4766 GI/2019

(6897)

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- 39]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 22—flrEcj 28] 2019] 'kfuokj@Hkknz 31—vkf'ou 6] 1941

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 22— SEPTEMBER 28, 2019, SATURDAY/BHADRA 31—ASVINA 6, 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)

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

मंालय

(कामक

कामक

कामक और िशण

और िशण

और िशण िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 11 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1735

1735

1735.—के सरकार एतदारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ पठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शि"य# का योग करते &ए मिणपुर रा' य

सरकार, गृह िवभाग, क अिधसूचना सं. 12/1(2)/2017-एच(सीबीआई) (एमडीएस), दनांक 6 मई, 2019 के मा) यम से

ा* त सहमित से मिणपुर िवकास संथा (एमडीएस) म+ िव ीय अिनयिमतता. के संबंध म+ भा.दं.संिहता क धारा

420/403/409/120-बी/34 एवं /0ाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम क धारा 13(i)(सी) के अधीन सतक2ता पुिलस थाना के

मामला एफआईआर सं.3(08)2017 के साथ समामेिलत इफाल पुिलस थाना म+ भा.दं.संिहता क धारा 420/406/120-

बी/409/34 एवं /. िन. अिधिनयम, 1988 क धारा 13(2) के अधीन दज2 एफआईआर सं. 244(9)2017 म+ मामले का

अ वेषण करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के सद य# क शि"य# और 6े7ािधकार का िव तार सम त मिणपुर

रा' य म+ करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/24/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. ि7पाठी, अवर सिचव

6898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2019

S.O. 1735.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Manipur, Home Department issued vide Notification No.12/1(2)/2017-H(CBI)(MDS) dated the 6^th May,

2019, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole

of the State of Manipur for carrying out investigation into case under FIR No.244(9)2017 U/s 420/406/120-B/409/34 IPC

& 13(2) P.C Act, 1988 of Imphal Police Station amalgamated with case FIR No. 3(08)2017 of Vigilance Police Station

U/s 420/403/409/120-B/34 IPC & 13(i)(c) P.C Act in connection with financial irregularities in Manipur Development

Society (MDS).

[F. No. 228/24/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दली, 11 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1736

1736

1736.—के सरकार, द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं या 25)

क धारा 3 ारा द शि"य# का योग करते &ए उन अपराध# को, िजह+ भी द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के सदय#

ारा अवेिषत कए जाने ह=, एत>ारा िविन?द2@ ट करती है, नामतः -

(क) असम िनवेशक# के क सुर6ा (िव ीय संथान# म+) अिधिनयम 2000 (एपीआईडी अिधिनयम-2000)।

(ख) उपयु2D त अपराध# के संबंध म+ या इनसे जुड़े यास#, दु@ ेरणा. और षFं7# तथा उ हG तH य# से उI प न अथवा

उसी संJ यवहार म+ कए गए या कसी अ य अपराध या अपराध# हेतु ।

[फा. सं. 228/21/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. ि7पाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2019

S.O. 1736.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the offence which are also to be investigated by

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:-

(a)

Assam Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act-2000 (APID Act-2000).

(b) Attempts, abetments, and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offences and any

other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/21/2019- AVD-II)]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1737

1737

1737.—के सरकार एतदारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ पठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शि"य# का योग करते &ए ि7पुरा रा' य सरकार,

गृह िवभाग क अिधसूचना सं. एफ.21(2)-पीडी/2012(पी-I)/2947 दनांक 04.11.2017 के मा) यम से ा* त सहमित से

ोफ़ेसर पी.के.बोस, भूतपूव2 िनदेशक, एनआईटी अगरतला एवं अय के ारा 2008 से 2012 क अविध के दौरान िवNुत एवं

सबO िवभाग म+ सॉQटवेयर एवं हाड2वेयर के Sय म+ बरती गई अिनयिमतता. एवं रािश के गबन, फनTचर क खरीद,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6899

नेटवक2 कनेिDटवटी के िन@पादन एवं िनयुि"य# इIयाद म+ क गई अिनयिमतता. म+ भारतीय दंड संिहता क धारा 409,

420, 120 बी तथा /0ाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम,1988 क धारा 13(1)(डी) के तहत िजरािनया पुिलस थाना मामला

संया 2015 जेआरएन046 दनांक 09.12.2015 तथा िजसक सीआईडी ि7पुरा ारा जांच क जा रही है, से संबंिधत

अपराध# के अवेषण/आगे का अवेषण करने के िलए तथा उपयु2D त अपराध# के संबंध म+ कए गए दु@यास#, दु@ ेरणा. और

षडयं7# तथा उसी संJ यवहार म+ कए गए अथवा उ हG तH य# से उI प न ासंिगक कसी अ य अपराध/अपराध# का अ वेषण

करने के िलए और साथ ही दोषी J यि" के िवUO आपरािधक अिभयोजन चलाने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के

सद य# क शि"य# और 6े7ािधकार का िव तार सम त ि7पुरा रा' य म+ करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/58/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. ि7पाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2019

S.O. 1737.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Tripura, Home Department issued vide Notification No.F.21(2)-PD/2012 (P-I)/2947 dated 04.12.2017

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole of the State

of Tripura for investigation/further investigation of the offences relating to Jirania PS Case No.2015JRN046 dated

09.12.2015 u/s 409, 420, 120-B IPC and section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 against Professor P.K Bose, Ex-Director, NIT

Agartala & others being investigated by CID Tripura regarding irregularities and embezzlement of funds in purchase of

Software & Hardware in Electrical and Allied Department, purchase of furniture, in execution of network connectivity

and in appointments etc., during the year 2008 to 2012 and any other offence/offences, attempt, abetments & conspiracy

in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/offences committed in course of

the same transaction arising out of the same facts and simultaneously launching of criminal prosecution against the guilty

persons.

[F. No. 228/58/2017-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1738

1738

1738.—क+ सरकार, एतदारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 क अिधिनयम

संया 25) क धारा 3 ारा द शि"य# का योग करते &ए िनVिलिखत अपराध# को द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना ारा

जांच हेतु िविन?द20 करती है, नामतः-

(क) के तहत दंडनीय अपराध

कंपनी (संशोधन) अिधिनयम, 2017 (2018 का अिधिनयम सं.1)

कंपनी (संशोधन) अिधिनयम, 2019 (2019 का अिधिनयम सं. 22)

(ख) उपयु2" अपराध एवं उसी संXवहार म+ कए गए अथवा उहG तHय# से उIपY कसी अय अपराध या अपराध#

म+ कए गए यास, दु@ेरणाएं और षडयं7।

[फा. सं. 228/24/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. ि7पाठी, अवर सिचव

6900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2019

S.O. 1738.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences to be investigated by

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:-

(a) Offences punishable under : -

1. The Companies (Amendment) Act , 2017 (Act No.1 of 2018).

2. The Companies (Amendment) Act , 2019 (Act No.22 of 2019).

(b) Attempts, abetments, and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences

and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/24/2019-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 23 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1739

1739

1739.—के सरकार एतदारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ पठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शि"य# का योग करते &ए एतदारा कना2टक

रा' य सरकार, गृह िवभाग, क आदेश संया एचडी 48 पीसीबी 2016, ब+गलु[ दनांक 06/09/2019, के मा) यम से ा* त

सहमित से धारवाड़ सब अरबन पुिलस थाना, धारवाड़, कना2टक म+ भारतीय दंड संिहता क धारा 302 के तहत दज2 अपराध

सं. 135/2016 म+ आगे के अ वेषण करने के िलए तथा इससे स बO अथवा उपरो" अपराध# से संबंिधत एक या एक से

अिधक अपराध# एवं उससे स बO अपराध# म+ कए गए यास#, दु@ ेरणा. और षडं7# तथा उसी संJ यवहार म+ कए गए या

उ हG तH य# से उIपY कसी अ य अपराध या अपराध# क जांच करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के सद य# क

शि"य# और 6े7ािधकार का िव तार समत कना2टक रा' य म+ करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/25/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. ि7पाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 23^rd September, 2019

S.O. 1739.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

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

Government of Karnataka Home Department, Order No.HD 48 PCB 2016, BENGALURU, dated 06.09.2019 hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole State of

Karnataka for further investigation of Crime No.135/2016 u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code lodged in Dharwad Sub-Urban

Police Station, Dharwad, Karnataka and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or

more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence (s) committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/25/2019-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6901

पेोिलयम

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. 1740

1740

1740.—केीय सरकार, पे\ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन ( भूिम म+ उपयोग के अिधकार के अज2न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के ख] ड (क) के अनुसरण म+ और पे\ोिलयम एवं ाकृितक गैस मं7ालय,

भारत सरकार के का. आ. 2342 दनांक 29 िसतंबर 2017 क अिधसूचना के संशोधन म+ उD त अिधिनयम के अधीन

हरयाणा रा' य के रा' य6े7 के भीतर िह दु तान पे\ोिलयम कॉप_रेशन िलिमटेड क मुंा दली पाइपलाइन, बहादुरगढ़

टकरीकलान पाइपलाइन, रमनमंडी बहादुरगढ़ पाइपलाइन और रेवारी कानपूर पाइपलाइन परयोजना के िलए स6म

अिधकारी के काय` का िनव2हन करने के िलए aी बंसी लाल, तहसीलदार, बहादुरगढ़, हरयाणा सरकार को ािधकृत करती

है। यह अिधसूचना क दनांक से लागू है।

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

पी. सोमा कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S. O. 1740.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

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

Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 2342 dated the 29^th September, 2017, the Central Government hereby authorizes

Shri Bansi Lal, Tehsildar, Bahadurgarh, Government of Haryana to perform the functions of Competent Authority for

HPCL’s Mundra Delhi Pipeline, Bahadurgarh Tikrikalan Pipeline, Ramanmandi Bahadurgarh Pipeline and Rewari

Kanpur Pipeline under the said Act, within the territory of Haryana State. The Notification is applicable from the date of

this notification.

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

P. SOMA KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk- 1741-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ¼98@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 19-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@30@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-12012/30/2013– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

6902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 98/2013

Shri Piyush Kumar Sharma,

RZ-19/B/5, Gali No.4,

Main Sagarpur,

Delhi 110 046.

…Workman

Versus

(i)

The General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd,.

HDFC Bank House, 2^nd Floor,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel,

Mumbai – 400 013

(ii)

The General Manager,

10166-67, Ground Floor,

Gurudware Wali Road,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi 110 015

…Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) as received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment for adjudication vide letter No.L-12012/30/2013-IR(B-I) dated 04.06.2013 for adjudication of an industrial

dispute, terms of which are as under:-

‘Whether the action of the management of M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. in termination of the services of Shri Piyush

Kumar Sharma is legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?’

Claim statement was filed by the claimant/workman Shri Piyush Kumar Sharma, with the averments that he was

appointed by HDFC Bank Ltd., the management, after conduct of interview and was put on trial with effect from

02.01.2011. His performance was found excellent and hence was appointed as ‘Clerk’ where the workman was

performing duties of opening new accounts on temporary basis at Adarsh Nagar branch of the management. Taking into

account his excellent performance, the workman was regularized on 02.05.2011 at a monthly salary of Rs.10000.00.

However, no appointment letter was issued despite repeated requests. The workman worked to the entire satisfaction of

his superiors. During his entire service period, the workman applied for leave from 02.11.2011 to 12.11.2011 for visiting

his hometown but the same was not sanctioned. The salary for May, June and July 2011 was paid in the month of

August 2011 but he was short paid by 11 days. He was later on transferred to Karol Bagh branch of the management to

manage the new account opening branch. The workman approached the Bombay office of the management for issuance

of an appointment letter, which annoyed the management at Delhi office and they resorted to harass the workman by not

allowing him sign in the attendance register. Thereafter from the month of October 2011 to January 2012, i.e. till his

illegal termination, the management manipulated/marked his absence in the attendance register. The workman was

allowed to sign in the register only for a few days. The claimant has further pleaded that he has not been paid wages for

the period October 2011 to January, 2012, bonus etc. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer in January 2012

for redresssal of his grievance. However, the management preferred to illegally terminate the services of the workman

vide letter dated 05.01.2012 without issuance of show cause notice/charge sheet or holding an enquiry. The management

also failed to give one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof in complete violation of section 25-F of the Act. Finally, it

has been prayed that the claimant may be reinstated in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

Written statement was filed on behalf of management No.1 taking various preliminary objections, i.e. the claim

has been filed with malafide intention with a view to put undue pressure on the management to succumb to his illegal

demand, the claim not being not being an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 of the Act as he is governed by

personal contract and also the fact that the present dispute is related to two individual parties. The workman also does not

fall within the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under the Act. Further as per the Fixed Term Contract dated

02.05.2011, management reserves its right to terminate the services of the workman without giving any compensation or

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6903

notice. However, workman was given numerous opportunities to improve his performance, which he failed. The

workman proceeded on leave without prior intimation to his senior officers/ getting the same sanctioned from his

supervisors. There were various disciplinary issues against the claimant, i.e. he was never punctual, Daily sales report

was not completed on time, never reported to his immediate superiors though he was present in the office, he failed to

achieve the targets assigned to him, never assigned or his duties or gave charge to any other manager before proceeding

on leave etc. Under the Fixed Term Contract, the management had powers to terminate services of the workman on

grounds of failure to achieve the prescribed targets set by the management or if there is breach of contract by giving one

months notice. On merits, management and refuted the other averments contained in the statement of claim. Finally, it

has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 11.01.2017, framed the following issues and

the case was then listed for evidence of the claimant union:

(i)

Whether the claimant is a workman with the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(ii)

In terms of reference.

Claimant, in order to prove his case examined himself as WW1, whose affidavit is Ex.WW1/A and he relied on

documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. On the other hand, the Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant

examined Shri Anurag Dixit, Assistant Vice President as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he relied on

documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/9. No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

Shri Jitesh Pandey, authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Ms.Romila Joshi,

authorized representative advanced arguments on behalf of the management. I have gone through the records and my

findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1

So far as the question as to whether workman herein falls within the definition of “workman” as provided under

section 2(s) of the Act is concerned, no specific arguments were advanced on behalf of the management. There is no

evidence on record to show that the workman was performing duties of supervisory or managerial in nature. It is well

settled that in order to find out as to whether a person was performing the work of supervisory or managerial in nature,

the dominant purpose of the employment of the person concerned should be taken into consideration and certain

additional duties performed by him should be ignored while determining the status and character of the person. Since the

objection regarding the status of the workman being employed in supervisory capacity has been taken by the

management, as such the onus to prove this fact is upon the management. It was imperative for the management to

adduce cogent evidence to prove the specific nature of duty regarding supervisory or managerial work of the workman.

In order to find out whether the workman herein falls within the definition of workman as defined in section 2(s) of the

Act. It would be expedient to have a glance on definition of the term ‘workman’, contained in section 2(s) of the Act.

For sake of convenience, definition of term ‘workman’ is reproduced thus:

“2(s) Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute includes any such person

who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose

dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i)

Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act 1950(46 of 1950) or the Navy Act,

1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii)

Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison , or

(iii) Who is, employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per

mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature”.

The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the term ‘workman’. This part of the definition

determines a workman by reference to a person (including an apprentice) employed in an “industry” to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines what a

“workman” means. The second part is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes. By this

part of the definition, person (i) who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial

dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the purpose of any

proceeding under the Act in relation to such industrial dispute, have been included in the definition of “workman”. This

6904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

part gives extended connotation to the expression “workman”. The third part specifically excluded the categories of

persons specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of this sub section. The third part connotes that even if a person satisfies the

requirements of any of the first two parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in the third part, he shall be excluded

from the definition of ‘workman’. Not only the persons who are actually employed in an industry but also those who

have been discharged, dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute, and whose

dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, would fall within the ambit of the definition. In other

words, the second category of persons included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the definition, only for the

purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other purposes. Therefore, date

of reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the definition of workman on that day, the Tribunal would be

vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely because subsequently the workman

ceases to be workman.

10.

For an employee in an industry to be a “workman” under this definition, it is manifest hat he must be employed

to do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an

employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a workman. The specification of the four types of work obviously is

intended to law down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those types,

while there may be employees who, not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the word ‘workman’, without

having resort to the exceptions. It cannot be held that every employee of an industry was to be a workman except those

mentioned in the four exceptions as in the case these four classifications need not have been mentioned in the definition

and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he was covered by

one of the exceptions.

11.

In cases where an employee is employed to do purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory work or

technical work or clerical work there would be no difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the appropriate

classification. Frequently, however, an employee is required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it would

be necessary to determine under which classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out whether he does not go

out of the definition of ‘workman’ under the exceptions. The principle is now well settled that, for this purpose, a

workman must be held to be employed to do that work which is the main work he is required to do even though he may

incidentally doing other type of work.

12.

In view of the legal position discussed above, it cannot be held that the workman herein does not fall within the

ambit and scope of the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Hence the issue is decided

accordingly against the Management.

Issue No. 2 :-

13.

From the pleadings of the parties, it is manifest that the workman/claimant joined the services as a clerk with

the Management on 02.01.2011 and his services were regularized as contract sales executive on 02.05.2011 vide order

(Fixed Term contract) Ex.MW1/3. The said contract/agreement though does not bear the signatures of the workman was

effective for two years. It was specifically provided in the said contract Ex.MW1/3 under clause 12 that the contract

may be terminated by either party giving to the other not less than one month’s and not more than thirty day’s

prior written notice to that effect expiring at any time after the commencement of workman’s service or by the

Bank paying him one month’s basic salary in lieu of notice. Testimony of the claimant/workman that he was not

served with any kind of notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act before termination of his services on

28/12/2011, has gone unchallenged. It is the case of the Management that they terminated the services of the claimant as

his performance was poor and memo Ex.MW1/7 was also issued to him. However, there is nothing on record to suggest

that any prior written notice was served by the Management upon the claimant or in lieu thereof one month’s salary was

paid to the claimant/workman by the Management, in terms of the contract Ex.MW1/3. It is also evident from

termination letter Ex.MW1/9 that in fact no written prior notice of 30 days was served upon the workman, inasmuch it

has been stated in the termination letter that services of the workman Piyush Kumar Sharma were terminated with effect

from close of office hours on 28/12/2011. Though by way of the said letter it was communicated to the

claimant/workman that he will be paid 30 days’ salary in lieu of notice as per clause 12 of the contract letter dated

2/5/2011, however the Management has not led any evidence to show that in fact 30 days’ salary was paid to the

workman at the time of termination of his services. It would not be out of place to mention here that Section 25-F of the

Act also clearly provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less

than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until the workman has been given one month' s

notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of the notice. I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions

precedent to retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6905

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the

notice;

(b)

The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the

Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the

Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

14.

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

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

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.

15.

Since there is no evidence on record that in lieu of notice period, any compensation was paid to the workman,

as such action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 29/12/2011 is held to be illegal and

void.

16.

Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back

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

the employment of the Management from 2/1/2011 to 28/12/2011. His last drawn wages/salary were to the Rs.10,000/-

per month. Services of the claimant were illegally terminated w.e.f. 29/12/2011. Though the workman/claimant has

prayed for reinstatement into service with full back wages, however he has neither pleaded nor has adduced any evidence

to show that he is not gainfully employed since after his termination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu

Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has observed as under :

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

(i)

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule.

(ii)

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

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

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

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

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

he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of

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

existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the

employee shows that he was employed, the 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.”

17.

Since the claimant has neither pleaded nor has adduced any evidence to show that he is not gainfully

employed since after his termination, to my mind he is not entitled for reinstatement into service. Furthermore, latest

trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that when a person has

been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are not to be

awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question

of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India

(2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-

“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.

Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment

passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, automatically be passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages

has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The

Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.

6906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the

termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as

mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always

open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment

compensation.

18.

Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) appears to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein

by the Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of this

Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum till realization of the

amount. Award is passed accordingly.

Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Date : 2.9.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk- 1742-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2019

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@66@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-41012/66/2012– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 31/2013

Ref. No. L-41012/66/2012-IR(B-I) dated: 11.03.2013

BETWEEN :

Shri Rajendera Kumar S/o Shri Nanhe Lal

Village Harikuver Post. Nighova

District – Lucknow (UP)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

Northern Railway

DRM, Hajratganj, Lucknow

M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed and Brothers

654, Begum ka Makbara

Janpad Faizabad.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6907

AWARD

By order No. L-41012/66/2012-IR(B-I) dated: 11.03.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Shri Rajendera Kumar

S/o Shri Nanhe Lal, Village Harikuver Post. Nighova, District – Lucknow (UP) and the Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway, DRM, Hajratganj, Lucknow & M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed and Brothers, 654, Begum ka Makbara,

Janpad Faizabad for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW AND

M/S. SHAHID FAIZAN AHMED & BROTHERS, FAIZABAD IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF

SHRI RAJENDERA KUMAR S/O SHRI NANHE LAL W.E.F. 25.04.2009 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO

WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman, in brief, is that he had been appointed through opposite party No. 2 to work for

opposite party No. 1 as Driver Box Porter on 25.04.2006. The workman has stated that the work done by him was

perennial in nature and he worked continuously upto 25.04.2009 for more than 240 days, continuously for more than

120 days, when his services were terminated without any notice pay or retrenchment compensation, in violation to the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. He has also submitted that after his termination, new employees have been

recruited in his place, in violation to the provisions of section 25 H of the Act; accordingly, the workman has prayed that

he may be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service.

The opposite party No. 01 has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it has

mentioned that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the opposite party No. 01; moreover the railway

management entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 02 for executing the day to day casual work at

railway stations; and accordingly, the railway administration is not liable for any claim made by the workman as the

railway administration neither engaged the workman nor did it terminate him; and also that it did not make any violation

of any labour law or engaged in any kind of unfair labour practice; hence it has been prayed by the opposite party No. 1

that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him being devoid of merit.

The opposite party No. 2 did not file any written statement in spite of repeated notices.

The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has denied the counter allegations of the opposite parties

reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

After filing of rejoinder, the workman abstained himself from the proceedings w.e.f. 14.06.2016 and neither

filed any list of documents in support of its pleadings; nor corroborated the same though oral evidence; accordingly, in

rebuttal the management also preferred not to file any evidence; resultantly, the case was fixed for arguments.

The authorized representative of the management of OP No. 1 argued his case; whereas none trued up from

either the workman or the OP No.2.

Heard the authorized representatives of the OP No. 1 only, Sri U.K. Bajpai and perused entire material available

on record.

In M/s. Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour

Court (II), Ghaziabad & others 2008 (118) FLR 1164, Hon’ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex Court

in Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and

others 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others 1984 (49) FLR 38 and (Alld.)

Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others 1996 (74) FLR 2004; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

“that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by

the Court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence

at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the

allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

10.

In the present case the workman failed to prove his case as he neither filed any documentary or oral evidence in

support of his pleadings; nor did he turn up for his cross-examination. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was

obligatory on the part of workman union to come forward with the case that his services have illegally been terminated

by the opposite parties in utter violation of the statutory provisions. There is no reliable material for recording findings

that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the action of the management of opposite parties in terminating his

services was either illegal or unjustified.

6908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is adjudicated against the workman; and as such, I come to the

conclusion that the workman is not entitled to any of the relief(s) claimed.

12.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

9th August, 2019.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk- 1743-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] [1947 1947 dk 14] dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/;

fcgkj xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k iVuk ds iapkV [lanHkZ la[;k vkbZ-Mh- ekeyk la[;k 02 ( C ) of 2015] dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award [ID Case No. 02 ( C ) of 2015] of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 02 (C) of 2015

Between the management of Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O- Meena Plaza, South Museum Road,

Patna-800001 And Their workman Sri Gopal Kant Singh, S/O- Late Lakhan Singh, Vill.- Parbaldih, P.O- Kariadpur,

P.S- Fatehpur, Dist.- Gaya-824232.

For the management :

Sri Rabi Kant Prasad Srivastava, Senior Manager.

Sri Santosh Sharan Thakur, Asst. Manager.

For the workman :

Sri B. Prasad, President, President Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association.

Present : Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt. 16^th August, 2019

1. The present case has been filed u/s 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Dispute ( Amendment ) Act, 2010 by the aforesaid

workman who seeks relief of setting aside the order dated-29.09.2014 passed by the Ld Disciplinary Authority &

confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide order dated-22.11.2014, reinstatement in the services of the Bank with all

consequential benefits and payment of cost of Rs. 20000/- for contesting the dispute.

2. Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Ministry of Labour, Maurya

Lok Complex, 2^nd Floor, Block ‘A’ Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-1 vide application dated- 17.12.2014 which was received

by the office on 18.12.2014 ( for short A.L.C ( C ), who a issued notice vide File No.- 1/02/2015 dated- 6 / 7th January,

2015 to the concerned parties.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) Patna held conciliation proceedings and tried his level best to settle

the dispute but due to the non-conciliatory attitude of the management, the conciliation proceedings ended in failure.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6909

After filing the dispsute, a period of 45 days elapsed and accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 2A (1 &

2) of the Industrial Dispute ( Amendment ) Act, 2010, an application was filed before this Tribunal.

Both parties appeared before this tribunal and management filed written statement.

In the instant case a petition has been filed on behalf of the management on 06.03.2018 stating therein that in

view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2053 of 2016 on 22.11.2017 and

confirmed in L.P.A No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable and hence the same

should be rejected.

A petition has also been filed on behalf of the workman on 19.06.2019 praying theirin to withdraw the instant

I.D.Case in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the workman himself want to withdraw the

I.D.Case.

Heard both the parties.

Accordingly, In view of the petition dt-19.06.2019 filed by the workman, the instant I.D.Case is hereby

dispossed of as withdrawan and also being not maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Patna

High Court. This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

16.08.2019

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk-1744-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l bZ

jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] ua- 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@260@1999&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of S.E. Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-41012/260/1999– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947

Reference: No. 119/2000

Employer in relation to the management of S.E. Railway, Purulia

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

6910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Railway

Dated 29/07 /2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-41012/260/1999 -IR (B-I) dated 22/02/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of D.R.M., S.E. Railway, Adra in dismissing the services of

Sri Bhushan from 26.03.97 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again notices were issued to the parties and one of the notices

returned undelivered The Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before the Tribunal. It appears that

the workmen has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk- 1745-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k

iwoZ e/; jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 90@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@04@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2013-14 ) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-41011/04/2014– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/90/2013-14

Date: 29.08.2019

Party No.1:

The Divisional Commercial Manager,

South East Central Railway,

Kingsway,

Nagpur.

V/s

Party No.2:

Shri Rajesh Supatkar,

General Secretary,

Parcel Porters Sanghathan,

New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,

Near Mhada Colony,

Nagpur (M.S) – 440030.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6911

AWARD

(Dated: 29^th August, 2019)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the Management of South East Central Railway and their Union, Parcel

Porters Sanghathan for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/04/2014-IR (B-I) dated 25.02.2014, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Senior Division Commercial Superintendent South East Central Railway,

Nagpur in seizure the badge of Shri Sunil Brijlal Ganveer, Porter of Gondia Railway Station and debar for

the post of Gangman as per policy of Railway Board letter dated 01.04.2008 is just fair & legal? To what

relief is entitled to the concerned workman”.

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the Union Parcel Porters Sanghathan(“The Union” in short) filed the Statement of Claim and the

Management of South East Central Railway(“Party No.1” in short) filed its Written Statement.

3. The worker, through the Union filed Statement of Claim by asserting that, the workman raised his dispute through

A.L.C. Nagpur and asserted that, he was work as a Licensed Porter as per Railway rules and regulations on 26.02.2008

and Railway issued a License through Badge No.3 on 26.02.2008, but “Badge transfer was taken place wrongly.” It

should be simply adjudged the Licensed Porter and copied the fake remark of Commercial Department.

According to the workman, he regularly paid the license fee for renew his license and Railway issued a Valid

Identity Card to him. Railway also issued Railway Recruitment Rules in which minimum educational qualification is

VIII Std. According to him, appointment will be subjected to surrendering the license and Badge and right to be a

License Porter, but Screening Committee without extending his employment, taken back his valid License and Badge

illegally. Railway did not return his License or Badge.

According to the workman, he was appearing before Screening Committee of Commercial Department to ensure

the eligibility of his Candidature. He was earning his bread through Porterage at Gondia Railway Station. He was not

directed for medical examination, so he prayed that, Railway disallowed his Claim illegally and he also prayed that, he

should be paid compensation of wages for such ‘Lay-off’ and unfair labour means of the Selection Authority.

On behalf of the management, it was admitted that, workman raised his dispute before A.L.C. against seizure of

Badge and Railway Board issue circular carrying No.RBE50/2008 and admitted that, Railway issue circular for License

Porter for the appointment for the post of Gangman and transfer of Badge/License to their legal representative, but it was

denied that, he was possess the valid License, Badge in terms of extent rules as on 26.02.2008 and rest of material fact is

denied by the party no.1. According to them, License Porter will be bound by the terms and condition by the agreement.

According to the Party No. 1, there is no relationship as workman and employer. They also denied that, Union

is at all legally authorized to represent cases of the workman. It is also denied that, there is any labour exploitation and

any violation of establishment rule. According to them workman was a Licensed Porter not Parcel Porter. It is also

denied that, applicant possessing valid License and Metal Badge. Workman had never approached to the Railway

Administration with the request to transfer the said Badge/License in his favour by following the required procedure as

prescribed under the rules.

According to the Party No.1, at the time of screening for appointment of licensed porters as Gangman, workman

having License/Badge No.3 without any authority and Screening Committee was rightly constituted to adjudge eligibility

of the candidate for appointment as Gangman in Group ‘D’ cadre. According to Party No.1, Screening Committee

observed that, workman was not possessing valid License and not fulfilled the requisite criteria in terms of Railway

Boards Circular and prayed that, workman was not entitled any relief and his statement of claim is devoid of any merit

and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Workman filed rejoinder as same footing of statement of claim. His application for the Gangman was enrolled

in the list of Commercial Department as eligible candidate as per Railway Rules. According to them, issue of License

and surrender of License both are different. The policy of the Railway for adjudge to Gangman as one time exemption

and relaxation in Recruitment Rules, so he prayed that, he adjudged as a Gangman at par with others in the same panel

with respective effect.

Point of determination:-

1. “Whether Railway illegally debar the workman of a post of Gangman?”

2. “Whether workman entitled any relief?”

6912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reason for decision:-

10.

On behalf of the workman, he examined himself to support his statement of claim and on behalf of the Party No.

1, they examine Smt. K. Mangamma Rao, who were working as Chief Office Superintendent in S.E.C. Railway Nagpur.

Now, I want to see argument with respect to their evidence.

11.

On behalf of the workman, it was argued that, he possess valid license of porter and license is obtained by him

from his father Brijlal, but the Party No.1 i.e. Divisional Railway Manager Commercial, S.E.C wrongly interpreted the

circular issued by the Railway Board, these facts are supported by the workman’s court statement i.e. affidavit on

evidence (P.W.1) and in para no. 18, 21, 24 of his cross-examination he admitted that, “My father’s name is Brijlal. He

died at the age of 50 before 15 years ago. He was 10^th class fail. Badge No.3 in the name of Brijal and Screening

Committee took his Badge. He also proved that, two documents i.e. P1 and P2 in which P1 is Identity Card and P2 is a

receipt and he remain unrebutted in his cross-examination. Now, I want to see the Management’s evidence.

12.

Smt. K.Mangamma Rao (M.W.1) supported her defence in her chief examination, but in para 23, 24 and 28 of

her cross-examination she admitted that, “Railway issued license of porter in favour of Late Brijlal Ganvir. She also

admitted that, facts mentioned in circular dated 09.12.1988, exhibit M-1 and exhibit P-3 of dated 01.04.2008 are correct,

but she has no knowledge, “Who was Parcel Chief Supervisor in 2005 at Gondia,------ and she has no knowledge,

whether Screening Committee did not issue any letter asking explanation before denial of his claim as a Gangman?” She

also has no knowledge whether, Screening Committee follow the principle of natural justice or not, but according to her

the genuineness of license is verified by Sr. D.C.M, Nagpur. In this way, she remain unrebutted in her statement on the

major point, but on perusal of her, it appears that, she gave her statement on the basis of document, but no enmity or

favourism appear in her statement, so her statement appears to be true.

13.

Ongoing above discussion it appears that, Brijlal was father of Sunil and he got Badge No.3 from his father. It

also appears that, he (Brijlal) also filed affidavit on 28.10.2004 before Executive Magistrate by study or perusal of the

circular dated 09.12.1988 & 09.06.2004, workman entitled to transfer Badge No.3 from the licensed porter i.e. his father

Brijlal.

14.

It also appears that, by the Railway Board’s one time scheme dated 01.04.2008, he is also entitled to consider

his name as to the post of Gangman, because this circular requires (1) Medical Certificate, (2) Affidavit of father & (3)

Valid license of porter, but management failed to prove that, workman breached particular condition & managements

witness MW-1 (Smt. K. Mangamma Rao) didn’t prove this fact by a positive evidence. In my opinion, burden of proof is

on workman, but onus of probandi lies on management, because member of Screening Committee and Sr. D.C.M. were

their own employee, but they did not examine any member of Screening Committee or Sr. D.C.M. or the Parcel Chief

Supervisor at Gondia or Station Master or any other witnesses, who know these facts, so adverse inference may be drawn

against the management.

15.

Management also took an objection regarding authority of the union to file this claim. Managements witness

Smt. K. Mangamma Rao, in para no. 1 of her chief-examination asserted that, the union is not registered union and no

legal rights to contest this claim, so according to her, this claim is not tenable, but in para 23 of her cross-examination,

she admitted that, she had no knowledge, “How many unions are working in Central Railway, Nagpur.” On the contrary

workman (P.W.1) asserted firmly in para 11 & 12 of his chief examination i.e. affidavit on evidence, but he was not

cross-examined in this point by the management (Party no.1), so adverse inference is drawn against the management.

Workman also filed Xerox copy of the Registration Certificate of the Union and membership form of the union. It

appears to be genuine, because no rebuttal evidence filed by the management.

16.

On behalf of the workman, they relied on following case laws:-

(1) The Senior Divisional Commercial vs. The General Secretary, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Writ Petition

No. 4472/2008 date of judgment 14 October 2009.

(2) Smt. Aasha vs. Chairman of Railway Board, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Writ Petition

No. 1340 of 2011, date of order 23.06.2011, (D.B)

(3) Smt. Maya vs. Chairman of Railway Board, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench W.P.No.

1333/2011, date of order 20 June 2011, (D.B).

(4) Whether Reporters of Local Papers Rajusingh Joraji vs. Senior Division Commercial Manager, Hon’ble

Gujrat High Court Bench Ahmadabad, C/SCA/19944/2015, date of judgment 28 September 2017.

Hon’ble High Court laid down on following principles:-

(a)

“There is no dispute that the Railways carry on its business of transportation and earns huge profit from

the said business, so also from transportation of passengers. It is the case of the petitioner Railways itself

that they provided license to the licensed porters, recovered security deposits as well as license fee

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6913

regularly, has power to cancel the license in case of misconduct or as the case may be. It has power to

regulate and control the activities of licensed porters on platforms. It has power to fix the remuneration

which the licensed porters can receive from the passengers. Not only that, even according to the

petitioner, the licensed porter as per the exigencies are engaged to perform the work of parcel porters and

that was done initially for 4 hours and thereafter 8 hours and his entire work is done upon the direction of

the Railways and its officers and there is a full control over the same.”

(b)

“The manual work is performed by the licensed porters as well as parcel porters and this is the systematic

activity of cooperation between the employer and the workmen. As a matter of fact, the petitioner

Railways did not lead any evidence before the tribunal to show as to how the activities undertaken by the

petitioner Railways and the work required to be performed as aforesaid by the licensed porter and the

parcel porters would not fall in the definition of ‘Industry’ and ‘ workman’ under the Industrial Disputes

Act. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence and appropriate pleading to refute the claim of the members

of the respondent Union that they are workmen, I hold that the members of the respondent Union are

workmen and entitled to maintain the reference before the tribunal.”

(c)

“Since the petitioner Railways did not fairly produce the entire material before the Tribunal, it will be

appropriate to compensate the respondent Union by asking the petitioner Railways to pay costs.”

(d)

“The issue whether members of Respondent Union are workmen or not is decided against the petitioner

by me and shall not be tried by the tribunal again.”

(e)

“Before allowing such transfer of license, it should be ascertained that the porter has the sole earning

member of the family. An affidavit produced by the licensed porter under the seal of a Magistrate may be

taken as adequate proof of the dependence of the family on licensed porter and the nature of relationship

of the nominee.”

(f)

“The application of any law or any rule has to be designed to doing real and substantial justice. More

particularly, in interpreting and applying benevolent schemes and welfare oriented policy resolutions, the

purposive approach is advocated. The function of purposive application of any rule or law HC-NIC page

6 of 10 Created on Sat Oct. 07 05:05:27 IST 2017 is to iron out technicalities in granting benefit of the

provision or policy. The entitlement of the petitioner was not in dispute.”

(g)

“There is no gainsaying that when the question is of application of any welfare scheme, the purposive

construction should deservedly must be further informed by liberal approach in interpretation and

application of the provisions. --------------------The aim of the policy is to provide relief to the family of the

porter who has become infirm or who has died, by permitting transfer of his Badge or Buckle in favour of

near relatives.”

(h)

“Senior Division Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Ahmadabad, and the reasons supplied therein

are hereby set aside. It is held and declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the policy and is

further entitled to be transferred the Buckle No. 163 of his grandfather Kacharaji Chaturji Thakor. The

respondents are directed to transfer the said Buckle No. 163 in the name of the petitioner as he is held to

be covered under the policy. The respondents are directed to give benefit to the petitioner of the policy by

transferring Buckle No. 163 in his name.”

17.

The union relied case laws: U.O.I. Vs. Ram Chandra Tanti WPCT Nos. 124 to 126/200 order dated 29.03.2004,

National Federation of Railway Porters Vs. Union of India 1995 II LLJ 712 and A.I. Railway parcel and Goods Porters

Union vs. Union of India W.P.(Civil) No. 433/1998 date of order 22.08.2003, in which, Hon’ble Lordship hold that,

“One big point of difference between the two sets of porters is the fact that while one set is being paid for their services

by the passengers directly, the other set is being paid for their labour by the authorities of the railway.

18.

Judging the present case in hand and considering the principles laid down in above case laws, my humble

opinion is that, the Screening Committee failed to consider valid claim of the petitioner, because petitioner has proved all

necessary pre-condition for the post of Gangman as per the scheme issued by the Railway and Screening Committee also

failed to interpreted the wellfare scheme, which was issued by the Railway Board in the interest of Licensed Porter.

Railway took defence that, petitioner was not possessing valid license on 26.02.2008. Ongoing above discussion, I also

observed that, Railway failed to prove this defence by not producing legal evidence, so I also observed that, adverse

inference may be drawn against the management (Party No.1). I also observed that, Railway did not pass any legal order

which shows that, petitioner had not valid license on 26.02.2008. In my opinion, principles of natural justice were not

observed by the Railway Screening Committee or Sr. D.C.M, but I also do not agree with the petitioner that, Railway

committed any unfair labour means. It also appears that, appointment of petitioner as a Gangman was delayed near about

10 years, so in my opinion, he is entitled to Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in

addition to appointment for the post of Gangman. Hence it is ordered.

6914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The action of the Senior Division Commercial Superintendent South East Central Railway, Nagpur in

seizure the badge of Shri Sunil Brijlal Ganveer, Porter of Gondia Railway Station and debar for the post of

Gangman as per policy of Railway Board letter dated 01.04.2008 is not just, fair & legal. He is entitled for the

post of Gangman from the date of publication of this award in official gazette and he is also entitled to Lumpsum

compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in lieu of delay in appointment and suffering, which is

payable within one month from the publication of this award in official gazette, failing to which, amount due to

workman will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of due to the workman to the date of actual payment

of the amount to the workman. He is not entitled for any further relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk- 1746-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k

iwoZ e/; jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 70@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@104@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2013-14 ) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-41011/104/2013– IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNUXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/70/2013-14

Date: 24.06.2019

Party No.1

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,

South East Central Railway,

Nagpur Division, Kingsway, Station Road,

Nagpur – 440001

Versus

Party No.2

The Rajesh Supatkar, General Secretary,

Parcel Porters Sanghathan,

New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,

Nagpur (M.S.) – 440030.

AWARD

(Dated: 24^th June 2019)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their union, Parcel

Porters Sanghathan for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/104/2013-(IR (B-I) dated 23.12.2013, with the following

schedule:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6915

“Whether the action of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur

Division, Nagpur in denying the demand for absorption & regularization of the services of Shri Ganesh

Borkar as Parcel Porters, is just, fair & legal? To what relief the workman is entitled?’’

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union “Parcel Portal Sanghtana (“the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the

management of South East Central Railway, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written statement.

On behalf of the union statement of claim was filed by asserting that the workman Shri Ganesh Borkar was

recruited as a Parcel Hamal/Parcel Porter/Licenced Porter in the office of Party no.1. Selection process was completed

by a committee followed by interview and other recruitment procedure at that time i.e. in the year of 1994 prevails.

Recruitment notification was issued by Railway i.e. management party no.1 on 08.08.1994. At that time near about 300

Parcel Porters working in different Railway Stations under Nagpur Division of SEC Railway. According to the union the

workman completed 240 days of continuous service in a one calendar year as a regular Parcel Porter from the date of

appointment. He worked for transportation of goods and parcel as loading and unloading of parcel from station to train

and vice-versa.

According to the union work of handling parcels in a station is a work of permanent and perennial in nature.

There were 151 parcel porters working at different railway stations in Nagpur division. The wages were paid directly by

railway administration. They treat them as regular railway employees. Payments of parcel porter were made through

station manager/Chief Parcel Supervisor at their working place. They were initially paid minimum wages prescribed by

Central Government with the scale of Rs. 750-940 (RPS)-Rs. 2540-3200(VPS). Management assured them to regularize

as permanent staff. In the year of 1997-98 administration draw an action plan to ensure that absorption of all casual

labour on roll is completed by December 1997.

According to the union the workman has completed more than 120 days of continuous service till he was

forcibly stop from work that is from January, 2005 against the circular issued by the management. So they pray that he

must be reinstated by regularizing his service as a parcel porter and pray for consequential relief.

Management filed written statement by denying all material facts. They also denied workman was a member of

registered trade union. So they pray that the present statement of claim is void ab-initio. They also denied that workman

was recruited as a Parcel Porter and he appear before a committee for regularisation. According to the management the

workman had made an application to work as a Licensed Porter and he executed the agreement the terms and condition

of working as Licensed Porter at Tumsar Road Railway Station. According to the management notification dated

08.08.1994 was not for recruitment for the post of Parcel Porter but it is for the licensed porter on payment of licensed

fee.

Management denied para no. 3 and 9 of the statement of claim by asserting that workman had been completed

more than 240/120 days of his continuous service in one calendar year. It was also denied that management paid his

wages as regular basis. So they cannot seek any redressal as prevailing law. So they pray that present statement of claim

and reference is bad in law and is deserved to be dismissed. According to them workman is only authorized to work as

licensed porter on payment of license fee. It is also denied that workman was cover under Industrial Dispute Act.

According to them workman was authorized to receive handling charges of passenger luggage as per railway rules.

Management also denied that muster and payment sheet is maintained by the station master. According to them

there is no relationship between them as a Master and servant. Management denied that 151 Parcel Porters were working

in Nagpur Division in the year of 1994. It is also denied that the workman was working in different period at different

Railway Stations and he acquires a status of regular staff. According to them there is no occasion to absorb the workman

in the employment of Railway. According to the management 325 candidates appear for screening out of 460 candidates.

Out of those 186 candidates were selected and 38 candidates were already working at different stations.

According to the management Divisional Commercial Manager, S.E. Railway Nagpur had issued instructions to

all Station Masters on 28.07.1995, in compliance of these instruction workman had executed an agreement of terms and

conditions of working as Licensed Porter. According to the management workman was not doing the work of handling

the parcel and luggage booked by the parties with Railway Administration. According to them the union also

approached this Tribunal through reference no. 203/98 and 287/99, in these reference Tribunal passed award which was

challenged in WP NO. 4472/2008 Before the Hon’ble High Court which was remanded back on 14.10.2009. This

judgment was also challenged in LPA No. 304/2010 which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. They also denied

that there is any relationship between and employee and Railway Administration as Employee and employer. According

to them workman cannot claim regularisation of his service with consequential relief, so they pray that the statement of

claim filed by the Union is liable to be dismiss with exemplary cost and workman not entitled to any relief.

6916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Point of determination

Whether the action of the management in denying the demand of regularization of the services of the

workman is just, fair and legal?

ii.

Whether the workman is entitled to any other relief.

Reasons for decision.

11.

On behalf of the union, workman, Ganesh Borkar and on behalf of the management, Smt. Mangamma Rao was

examined on the basis of evidence on affidavit. They were cross-examined by opposite counsel. Both the above

witnesses support their statement of claim and W.S. respectively in their chief examination. On behalf of the union, it

was argued that, in 1994, workman was appointed as a Parcel Hamal/Parcel Porter by the Railway Authority after

scrutiny and interview, which was conducted by Selection Committee. He also argued that, workman completed more

than 240 days of continuous service. So he acquired the status of regular employee. This argument was denied by the

management. Now I want to see the evidence of the workman.

12.

Ganesh Borkar in para 14 and 15 of his cross-examination admitted that, he passed class - IX examination and

he did not know about the notification dated 08.08.1984, which he has mentioned in para no. 1 from A to A portion. He

also admitted that, he did not file appointment letter or receipt of license of porter or any document regarding his

qualification or regarding his service as a parcel porter. He also admitted that, he did not file any document relating to

his attendance and wages in relation to parcel porter/parcel hamal. He also has no specific knowledge regarding his pay

scale or name of Station Master or casual labour register, but he admitted that, he knows about the muster roll. In this

way, he rebutted his chief examination regarding his knowledge of parcel porter/parcel hamal. It also appears that, he is

illiterate.

13.

Ganesh Borkar, PW-1 in para 16 & 20 admitted that, before this reference, he also filed his claim before the

Labour Commissioner, but he denied that, previous reference i.e. in Rajesh Supatkar case, he was party. He also denied

that, he was engaged by the Railway as a Parcel Porter for handling parcel and unloading parcel into railway wagon and

railway shade. He also denied the railway defence i.e. “It is not true to say that, railway appointed me as coolie worked

for passenger, the income was insufficient, therefore in order to supplement the income, the handling of parcel and

luggage, railway gave me some additional work for handling parcel……….It is not true to say that, due to change in the

policy through outsource………Railway Administration decided for closure of parcel handling by the licensed porter”.

In this way, he rebutted main fact, which is asserted in statement of claim and in affidavit examination in chief. In my

opinion, his evidence is not reliable.

14.

Ganesh Borkar, PW-1 in para no. 19, 20 and 22 of his cross-examination, admitted that, he paid license fees for

license porter, but he denied that, he filed any reference regarding parcel porter with Rajesh Supatkar. He also denied

that, his case was dismissed by the CGIT and Hon’ble High Court due to non-appearance. He also admitted that, he did

not read, what is mentioned in document D-1, because he does not know English. In this way, he rebutted main fact,

which is asserted in statement of claim and in affidavit examination in chief.

15.

Management’s witness, MW-1 supported his defence, which is taken in W.S. and after reading his statement; it

appears that, his statement is based on documents, because he was posted in this office in the year of 2008-09.

According to her, she filed Xerox copy of agreement, but original is not available on office record. She also reiterated

that she was given her statement on the basis of record. She also admitted that, said agreement was not executed before

her. She also admitted that, workman was paid minimum wages, when he worked as Parcel Porter. In this way, she

remained unrebutted in her court statement. Nothing came in her statement, which shows, she is prejudice with the

workman or someway with the management. In this way, her statement appears to be reliable. Moreover, workman

admitted documents M-1 to M-5, which support the management’s version.

16.

On behalf of the union, they relied case laws, MSRTC Vs Castribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Union 2009 (8)

SCC 556, New India Assurance Co. Vs. A. Shankaralingam 2009 (1) SCC (L&S) 55 and Union of India Vs. Subir

Mukherjee 1998 (5) SCC 301, in which following principles are laid down:-

Part time employee is covered by definition of workman U/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

ii.

If the work of casual labour is of perennial nature, then the workers are very much entitled to the benefits

and privileges of regularization.

iii.

Continuing or employing badlies, casuals or temporaries for years together, with object of depriving them

of status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of employer.

17.

On behalf of the management, it was argued in para 7 of their written argument that, “Applicant never worked

as a Casual Labour with the Railway Administration. Therefore, there is no occasion to absorb the applicant in the

employment of the Railways” and also argued that, union already filed such dispute, which came as a reference before

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2019@vkf'ou 6] 1941

6917

this Tribunal. On this basis, they argued that, workmen’s claim shall be rejected, because workmen did not challenge the

award dated 15.07.2010 before any other court, so the workman is not entitled to any relief. The union did not deny this

argument as in fact and figure. This office also provided Xerox copy of the reference of the case No.

CGIT/NGP/36/2002.

18.

On perusal of the record, it appears that, my predecessor in Case No. CGIT/NGP/36/2002, General Secretary,

Parcel Porter Sanghatan Vs. Divisional Commercial Manager, SE Railway, Nagpur Award dated 28.03.2008 and

15.07.2010 and Hon’ble High Court’s order in W.P. No. 4472/2008 held that, the members of the Respondent union are

workmen and entitled to maintain the reference. My predecessor also held that, employees of Parcel Porter Sanghatana,

which name mentioned in Annexure B & D are entitled for temporary status and regular pay scale, but claim of

petitioners, which name mentioned in Annexure C was dismissed. Against this order, LPA No. 304/2010 is pending

before the Hon’ble High Court. It also shows that, the name of the present workman, Shri Ganesh Borkar is mentioned

in Annexure C at Item No. 158 of the above reference. In this way, in the eye of law, nobody is allowed to raise same

issue before this Tribunal i.e. principle of res-judicata is applied in reference, so management’s argument is sustainable.

19.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, as I observed that,

Railway has two sets of porters, but union failed to prove that, the workman was appointed by the management as a

Parcel Hamal/Parcel Porter and he was working continuously for 240 days in one calendar year. On perusal of the

record, it also appears that, he was simply licensed porter i.e. collie for some sort of period, but his claim was decided by

this Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court and LPA is pending before the Hon’ble Court. So, workman is not

entitled to raise same issue through second reference. In my opinion, the workman is not entitled to any relief i.e. matter

is subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court in form of LPA. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division,

Nagpur in denying the demand for regularizing the services of Shri Ganesh Borkar as Parcel Porters, is just, fair

& legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2019

dk- vk- 1747-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k

iwoZ e/; jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 71@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-

09-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@103@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2019

S.O. 1747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2013-14 ) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.09.2019.

[No. L-41011/103/2013– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/71/2013-14

Date: 04.06.2019

Party No.1

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,

South East Central Railway,

Nagpur Division, Kingsway, Station Road,

Nagpur – 440001

6918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2019/ASVINA 6, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Party No.2

The Rajesh Supatkar, General Secretary,

Parcel Porters Sanghathan,

New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,

Nagpur – 440030.

AWARD

(Dated: 04^th June 2019)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their union, Parcel

Porters Sanghathan for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/103/2013-(IR (B-I) dated 23.12.2013, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur

Division, Nagpur in denying the demand for regularizing the services of Shri Prakash Eaknath Gawande

as Parcel Porters, is just, fair & legal? To what relief the workman is entitled?’’

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union “Parcel Portal Sanghtana (“the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the

management of South East Central Railway, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written statement.

On behalf of the union statement of claim was filed by asserting that the workman Shri Prakash Eknath

Gawande was recruited as a Parcel Hamal/Parcel Porter/Licenced Porter in the office of Party no.1. Selection process

was completed by a committee followed by interview and other recruitment procedure at that time i.e. in the year of 1994

prevails. Recruitment notification was issued by Railway i.e. management party no.1 on 08.08.1994. At that time near

about 300 Parcel Porters working in different Railway Stations under Nagpur Division of SEC Railway. According to

the union the workman completed 240 days of continuous service in a one calendar year as a regular Parcel Porter from

the date of appointment. He worked for transportation of goods and parcel as loading and unloading of parcel from

station to train and vice-versa.