the written statement goes to show that workman might have been engaged

as an employee by a particular contractor, plain reading of the written statement could not suggest that employer is not

sure as to whether the workman worked or engaged by the employer(Bhel). According to Hon’ble Supreme Court what

is clear from the written statement is that employer(Bhel) has denied that workmen were engaged by Bhel or that the

workmen were Bhels’ workmen. I am of the opinion that argument advanced by the management-counsel is

misconceived because the fact of that case was altogether different in which Bhel-management has stated in his written

statement that workmen may have been employed by the contractor. There is no such contractor in case in hand hence,

whatever is stated in the written statement denotes the defence which is taken by the management itself. Hon’ble Delhi

High Court while referring the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi, 2011(6), Scale 677, decided by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held in the case of AIIMS,New Delhi Vs. Uddal & Others, 2014(142) DRJ 569, decided on

21.04.2014, that fundamental principles, essential to the purpose of a pleading is to place before a Court the case of a

party with a warranty of truth to bind the party and inform the other party of the case it has to meet. It means that the

necessary facts to support a particular cause of action or a defence should be clearly delineated with a clear articulation

of the relief sought. It is the duty of a party presenting a pleading to place all material facts and make reference to the

material documents, relevant for purposes of fair adjudication, to enable the Court to conveniently adjudicate the matter.

The duty of candour approximates uberrima fides when a pleading, duly verified, is presented to a Court. In this context

it may be highlighted that deception may arise equally from silence as to a material fact, akin to a direct lies. Thus, it can

be safely inferred that management has not put specific defence regarding the employment or non-employment of the

workman in its establishment. It is not explained in the written statement or during the course of evidence by the

management-witness that on what basis it is stated in the written statement that workman might have worked on need

basis occasionally as and when required and paid accordingly. It is a settled position of law that fact has to be

specifically admitted or denied in the pleadings of the parties. So, it is required by the management to either admit or

denied the assertion of the workman. In fact, claimant if worked on need basis occasionally and was paid accordingly

then it has to be specifically stated in the written statement as well as evidence led by the management to prove the

relevant date, time and month for need basis employment of the workman.

12.

Learned counsel of the management argued that burden lies on the workman to prove that he was employed by

the management for relevant period as alleged by him in the claim petition. There is no dispute that initial burden lies

with the workman to prove the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The learned counsel

appearing for workman has relied upon the judgment of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer(2006) 1 SCC 106.

It was noticed that in most of the cases working can only called upon the employer to produce the muster roll or

attendance register for the period in question. Letter of appointment proof of payment of wages etc. as no letter of

appointment is issued wages could be paid in cash, hence, the workman could have no such record in his possession. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director Fisheries Terminated Division(supra), accepted the statement of the

workman that he worked for 240 days prior to the date of termination as sufficient proof.

13. So far as the case in hand is concerned, workman has tried his best to prove the documents filed by him as Ex.W1

to W22 by summoning the witnesses of the management through Court or Tribunal. Witness Atma Ram has stated that

the summoned record is not in his possession because the cash-counter of telegraph was transferred to account office,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6717

which is in his charge. He has only cashbook of telegraph for the last 4-5 years and he maintains the record of regular

workers from the joining of service. Similarly, witness Surender has stated that the summoned record has been destroyed

and is not in his possession. This witness has accepted that materials are supplied after obtaining the signatures on the

request letters issued by authorities and the name of person is recorded in the concerned register. This witness has also

accepted that he does not know the rules according to which the record is destroyed. Thus, it is very much clear that as

an employee of the management he has refused to submit the original documents before the Tribunal on the pretext of its

weeding out without any rules and regulations. Hence, this Tribunal is constrained to draw adverse inference against the

management according to provisions of 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

14. It is pertinent to mention that nature of documents filed by the workman(though in the form of Photostat copies)

Ex.W1 to Ex.W22 are relevant to nail the truth. Ex.W1 to W16 are receipts issued by the concerned SDOs of the

respondent-department authorizing the workman to receive the material from the headquarter, Karnal. In these receipts,

signatures of workman is also identified by the concerned SDOs of the respondent-department for the year 2006-2007.

Similarly, Ex.W17 is the copy of register at the cash-counter of receiving the cash from customers since April 2006

onwards. The documents Ex.W18 to W19 and W22 are photocopies of the stock register of the respondent-department

maintained for issuing material to his employees from April 2006 to May 2009 while Ex.W20 is the Photostat copy of

has categorically stated that these photocopies were got prepared by him while original documents were given to him for

compliance of the duties assigned to him. Thus, it cannot be said that these documents have not come from possession of

a person who does not have bona fide position to deal with these documents. Claimant has specifically stated that he was

appointed by one Mauji Ram, SDO and worked under him for long time. Learned counsel of the management has

contended that these documents could not be read in evidence as it is not proved according to the requirement of the

Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, the requirement of Evidence Act in order to prove the secondary evidence is altogether

different from the way it has been proved by the workman but further question arises that whether it is possible for the

workman to prove these documents if the original documents are not produced by the management before the Tribunal

on the pretext that it has been destroyed as is stated by the witness Surender Singh. This Tribunal is of considered view

that in the circumstances these documents stands proved as Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in cases related to

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

15. Moreover, the cases of Industrial Dispute has to be decided on the basis of principle of preponderance of

probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of

India Vs. Sardar Bahadur(1974)4 SCC 618, R.S Singh Vs. State of Punjab and other(1999)8 SCC page 90, and in the

case of State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Pandey, Civil Appeal No.263/2013 dated 14.01.2013. The workman

has not only stated on oath regarding the work assigned to him by the SDOs of the management but also submitted the

volume of documents(Photostat copies) pertaining to his duties during the relevant period. I am of the considered

opinion that management was in better position to produce at least those documents for the relevant period of the work

alleged to be done by the workman to disapprove that these duties have not been performed by the workman instead it is

performed by some other person of the management. Similarly, if workman has been employed on need basis from time

to time and paid accordingly then the related documents ought to have been submitted and proved in order to belie the

version of the claimant regarding his employment with the management from April 2006 to May 2011. It is pertinent to

mention that, it is a specific case of the workman that he was engaged initially by the SDO Mauji Ram for the work and

there are so many photocopies of the documents which are signed by Mauji Ram SDO. To my mind, Mauji Ram could

be the best witness to disprove the version of the claimant/workman but he has not been examined or any other witness

who worked during the relevant period at Tar Ghar, Room No.3, Panipat, could not be examined by the management for

the reason best known to him. On the basis of these documents, this Tribunal is of the opinion that its relevancy cannot

be thrown out due to mere saying of the management that these documents are fabricated and procured documents

without any cogent evidence on record. Hence, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that workman has able to prove

that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

16. The vital question arises for consideration is whether termination of the workman from service by the management

from 23.05.2011 is in accordance with law or in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. According to the

testimony of the workman/claimant the work of Peon on which he had worked was of permanent nature and his services

were terminated by the management in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. It is neither the case of the management that

any notice or compensation in lieu of notice was given to the workman prior to termination of his services from

23.05.2011 nor any such evidence is adduced on record by the management. In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no

hesitation to hold that the services of the workman was terminated by the management from 23.05.2011 in violation of

Section 25-F of the Act.

17. There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section

25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the management to be illegal and void under the law. Since there is no

6718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the management to the workman at the time of termination or in

lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him as such, action of the management in terminating the services of

the workman is held to be illegal and void.

18. Now the residual question is whether the workman/claimant is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of

back wages and/or reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in

the employment of the management from April 2007 to 23.05.2011 on monthly salary basis. There is no show cause

notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the management. Learned counsel of the workman contended that

workman is entitled for reinstatement and there is no such bar and this Tribunal has got power to reinstate the workman

along with back wages while placing reliance in the cases of Maharashtra State Road Transport and another Vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana(2009) 8 SCC 556, and Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing

Corporation, Civil Appeal No.6327 of 2014, decided on 09.07.2014. From the perusal of these judgments, it is very

much clear that the fact of the above mentioned cases are altogether different and there is no doubt that this Court has got

power for ordering reinstatement of an employee provided the circumstances and facts of the case are of such a nature

where Tribunal deems to pass such order. The case put up by the workman in his claim statement reveals that he was

appointed by the SDO Mauji Ram and there is nothing on record to prove that he was appointed on a regular vacancy

against a sanctioned post and had completed 10 or more years in service as such, the argument advanced by the learned

counsel of the workman has no force in the light of the settled position of the case of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka.

19. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited

Vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limted(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 along with payment of back wages.

20. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case 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 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 calander year.”

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:

“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

“i) In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule.

ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the

Court of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the

employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to

prove that the workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he wads

drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of

the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It

is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows

that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee

was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6719

22. 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 25-F (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).

23. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the facts of the case, this Tribunal is of the firm view

that the claimant herein is entitled for the compensation rather than reinstatement into service on the same post. Looking

the nature of the salary and years of the workman in the service with the management, it will meet end of justice if

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded in favour of the workman and in case, this amount is not paid within one

month from the date of publication of the award, the workman shall be entitled to the said amount with 6% interest from

the date of notification till realisation.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 30 अग त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1662

1662

1662.—औkोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( केीय सरकार

यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ5 संmया 103/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 28.08.2019 को

ाE $ए थे।

[सं. एल-40012/94/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 30^th August, 2019

S.O. 1662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation toThe General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telecom Karnal, Haryana & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 28.08.2019.

[No. L-40012/94/2014-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No. 103/2014

Registered on:-02.03.2015

Sh. Balwinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Sagar Chand, R/o VPO Jhinjari,

Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar.

…Workman

Versus

Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ropar Sub-Division, Ropar

Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Office Kotla, Power House, Distt. Ropar

…Management

6720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on:-06.08.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/94/2014-IR(DU) Dated 29.01.2015, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Post Ofice, Ropar in terminating the services of Sh. Balwinder

Kumar S/o Sh. Sagar Chand w.e.f. 04.06.2014 is just, valid and legal? If not, to what benefits the

workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment

that he was appointed as GDSMD(Gramin Daak Sewak Mail Delivery) on temporary basis for 89 days by the

management from 24.02.2009, having qualification of being 10+2 passed and eligible for regular vacant post. Workman

remained in service upto 30.09.2002 in pursuance of initial appointment and thereafter giving 3-4 days notional break he

was allowed to resume duty w.e.f. 04.10.2009 in pursuance of order dated 03.10.2009 issued by the management.

Thereafter, workman remained in service continuously with notional break of 3-4 days without any extension order upto

03.06.2014. It is also alleged that although, workman was continuously working with the management but in January

2012 to March 2012, Sub-Post Master shown the break in paper and salary was prepared in the name of Rajesh Kumar,

nephew of the workman only to show the discontinuity and notional break but the salary was paid to the workman as he

was performing duties with the management-department for the relevant period. The action of the management showing

the discontinuity and notional break for three months in papers is illegal and is in violation of Section 25-T of the ID Act,

which amounts unfair labour practice. Similarly, in the month of January, February 2013 also shown break in papers and

salary was prepared in the name of Rajesh Kumar, nephew of the workman, who was minor and was not eligible for the

job for the period 21.03.2014 to 28.03.2014. He was working with the management but in papers 9 days break was

shown by showing the charge given to Kamal, GDSMD(Regular)only to further shows the discontinuity in service of the

workman. The workman again worked from 24.03.2014 to 03.06.2014 and his services were ultimately terminated on

04.06.2014 without any order/notice or any retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 while the workman had completed more than 240 days of service in each calendar year and he had

also completed more than 240 days of service in 12 months prior to the impugned termination. The services of the

workman were terminated on 04.06.2014 for the post which was still vacant and was not filled up by any regular

incumbent. The impugned termination of the workman on 04.06.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Section

25-F and 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman is unemployed and has not been gainfully employed

from the date of termination. It is therefore, prayed that the termination of the services of the workman be set aside being

illegal and violative of the provisions of ID Act and management be directed to reinstate the workman along with

continuity of service and full back wages in the interest of justice.

Management-Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh, have filed written statement, with the averment that

workman was engaged as outsider GDS MD(Gramin Dak Sewak) Mail Deliverer on stopgap arrangement w.e.f.

26.02.2009 at Kotla Power House Sub-Post Office for 89 days vide office memo dated 24.02.2009 with the undertaking

that he will not claim regularization as his services are purely temporary. He was engaged for performing the duties for 5

hours in a day only. The services of the workman were further engaged for 89 days from 03.10.2009 and further he was

engaged for 89 days from 30.12.2009. Similarly, the workman was again engaged for 89 days from 03.06.2014 on need

basis. The department initiated the process for taking regular appointment for the said post and the workman was given

an opportunity to compete with the other candidates but having only 28.9% marks in the matriculation, he could not be

selected against those persons who have better marks vide Annexure M-1. The workman did not continue in service upto

30.09.2009, as alleged by him in the statement of claim. He has not completed 240 days from the date of his engagement

as he was relieved on 31.12.2011 by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, an outsider GDS MD w.e.f. 03.01.2012 to 29.03.2013 and

accordingly, the salary was also paid to Sh. Rajesh Kumar for the said period. Thereafter, the applicant was engaged for

89 days upto 31.12.2012. It is denied that the applicant was working but the charge was shown to be given to Kamal Dev

GDS MD(Regular) for the period 21.03.2014 to 28.03.2014 to show discontinuity in service as alleged. It is admitted by

the management that lastly claimant was engaged from 29.03.2014 to 03.06.2014 and was disengaged from 04.06.2014

due to the appointment of regular incumbent. He has not completed 240 days in 12 months prior to the date of

disengagement. Therefore, Section 25-F of the ID Act is not attracted and notice or one month salary in lieu of notice is

not required according to ID Act. Management had denied that the workman was not gainfully employed after his

disengagement and is earning his livelihood and getting the amount he was drawing from the management before his

disengagement. It is requested by the management that reference may be answered in negative and claim statement is

liable to be rejected with cost.

Both the parties were given opportunities to lead evidence. Workman, Balwinder Kumar, has submitted his

affidavit Ex.A-1 along with documents Ex.A-2 andA-3 and matriculation certificate Ex.A-4 as a part of his statement. He

has denied the suggestion that at the time of his appointment he had assured that he will not claim regularization. This

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6721

witness has accepted that he used to work for five hours and did not appear in any examination to get his regular

appointment. He has further denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel of the management that he did not work

continuously and Rajesh Kumar was not appointed to show a break in the service. Ex.W1 is the service extension for 89

days. Similarly, W3 is the matriculation examination certificate of Rajesh Kumar, showing his date of birth 13.12.1995

which is relevant for the purpose for deciding whether he was major or minor at the time of the alleged engagement by

the management.

Respondent-management has filed affidavit of Manoj Kumar, Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Chandigarh., who has

submitted his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.M1 for the recruitment of claimant for the post of GDS

MD. The management witness Sh. Manoj Kumar while cross-examined by the workman-counsel has admitted that his

knowledge is based on the record of the department regarding the case in question before the Tribunal. He has denied

that workman had worked from 26.09.2009 to 03.06.2014 continuously in the department. This witness has further stated

that the actual work in the month of January, February and March 2012 and for the month of January, February 2013 was

done by Rajesh Kumar and his attendance was marked also. This witness has stated that he has no record regarding

attendance and date of birth of Rajesh Kumar. He has further denied the suggestion that workman rendered his services

for 240 days before his termination on 04.06.2014 but admitted that he is not in a position to tell that how many days

workman rendered his services before his termination. Thus, the evidence led by this witness clarified that workman was

initially engaged on 26.02.2009 and disengaged on 04.06.2014 with break and he cannot tell the working days of the

workman before last preceding one year from his alleged termination.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for the workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, Ld. Counsel for the

management and perused the record carefully.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of the

management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of

his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he had worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a

calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltv. Vs. Sowaran Singh(2005) 8

Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai

Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.

There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid cases. However, the

factual scenario in the present case is bit different, inasmuch as the management in its written statement has clearly

admitted the factum of employment of the claimant inasmuch as it has been stated that the workman was engaged in the

office of Superintendent of Post Offices in the month of February 2009 on a stop gap arrangement where he worked with

considerable break upto June 2014. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the

management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.

Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the

provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as follows:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty

for fixed hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or

contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a

person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In these circumstances,

it stands proved that there existed relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

It is a specific case of the workman/claimant that he was engaged as GDSMD by the management on daily

wage basis w.e.f. 29.02.2009 and worked till 04.06.2014 when his services were illegally terminated. Thus, he in fact

had competed more than 240 days of service in each calendar year but despite that no notice or compensation in lieu of

notice period was given to him prior to termination of his services by the management. The affidavit filed by the

workman/claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition.

In cross-examination, the claimant/workman has denied the suggestion of management counsel that he has not

completed 240 days in each year or preceding year of his alleged termination on 04.06.2014. It may be mentioned that

management has not adduced any evidence whatsoever in order to substantiate its stand that he was not engaged in the

month of 2009 and had not worked for 240 days in each calendar year or preceding year of his alleged termination. It is

6722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 14, 2019/BHADRA 23, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

pertinent to mention here that claimant/workman had filed an application on 04.11.2015 for summoning/production of

record by the management i.e. attendance register, pay roll, daily dak registry list which are in the custody of the

management. In the reply, it has been stated by the management vide objection dated 20.01.2016 that original record is

not required to be filed in Court and applicant may summon the witness along with record as prayed in the application

but the same is not required to summon without any witness. Thus, management has safely tried not to produce the

relevant documents which are necessary to prove the continuation of the services of the workman with the management

from 24.02.2009 to 04.06.2014. The suggestion made by the management vide its objection is not tenable in the eye of

law as management is under obligation to produce relevant documents to ensure the actual working period and services

rendered by the workman during the disputed period. In my opinion, management is also under obligation to file on

record the attendance register or pay roll and daily dak delivery list, which is most important document to prove or deny

the real controversy between the workman/claimant and management. Daily dak delivery list is maintained by actual

person of day to day working of GDSMD for delivery of letter registry and other parcels sent through post to the

concerned person may have decisive factor for entire dispute. The management has not produced the aforesaid records

merely by objecting that these documents are not required to be filed in the Court. During the course of arguments,

learned counsel of the management could not satisfy the Tribunal when question put by me regarding the importance

relevancy and utility of these documents to decide the real controversy between the parties. In these circumstances, this

Tribunal is constrained to draw adverse inference against the management under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for

non-production of requisite records and to believe the version of the claimant/workman that he worked with the

management for over 240 days in each calendar year before his alleged disengagement/termination by the management.

10.

There is another aspect of the matter as claimant has filed on record photocopy of the matriculation

examination certificate of his nephew Rajesh Kumar issued by Punjab School Education Board as Annexure W-3.

Learned counsel of the workman has drawn my attention towards the date of birth mentioned in the mark sheet of the

Rajesh Kumar, which is 13.12.1995. Learned counsel further argued that version of the workman finds support from this

document that actually he worked with the management for the month of January, February and March 2012 and from

January and February 2013 but salary was prepared in the name of Rajesh Kumar nephew of the workman only to show

artificial break in service of the claimant/workman. Learned counsel of the workman argued that by virtue of the date of

birth of Rajesh Kumar, it was not possible for the management to engage him as GDSMD because he was minor at the

relevant time. But in order to face saving device management adopted noble style by preparing salary in the name of

Rajesh Kumar while the payment is made to the claimant/workman. Management has an opportunity to prove the

payment made to Rakesh Kumar by filing salary papers and attendance register of Rajesh Kumar. The argument

advanced by the learned counsel for the workman is in the line of the settled legal position that any minor cannot be

assigned work in any establishment during the course of his minority. Against this, no evidence is led by the

management while witness Manoj Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination that he has no record regarding the date

of birth of Rajesh Kumar. But management did not care to file relevant documents pertaining to Rajesh Kumar and its

reluctance for not filing the relevant documents is ample proof that there was something wrong with management in

respect of workman. Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar

Bahadur(1974)4 SCC 618, R.S Singh Vs. State of Punjab and other(1999)8 SCC page 90, and in the case of State

Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Pandey, Civil Appeal No.263/2013 dated 14.01.2013 that cases relating to the

industrial dispute has to be decided on preponderance of probability rather than the proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, evidence adduced by the workman/claimant regarding his notional break appears to be true and I am fortified for

this conclusion by the evidence led by the workman regarding the engagement of Rajesh Kumar a nephew of workman

for six months from January to March 2012 and January, February 2013. It is pertinent to mention that management has

though admitted the engagement of Rajesh Kumar but it has not denied either in written statement or in evidence led by

the management that Manoj Kumar is not the nephew of the claimant/workman. Further question arises that why

management chose to engage Rajesh Kumar in place of claimant/workman for the relevant period in spite of the fact that

he was minor at the relevant time and could not be engaged for the duty of GDSMD. I am of the opinion that actually it

was workman/claimant who was working with the management and performing his duty as GDSMD during the period

for which Rajesh Kumar is shown to be engaged by the management. That is why, management knowingly concealed the

relevant documents pertaining to Rajesh Kumar about his date of birth or other documents which are executed by the

workman/claimant during his duty at relevant time and other documents pertaining to attendance etc. In view of this

discussion, the contention of the management that the workman did not worked 240 days in each calendar year does not

hold ground.

11.

Now the vital question arises for consideration is whether the termination of the services of the

claimant/workman by the management from 04.06.2014 is in accordance with the law or is violative of Section 25-F of

the Act? Accordingly testimony of the workman/claimant the work of GDSMD on which he was working was of

permanent nature and his services were terminated on 04.06.2014 without joining the new incumbent in place of

claimant/workman without giving notice or one month salary in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. It is neither the case

of the management that a notice or compensation in lieu of notice was given to the workman prior to the date of his

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 14] 2019@Hkknz 23] 1941

6723

termination from 04.06.2014 nor such evidence is adduced by the management on record. Contrary to this, management

has admitted in his written statement that workman/claimant was not given any notice or one month salary before his

retrenchment/termination because he has participated in the proceeding of appointment of regular incumbent and was

declared failed by virtue of the marks obtained by him in his matriculation. Management has filed document Ex.M-1

pertaining to comparative list of selected candidates for the post of GDSMD in which Ajay Kumar, Dilpreet Sharma,

Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Miss Neelam Sharma and Krishan Kumar have been shown selected for the post of GDSMD

Kotla Power House, having more marks than claimant/workman Balwinder Kumar, from 83.69% to 72.46% against the

marks of the claimant Balwinder Kumar 28.9% only. It is pertinent to mention that claimant/workman has not challenged

the selection or selection process but he has challenged his termination against the principles laid down in Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I am not convince with the argument of the learned counsel of the management that

workman/claimant was given opportunity to appear in the selection process for regular appointment and due to his

failure, there was no need to give him one month notice or one month salary before his retrenchment in the light of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. 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. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the management to the

workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the

management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.

12.

Now the residual question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant/workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with full back wages who was continuously in the employment of management from 24.02.2009

to 04.06.2014 with notional break on temporary basis which is extended from time to time upto 03.06.2014. There is no

show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman. He has pleaded that he is unemployed from the date of his

termination and this factum is further proved by the workman in his affidavit filed as evidence and cross-examination by

the learned counsel of the management. The management has not adduced any evidence to show that the

claimant/workman has gainfully employed after the termination.

13.

A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited

Vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limted(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 along with payment of back wages.

14.

However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported

as 2005 SCC (L & S) 716, observed as under:-