376 GI/2020
(279)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2004—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
WEEKLY
]
—
—
No. 04]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 26— FEBRUARY 1, 2020, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 6—MAGHA 12, 1941
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
II—
—
(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जिदेश मंत्रालय
(सी.पी.िी. प्रभाग)
नई ददल् ली, 15 िनिरी, 2020
का.आ. 111.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (शपथ एिं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण में िैिाजनक आदेश ।
एतद् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रजतजनजि कायाालय, अल्माटी में जनम्नजलजखत कमाचाररयों को ददनांक 16
िनिरी 2020 से सहायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेिाओं के जनिाहन के जलए प्राजिकृत करती है।
(1) श्री ररन्कू िी पजडडत, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2020]
टी. अिुंगला िाजमर, जनदेशक (सी.पी.िी.)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14022020-216152
CG-DL-W-14022020-216152
280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 15th January, 2020
S. O. 111.—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 authorizes the
following officials in Representative Office of India, Almaty to perform the consular services as Assistant
Consular Officers with effect from 16 January, 2020.
(i)
Shri Rinkoo Ji Pandit, ASO
[F. No. T-4330/01/2020]
T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)
कार्माक, लोक जशकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
(कार्माक और प्रजशक्षण जिभाग)
नई ददल् ली, 24 िनिरी, 2020
का.आ. 112.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद द्वारा, ददल् ली जिशेप पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 की
अजिजनयम संख् या 25) की िारा 6 के साथ परित िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए
तजमलनाडू राज्य सरकार, ददनांक 10.07.2019 के िी.ओ. (आरटी.) सं. 386 के माध्यम से िारी शुजि पत्र के साथ
परित ददनांक 22.02.2019 के िी. ओ. (2डी) सं. 61 के माध्यम से िारी अजिसूचना के िररए प्राप्त सहमजत से
जिदेश अंशदान (जिजनयमन) अजिजनयम, 2010 (िपा 2010 के केंद्रीय अजिजनयम सं. 42) के तहत दिा संदभा सं.
फा.सं. II/21022/58(396)/206-एफसीआरए (एमयू), ददनांक 18.05.2017 (केंद्रीय अन्िेपण ब्यूरो संदभा सं. 20-
01/सीए-24/2017/ईओयू-VII, ददनांक 21.06.2017) में जनदेशक (एफ.सी. एिं एम.यू.), जिदेशी व्यजि जिभाग
(एफ.सी.आर.ए. विंग), गृह मंत्रालय द्वारा ददए गए संदभा से उत्पन्न अपरािों में अन् िेपण करने के जलए तथा सससे
संबि अथिा उपरोि अपराि(िों) से संबंजित अपरािों एिं/अथिा उससे सम् बि अपरािों में दकए गए प्रयासों,
दुष्प प्रेरणाओं और प ंत्रों तथा अन्य अजिजनयम के अिीन उसी संव् यिहार के दौरान दकए गए या उि अपरािों को
अंिाम देने से संबंजित समान कृत्यों और तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी भी दकसी अन् य अपराि या अपरािों, जिनमें करूणा
बाल जिकास (सी.बी.व्ही.), तजमलनाडू और अिाने मैनेज़मेंट कंसल्टैंट्स प्राईिेट जलजमटेड (ए.एम.सी.पी.एल.),
तजमलनाडू और अन्य संजलप्त हैं, के द्वारा दकए गए अजभकजथत अपरािों की िांच करने के जलए ददल् ली जिशेप पुजलस
स्ट् थापना के सदस्ट् यों की शजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जिस्ट् तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडू राज् य में करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/39/2019-एिीडी-II]
पी. के. िायसिाल, अिर सजचि
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING)
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 112.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the
consent of the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification G.O. (2D) No. 61, dated 22.02.2019
r/w its corrigendum issued vide No. G.O. (Rt.) No. 386 dated 10.07.2019, hereby extends the powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to whole State of Tamil Nadu for the
investigation into the offences arising out of reference made by Director (FC & MU), Foreigners Division
(FCRA Wing), Ministry of Home Affairs in F.No. II/21022/58(396)/206-FCRA (MU) dated 18.05.2017 (Central
Bureau of Investigation reference No. 20-01/CA-24/2017/EOU-VII, dated 21.06.2017) under the Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (Act No. 42 of 2010) and any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to
or in connection with such offence(s) and/or any other offence committed under any other Act in the course of
[
II—
3(ii)]
281
the same transaction or arising out of the same facts alleged to have been committed by Caruna Bal Vikas
(CBV), Tamil Nadu and Adhane Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (AMCPL), Tamil Nadu and others involved
therein.
[F. No. 228/39/2019-AVD-II]
P. K. JAISWAL, Under Secy.
आयुप मंत्रालय
नई ददल् ली, 3 िनिरी, 2020
का.आ. 113.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभापा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा
संशोजित 1987) के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, आयुप मंत्रालय के प्रशासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन
जनम् नजलजखत कायाालयों, जिनके शत प्रजतशत कमाचारीिृन् द ने वहंदी का कायासािक ्ान प्रा् त कर जलया है, को
एतदद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती हैं:-
‘‘होम् योपैजथ क औपजि अनुसंिान संस्ट् थान, लखनऊ, उत् तर प्रदेश’’
‘‘मजस्ट्तष्प क ज् िर जचदकत् सकीय होम् योपैजथ क अनुसंिान सकाई, गोरखपुर, उत् तर प्रदेश’’
[फा. सं. ई-11018/1/2018-आयुप (रा.भा.)]
पी. एन. रड िीत कुमार, संयुक् त सजचि
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2020
S.O. 113.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official
purposes of the Union) Rules. 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following
offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, wherein cent percent officials have acquired
the working knowledge of Hindi:
‘‘Homoeopathic Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh”
“Clinical Trial Unit of Homoeopathy for Viral Encephalitis, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh”
[F. No. E-11018/1/2018-AYUSH (O.L.)]
P. N. RANJIT KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
नागर जिमानन मंत्रालय
(एएआई अनुभाग)
नई ददल् ली, 23 िनिरी, 2020
का.आ. 114.—मंजत्रमंडल की जनयुजि सजमजत के ददनांक 23 अक् तूबर, 2019 के आदेश संख् या
36/02/2019-ईओ(एसएम-I) के अनुसरण में केन् द्र सरकार, एतदद्वारा श्री अरजिन् द वसंह, भा.प्र.से.(एमएच-1988)
को ददनांक 6 निम् बर, 2019 के पूिााहन से उनकी अजििर्पाता की जतजथ यथा 31 माचा, मई 2023 तक अथिा
आगामी आदेशों, सनमें से िो भी पहले हो, िेतन मैररक् स (संशोजित) के स्ट्तर 15 में भारतीय जिमानपत् तन प्राजिकरण
के अध् यक्ष के पद पर जनयुक् त करती है। कार्माक और प्रजशक्षण जिभाग के ददनांक 15.01.2015 के कायाालय ्ापन
संख् या 26/04/2011-ईओ(एसएम-I)(भाग II) के अनुसार अजिकारी की जनयुजि को भारत सरकार में अपर सजचि के
पद पर की गई जनयुजि के समकक्ष माना िाएगा। सभी पात्रताएं भी अपर सजचि के पद के अनुसार ही रहेंगी।
[फा. सं. एिी-24011/5/2018-एएआई-एमओसीए]
नरेन् द्र वसंह, अिर सजचि
282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
(AAI SECTION)
New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2020
S.O. 114.—In pursuance of Appointments Committee of the Cabinet Order No. 36/02/2019-EO(SM-I)
dated 23rd October, 2020, the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Arvind Singh, IAS (MH:1988) as
Chairman, Airports Authority of India, with effect from forenoon of 06th November, 2019 in the Level 15 of the
Pay Matrix (revised) till 31st May, 2023, i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is
the earlier. The officer’s appointment shall be treated as an officer appointed to the post of Additional Secretary
in the Government of India as per Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 26/04/2011-EO(SM-I)(Pt.II)
dated 15.01.2015. All entitlements shall also be as per the post of Additional Secretary.
[F.No. AV-24011/5/2018-AAI-MOCA]
NARENDRA SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ikjknhi iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 81@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-39025@01@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneshwar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Paradeep
Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-39025/01/2020-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
Industrial Dispute Case No. 81 OF 2017
Dated Bhubaneswar, the 14th November, 2019
Present:
Shri B.C.Rath, LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar
Between:
(1) The Dy. Conservator, Paradeep Port Trust,
1st Floor Extension of Administrative Building,
At/P.O. Paradeep Port, Dist: Jagatsinghpur.
[
II—
3(ii)]
283
(2)
The Chairman , Paradeep Port Trust,
Administrative Building, At/P.O. Paradeep Port,
Dist: Jagatsinghpur.
…First party management
And
Their workman, Smt.Nirupama Rout,
Qrs. No. NA-124, Nuabazar, P.O. Paradeep
Port, Dist: Jagatsinghpur. 754 142.
…Second party workman
Appearances:-
Capt. P. K. Nayak, Pilot. .. For first party management
Smt.Nirupama Rout.
.. Second party workman herself
AWARD
This Award is directed against an application preferred by workman Smt. Nirupama Rout resorting to
the provisions of Section 2(A) sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( herein
after referred to as the Act) wherein and whereby the workman has raised the present dispute in regard to
termination of her service by the management.
2. The case of the workman as emerging from her statement of claim, in brief, is that she was given
appointment with effect from 30.5.96 as Stenographer Grade III by the Deputy Conservator, Paradeep Port Trust
(the management No.1) against the vacant post of Stenographer Gr.III caused due to transfer of Stenographer Sri
K.K.Parida to other department. She had under gone the test of Stenography and being found suitable, she was
given appointment as Stenographer Gr.III. At the time of her initial appointment, the monthly salary of a
Stenographer Gr.III was Rs.3458/- including D.A, house rent and special allowance. Keeping in view the above
salary, she was issued with appointment letter for 44 days on a daily wage of Rs.115/-. Her initial appointment
was for one year, but she continued in the post even completion of one year. According to the workman, her
wage was revised from time to time on her application and she worked as Stenographer Gr.III from 1996 to
2002. She approached the management for regularization of her service in 2002. When her representation was
not considered, she preferred a writ before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha vide O.J.C. No.4856 of 2002. It is
her claim that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to protect her service by an interim order while entertaining
the application for regularization of her service. The said writ was disposed of on 23.08.2017 being treated as
withdrawn with a liberty to the workman to approach the appropriate forum for alternative relief. The
management terminated her service on 29.08.2017 in the event of the disposal of the writ instead of taking any
step for regularization of her service. It has been pleaded by her that she continued as Stenographer Gr.III in the
office of the management from 1996 to 2017 for a period of about 22 years and she worked for 240 days
continuously and uninterruptedly in each calendar year preceding to her termination. Despite of such continuous
service of 240 days in each calendar year for about 22 years, she was neither given any prior notice nor notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. She was working directly under the control and supervision of the
management. Her wages was paid directly by the management. Her engagement was never done through any
contractor or out-sourcing agencies. When her service was terminated without complying the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act, she raised an industrial dispute before the labour machinery for her reinstatement in
service with full back wages and regularization of her service as she was given appointment after she being
successful in a skill test held on 10.5.1996. As the conciliation proceeding was failed she was issued with a
certificate for raising a dispute directly in the appropriate forum. Hence the present case.
3. The management had resisted the claim statement refuting the allegation in toto and it has taken a stand
that the workman was given appointment for one year temporarily in a spell of 44 days with one day break on a
remuneration of Rs.115/- per day. Her engagement was a conditional one and it can be terminated at any time
without any further notice to her. She had not undergone any skill test or recruitment test before appointment as
claimed by her. After completion of one year, she was engaged as D.L.R. Stenographer through a contractor.
She was re-engaged as Steno-Typist on contract basis for a period of 44 days with effect from 1.12.2001. It has
been pleaded by the management that in 2002 when the action was taken for recruitment of regular
Stenographer in Grade III, the workman was given a chance to compete along with other candidates. She was
issued with a letter on 11.2.2002 for attending the recruitment test. But she failed to come out successful in
typing test held on 17.3.2002. Hence she filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court vide O.J.C. No.
4896 of 2002 challenging the selection process for recruitment of Stenographer Gr.III with a prayer to regularize
her service from the date of her temporary initial appointment in the year 1996. A Misc. case was registered in
which the Hon’ble Court passed an order “service of the petitioner may not be terminated without leave of this
Court”. It is claim of the management that on disposal of the said writ the interim relief granted by the Hon’ble
284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court was vacated.. Hence termination letter was issued to the workman on 23.08.2017. As her appointment was
purely on temporary basis for a spell of 44 days with a breakage of one day and she continued in the
employment due to stay granted by the Hon’ble Court, she was not entitled to notice pay and retrenchment
compensation. Hence no irregularity has been committed by the management in terminating the service of the
workman without prior notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. That apart, her appointment was
through a contractor for a specific period and the management has no role to play in her termination. Hence the
management has prayed for rejection of the statement of claim of the workman.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been settled for just and proper
adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
(i) Whether the application preferred under Section 2-A(2) is maintainable in the eye of law ?
(ii) Whether the termination of service of the applicant with effect from 23.08.201 by the
management is legal and or justified ?
(iii) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?
5.
In support her claim, the applicant/workman has examined herself as W.W.1 and filed documents like,
copy of the note sheets, copy of engagement order dated 29/30.5.1996, copy of employment circular, copy of
educational qualification certificate, copy of the Bank Account, copy of the application, copy of the office order,
copy of the note sheet, copy of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, copy of the handicapped certificate, copy
of the good performance certificate, copy of the termination order, copy of the over time sanction order, copy of
the quarter allotment order, copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in O.J.C. No. 4896 of 2002, copy of
termination order dated 23.08.2017,copy of application for re-engagement, copy of the appeal made before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), copy of the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (central), copy
of the conciliation proceeding, copy of certificate of Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, copy
of the appeal of the workman, copy of award dated 20.3.2003 passed in I.D. case No.112/2001, copy of the
office order of the management, copy of the office order regarding payment of arrears to 39 workers and copy of
free gate pass issued to the workman marked as Ext. 1 to Ext.27 respectively. On the other hand, the
management has examined one of its officer namely Prasant Kumar Nayak as M.W1 and relied upon the
documents like, copy of office order dated 30.05.1996,copy of joining report of the workman on 30.5.1996,
copy of order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in Misc.case No. 5077/2002, copy of bio-date of the workman,
copy of order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 24.7.2015, copy of office order dated 10.9.2015, copy of office
order dated 11.9.2015, copy of order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 23.8.2017, copy of office order dated
30.5.1996 and copy of office note sheet, which are marked as Ext. A to Ext. K respectively to refute the claim of
the workman.
6 As all the issues are interconnected to each other, they are taken into consideration simultaneously for the
sake of convenience.
7. It is the contention of the management that a contract employee more particularly an employee appointed
on casual basis has no right what-so ever to claim for regularization and such a claim can not be entertained in
the Tribunal resorting to the provisions of Section 2-A of sub-clause (2) and (3) of the Act. As such, the case is
not maintainable in the eye of law. It has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
between the Secretary, State of Karnatak and Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 to strengthen its contention.
Undisputedly it is well settled in a catena of decisions including the case as referred to above that the person not
appointed or engaged through a proper recruitment process for regular appointment has no right to claim for
regularization as the same could violate Articles of 14 and 16 of the Constitution by which other eligible
candidates being deprived of having an opportunity to such appointment. But, on a close scrutiny of the
pleadings and the evidence adduced by the workman it is found that the workman has not only raised a dispute
for regularization of her service, but also a dispute for her termination from service alleging that necessary
compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was not made when her appointment was terminated. There is no serious
dispute that her initial appointment for temporary period was made by the management. Her subsequent
appointment either made directly or through contractor was under the control and supervision of the
management No.1. Such appointment was made with the approval of the management No.2. Evidence as led by
the parties is overwhelming to show that the applicant-workman was given her initial appointment directly by
the management No.1 (Ext.1), her wages was paid by the management directly and her letter of termination was
also issued by the management No.1. It is in the evidence that she was also working under direct control and
supervision of the management. That being the position, the relationship of employer and employee exists
between the parties. The workman seems to have approached the labour machinery after her termination and
conciliation having been failed between the parties, she was issued with a certificate/letter with regard to such
[
II—
3(ii)]
285
failure of conciliation. That apart, the workman has filed her statement of claim directly before this Tribunal
within three years from the date of her alleged termination of service. So, in the above back grounds pleading
and the argument advanced by the management in regard to non-maintainability of the case/claim statement has
no merit.
8.
Coming to the issue “whether the termination of the workman from service with effect from 23.8.2017
was legal and or justified” , it is seen from the pleading and the evidence of the workman that she was given
appointment for a temporary period of one year for an initiation spell of 44 days and it was renewed with one
day break. She has claimed further that she had gone through skill test, i.e., stenography test and she became
successful in the said test. Since her appointment was against a vacant post, she could have been regularized
permanently in the post on account of she being qualified and eligible for the post. But there is no credible
evidence except the oral testimony of the workman that she had undergone a skill test before her initial
temporary appointment. Not a single scrap of paper or document is filed to establish that any recruitment
process was initiated to fill-up the post of Stenographer Gr.III in the year 1996 and the workman being a
candidate for such post was called to take a skill test and she came out successful in such test conducted by the
management. As per the settled principles the initial burden lies on the workman to establish or to show that her
appointment was in due process of recruitment. The evidence of the workman is wanting in this regard and in
absence of any credible evidence, I am not inclined to accept that the workman was given appointment after she
being successful in a test conducted in a recruitment process.
9.
However, taking the pleadings and evidence of both the parties into consideration, it can be safely said
that her initial appointment as a Steno-Typist for a period of one year with a renewal of spell of 44 days of
appointment with one day break is an admitted fact. That apart, her initial appointment in the year 1996 finds
support from the appointment letter exhibited by the parties which is marked as Ext.1. As per Ext.1, the period
of contract engagement was for 44 days from the date of her joining and as per terms and conditions of said
appointment letter, her contract job could be terminated at any time without any notice and financial
implication. Keeping in view the said terms and conditions of the appointment it is contended on behalf of the
management that no notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation is required to be paid at the
time of termination/retrenchment of the workman. Admittedly the workman continued in the job after
completion of the spell of 44 days. The management has neither pleaded nor adduced any rebuttal evidence to
show that the renewal of appointment of the workman after 44 days was with same terms and conditions as
shown in Ext.1. On the other hand, it is emerging from the pleadings and the evidence of the parties that after
one year from her initial appointment as Steno-Typist, she continued in the job. Though, the management claims
that the workman was engaged by the contractor and her service was placed before the management for doing
the job of Steno-Typist after one year, there is no credible evidence or document to establish that the workman
was employed for the job of Steno-Typist through any contractor. On the other hand, it is the admitted in the
evidence of M.W.1 that the workman was paid directly by the management and she was working under the
supervision and control of the management No.1. There is also no specific evidence of the management that the
temporary appointment of the workman on daily wage basis was renewed from time to time in every 44 days
with one day break and her service was renewed after each spell of 44 days with the breakage. The management
could be expected to produce such order in its evidence. On the other hand, it is not seriously disputed and it is
emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that the workman continued her employment till the
year 2002 and when she filed a writ before the Hon’ble High Court for regularization her service. Her daily
wage was revised from time to time. She was getting the benefits of medical service, quarter and bonus. She
claimed to have worked for more than 240 days continuously and un-interruptedly in each calendar year for all
those period i.e., till 2002 when she preferred a writ before the Hon’ble High Court.
10.
The onus of burden to prove the continuous and uninterrupted service for a period of 240 days in a
calendar year preceding to the termination of the workman seems to have been duly discharged by the applicant-
workman. No notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman before
her service was protected by the judicial order of the Hon’ble High Court in a writ preferred by the workman.
Hence a duty is cast upon the management to show that it was decided to dispense with the service of the
workman and she was duly intimated in regard to her proposed retrenchment just before the protection given by
the Hon’ble High Court in a judicial order. The management has no evidence to show that her employment was
not continuous and uninterrupted for 240 days in any calendar year preceding to her termination or preceding to
the date of which her service was protected by a judicial order.
11.
The only facts and circumstances available in favour of the management is that the engagement of the
workman from the year 2002 onwards won by a judicial order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the
workman was allowed to continue in service from 2002 to 2017 by the strength of an order by the Hon’ble High
Court, the workman may not be entitled to get retrenchment compensation for those period. But, her right to
286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
such retrenchment compensation can not be denied for the period from 1996 to 2002 when she preferred a writ
before the Hon’ble High Court. That apart no prior notice or notice pay in lieu of notice was issued to her for
termination when she approached the Hon’Ble High Court for regularization of her service. Hence, taking the
above facts and circumstances into consideration, it can safely be held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act was not complied with when the service of the workman was dispensed with. As per the provisions of law,
as well as settled principles, the management should have complied the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act
when it issued the termination letter on 23.8.2017. The termination should not be automatic in the event of
disposal of the writ by the Hon’ble High Court since writ was not preferred against any order of termination or
in a contingency resulting in the retrenchment of the workman. Therefore, the termination of the workman with
effect from 23.8.2017 without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act is not legal and justified.
The principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnatak Vrs. Uma Devi
as under reference is not applicable in the present case. The Tribunal has authority within the provisions of the
Act to hold that any termination without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is illegal and unjustified
provided it is established that the workman either a permanent or, a temporary has worked for a period of 240
days continuously and uninterruptedly before retrenchment and his/her termination was other than on account of
misconduct.
12.
Now coming to the relief to which the workman is entitled, it is seen that the workman was in
employment from May,1996 to August,2017 i.e., for a period of more than 21 years. She was receiving
remuneration on daily wage basis in skilled category of workman. She was provided with other facilities like,
quarter, medical treatment, bonus etc. There is nothing on the record or in the evidence of the management to
establish that the post of Steno-Typist is not available in the meanwhile or the same is filled up. There is also no
evidence to infer that the workman was engaged in any other employment after termination of her service. No
pleading and evidence has been advanced by the management that the workman was not sincere to her job or
she was not discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of her authorities. Having regard to the above facts
and circumstances, it is a fit case wherein the workman should be reinstated. But she is not entitled to any back
wages as she did not render any service for the period of her termination. So far the prayer of regularization of
service is concerned, it may be stated here that the provisions of Section 2-A of sub-section (2) and sub-section
(3) can not be resorted to for raising such dispute directly before the Tribunal. Such dispute of an individual
cannot be entertained under Section 2-A, (2) and (3) of the Act Hence the marit of claim for regularization of
service can not be taken into consideration in this case and the said prayer stands rejected.
13.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the termination of service of the workman with effect from
23.08.2017 was neither legal nor justified in the eye of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as
discussed in supra, the applicant-workman is entitled to be reinstated in service, but, without any back wages.
Both the managements are directed to reinstate the workman on daily wage basis fixed for skilled workman like
she was engaged prior to her termination on 23.08.2017. The Award is to be implemented within a period of
60(sixty) days from the date of its Gazette Publication failing which, the applicant-workman is entitled to full
wages from the date of Award with interest at a rate of 6.5% ( six and half percent) per annum till the
implementation of the Award. Accordingly, the Award was passed and I.D.Case was disposed of. The Office is
to take steps for publication of the Award.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eS- Qkbo LVkj f'kfiax ,tsUlh ¼izk-½ fy-] gfYn;k Mksd dEiySDl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydRrk ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 44@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-32011@02@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Five Star
Shipping Agency (P) Ltd., Haldia Dock Complex, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
24.01.2020.
[No. L-32011/02/2015-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
287
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 44 of 2015
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Haldia Dock
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Port & Dock
Dated: 14th January, 2020
AWARD
By Order No.L-32011/02/2015-IR(B-II) dated 15/21.07.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Five Star Shipping Agency (P) Ltd., contractor of
Haldia Dock Complex in denying the 23-points charter of demands raised by the Union is legal and/or
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
When the case was taken up today for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the parties concerned. It
appears from the record that after the reference, notices were issued to the parties and in response to which the
union and Haldia Dock Complex appeared, but none ever appeared on for M/s. Five Star Shipping Agency (P)
Ltd. Inspite of opportunities neither the union filed its statement of claim, nor the Haldia Dock Complex filed its
written statement. Haldia Dock Complex, however on 27.04.2016 from relieve it from the present proceeding.
None is appearing for the union since 27.04.2016, i.e. eight consecutive dates to pursue its case.
3.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance
at present in respect of 23 points charter of demands as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there
exists no dispute for adjudication.
4.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 14th January, 2020
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 13@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@03@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II)]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2019) 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 Bank of
India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-12012/03/2019-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 13/2019
Employer in relation to the management of Bank of India, Gumla
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma. Adv.
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Banking
Dated 26.12.2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-12012/03/2019-IR (B-II) dated 11/02/2019 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 claim of Sh. Narendra Kumar Prasad, Staff Cashier, Kotam Branch, Gumla Distt
that the order of penalty dated 14.07.2012 “Removal from Service” passed by the management of
Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Ranchi is disappropriate, illegal and arbitrary? If yes, what relief
he is entitled to?’’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but the workman didn’t appear before the Tribunal.
The notices issued against union is returned with endorsement that the addressee had left the address. However,
the management has appeared in this case. Case is pending since 05/03/2019 and workman is not appearing
before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is
passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dkosjh dYir: xzkeh.k cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfx
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfx vf/kdj.k caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@05@2012-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
[
II—
3(ii)]
289
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Cauvery
Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-12012/05/2012-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 03RD JANUARY 2020
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer
CR 13/2012
I Party
II Party
Sh. H.S. Nagaraju,
# 6461, 2nd Phase Vijayanagar,
4th Stage, Vijayanagar Post,
MYSORE-570017.
The Chairman,
Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank,
CA-20, Vijayanagar,
MYSORE.
Appearance :
Advocate for II Party : Mr. N. Srinivasa Rao
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/05/2012-IR(B-I) dated 23.03.2012 in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, Mysore,
Karnataka in imposing the punishment of removal from the services w.e.f. 05.04.2007 upon Sh.
H.S. Nagaraju is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
1.
The dispute is raised by the Ex-employee of the 2nd Party who is removed from service w.e.f
05.04.2007 as a measure of Disciplinary Action consequent upon certain charge came to be proved against him
in a Domestic Enquiry. The workman in his claim petition challenged the punishment order on various ground
like the charge sheet was vague, the charges were not proved, the documents produced by them are concocted,
Sh. Puttegowda the author of Ex P-28 was not examined during the enquiry etc. He alleges that the enquiry
was “VOID ABNITIO”.
2.
The 2nd Party in their counter statement justify their action. It is contended that, the Disciplinary
Authority has drawn a speaking order by concurring with the Enquiry finding and also considering the entire
record. Before imposing the punishment, he was given personal hearing. The submission made by him during
the personal hearing was also considered; the Enquiry Officer recorded that, he is guilty of all the charges
alleged in the charge sheet; he is imposed with the punishment of removal from service which shall not be
disqualification for future employment. The Appeal preferred by him is also rejected.
3.
On the rival pleading of the parties touching the validity of the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the
1st Party, Preliminary Issue was raised, tried and adjudicated upholding validity of Domestic Enquiry as fair and
proper.
4.
The allegation against the workman as per the charge sheet dated 12.08.2003 was, firstly, a Customer
Sh. Puttegowda called on the Branch at 12.45 pm on 12.04.2003 to remit cash of Rs. 2,450/- to the credit of his
Savings Bank A/c No. 763, the Branch Manager at that time was away from the Branch on official work. The
1st Party workman prepared credit voucher without mentioning the date and branded it as ‘late receipt’; obtained
the signature of the depositor and affixed cash received seal with signature and issued counter foil to the
depositor without waiting for the arrival of the Branch Manager to deposit the amount at Branch safe; he failed
to account in the books of accounts of the Bank. He made entry in the pass book of the depositor mentioning
the date as ‘25’ without mentioning the month and the year; he also made an entry in the ledger sheet of SB A/c
of the customer without mentioning the date, month and raised the balance from Rs. 8,941/- to Rs. 11,291/-;
290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
initialled against the balance by forging Branch Manager’s initial. He visited the Alathur Branch on 15.04.2003
but did not hand over the key charge to the Branch Manager also failed to handover Rs. 2,450/- remitted by Sh.
Puttegowda. The depositor called upon the branch on 12.05.2003 to withdraw the amount from his SB A/c, the
CSE was on leave from 12.05.2003 to 15.05.2003. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Branch
Manager, he confessed the guilt and visited the Branch on 13.05.2003 and remitted the amount of Rs. 2,450/-
misappropriated by him.
Secondly, on 15.04.2003 a customer Sh. Madegowda visited the branch at 10.00 am to remit cash of
Rs. 14,800/- to his SB A/c No. 1201, the CSE was about to proceed on leave on that day; but he accepted the
cash amount but did not hand over the same to the Branch Manager on his arrival to account the same in the
books of accounts of the Branch; he made an entry in his savings bank ledger sheet Rs. 14,800/- in the credit
column by putting the month as ‘May’ and the date as ‘14’ and raised the balance Rs. 510/- to Rs. 15,310/-;
made an initial against the said balance by forging the Branch Manger’s initials; he issued the pass book to the
customer by making the entry in respect of Rs. 14,800/- the matter came to light on 30.04.2003; when brought to
his notice the CSE remitted Rs. 14,800/- on 22.05.2003 by taking the signature of Sh. Madegowda on pay-in-
slip besides giving undertaking about non-accounting of the said amount on 15.04.2003. Owing to his fraudulent
act, the depositor was allowed to withdraw Rs. 6,000/- on 15.05.2003 through withdrawal slip. Thus, there was
an overdraft to the extent of Rs. 5,490/- which continued till 22.05.2003.
Thirdly, on 11.04.2003 he received Rs. 10,435/- from Smt. Gayathri, representative of Himavad
Gopalaswamy Mahila Sangha, towards the instalments to the SB A/c of the Sangha and issued counterfoil with
his signature but did not account the amount in the books of accounts of the Branch viz Receipts Scrolls; he
entered the said amount in the pass book and Savings Bank ledger sheet by overwriting as ‘15’ and raised the
balance from Rs. 5814/- to Rs. 16249/-. He authenticated the balance by forging the initial of the Branch
Manager, the discrepancies was noticed on 20.05.2003 while tallying the Saving Bank ledger balance for the
month of April 2003. When the clarification was sought from him, he accepted non accounting of the said
amount and credited Rs. 10435/- to the SB A/c 2120 on 22.05.2003 by obtaining signature of Smt. Gayathri; he
also made alteration to the entries already made in the pass book by striking out the credit entries and re-entered
the same in the debit column. Smt. Gayathri and Smt. Ratnamma have represented in their letter dated
29.05.2003 that, the CSE approached Smt. Gayathri on 20.05.2003 at 6.00 pm at her residence, sought pardon
and obtained the signature of Smt. Gayathri on new Savings Bank Credit Challan and collected the pass book of
Mahila Sangha, counter foil challan book and tore off the original counter foil dated 11.04.2003 issued for
accepting Rs. 10,245/- from the counter foil challan book, he returned the pass book along with Credit challan of
Rs. 10,435/- dated 22.05.2003. Those 2 ladies demanded interest for Rs. 10,435/- for the period 11.04.2003 to
22.05.2003. Owing to his fraudulent act, the account was allowed to be operated; Rs. 50,200/- was withdrawn
from the Saving Bank Account on 20.05.2003 resulting into the said saving bank account overdraft to the extent
of Rs. 5975/-.
The above charges if established, amounts to violation of Regulations No. 17 and 19 of Cauvery
Grameena Bank (Officer and Employees) Service Regulation, 2000.
5.
The 1st Party participated in the enquiry with his Defence Representative; two witnesses were
examined by the prosecution. The first witness was the then Branch Manager and the second witness was Smt.
Gayathri representative of Himavad Gopalaswamy Mahila Sangha / Self-help group. Both witnesses were cross
examined. Through PW-1 the documents in support of all the three charges were exhibited.
PW-1 during his evidence had identified the representation given by Smt. Gayathri and Smt.
Rathnamma marked as Ex P-34. The representation was identified by PW-2 Smt. Gayathri herself; the narration
at Ex P-34 fully corroborates the third charge; the letter given by the CSO confessing that, he might have
received the cash probably at 12.04.2003 at 12.30 pm when the Branch Manager was not in the Branch was also
produced as Ex P-27, the cross examination of PW-2 could not successfully shatter the veracity of her
examination in chief evidence. Ex P-9 / the receipt scroll of 12.04.2003 reflected that after receiving the cash
from PW-2 on 11.04.2003 no entry was made in the receipt scroll or on the subsequent days i.e. upto
21.05.2003, a scratched entry for Rs. 10,435/ was made in the credit column of Ex P-29 (Passbook) mentioning
the date as April 11 and raising the balance from Rs. 5,814/- to Rs. 16,249/- on the same date Rs. 10495/- is
entered in the debit column of Ex P-29; at Ex P-28 / ledger sheet Rs. 10,435/- was taken in the credit column
and the balance is raised, the date of entry is overwritten as ‘April 15’ with the signature of the Manager in the
initial column, said initial was disowned by PW-1, he also had stated that the ledger is not available to anybody
except the cashier.
Above all, tangible evidence was sufficient to the Enquiry Officer to record the finding of guilt in
respect of third charge. Relying on the documentary evidence and oral evidence of PW-1 without much
discussion the Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding of guilt in respect of charge No. 1 and 2 also. The
[
II—
3(ii)]
291
Disciplinary Authority issued a detailed show cause notice re-appreciating the evidence recorded during the
enquiry, proposing the punishment of removal from service.
By way of his reply the workman sought to exonerate him from the charges keeping in view that, he
has been kept under suspension for the last 3 and half years, thus already been punished; he is left with 3 and
half years of service. The Disciplinary Authority confirmed the proposed punishment order as proposed in the
show cause notice; for each charge he is imposed punishment of removal from service which shall not be
disqualification for his future employment. The Appellate Authority considered the grounds urged by the
workman in his appeal memo but on a perusal of the evidence available on record proceeded to confirm the
penalty.
6.
It appears that, the 1st Party is no more but there is no official confirmation about him though he was
represented by a counsel. No more submission is made on his behalf after the Preliminary Issue was
adjudicated. The charges proved against the workman, demonstrate that he intentionally indulging in temporary
misappropriation of customer’s money, forged the signature of the Manager, tampered the Bank records and
caused loss to the Bank since the customers were allowed overdraft facility owing to the fraudulent entries made
by him. Being the employee of the financial institution utmost honesty and integrity is expected of him. The
Disciplinary Authority has lost confidence with him and has rightly removed him from service and the
punishment is neither excess nor harsh. There is no merit in his claim.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 03rd January, 2020)
Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@48@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-12012/48/2014-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT.INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 54 of 2014
Dated of passing of the award 01 .07.2019
Present:-
Shri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Between:-
The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Rayagada Main Branch,
Rayagada(Orissa).
…First Party- Management
292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
-Versus-
Shri Abrahm Singh,
Opp. KNK Rice Mill,
Jagannath Temple Street,Main Road,
Rayagada,(Orissa)-765001.
…2nd.Party Workman/Union
Appearances:-
For the First Party Management : Sri A. K. Prusty
For the 2nd Party Workman : Self
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute
between the above named parties for its adjudication vide its order No,L-12012/48/2014-IR(B-I) under Clause
(d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947) and
the Schedule of the reference is as follows:-
“Whether the employee (temporary) and Part time engaged by the Bank from the period 1997 to July,
2010 is eligible for benefit under Section 25-F of I.D. Act with interest or not ? If yeas,
1)
Who will pay the workman the contractor or the SBI, Rayagada (PE)? The contractor was
discontinued since July,2010?”
2.
Sworn of unnecessary details the case of the 2nd Party Workman is that he was engaged as a Watch
Man and posted in the Main Branch, Raygada State Bank of India with effect from 23.2.1997. According to
him his monthly remuneration was fixed at Rs.1200/- per month at the time of his appointment and his
employment was effected through out sourcing agency Jagat Janani Security Services, Jaypur. The contract of
out sourcing between the 1st Party Management and the out sourcing security agency was rescinded on 31st
October,2007. But, the 1st Party Management allowed him to continue in the service of Watch Man. On
23.7.2010 he was suddenly retrenched from service by the Chief Manager of the 1st. Party Management without
compliance of the requirement of Sec.25(f) of the Act. At the time of his alleged retrenchment he was paid a
monthly wage of Rs.1500/- . Hence, it has been prayed by the 2nd Party to declare his retrenchment as illegal
and unjustified and he shall be reinstated with back wages. It is also alleged in the claim statement that
though he was in the category of Semi skilled labourer minimum wages fixed for such semi skilled
labourer was not paid to him. Though, he continued in the service of Watch Man for 13 years he was not
extended with the benefit of Employees Provident Fund Contribution. Hence, the 2nd Party has also claimed
arrear wages as per the provisions of Minimum wages fixed by the Central Government and benefit of
Provident Fund Contribution.
3.
In its Written Statement the 1st Party Management has refuted the allegation and contested the claim
contending that the disputant Workman was not appointed by it and there was no employer and employee
relationship between it and the disputant. The reference is not maintainable in view of non-joinder of the out
sourcing agency. According to the Management a security guard was allotted duty in front of the main
branch, Raygada through out sourcing agency M/s. Creative Security Agency, Jaypur which is renamed later
as Jagat Janani Security Service since the branch was located on the road side of the market area of Rayagada.
There is no parking space inside the Bank Premises and Cycles, Two Wheelers and other vehicles used by
the customers are being parked on the road side itself causing traffic problem. On the instruction of the local
police the Management Bank deployed the Guard through the out sourcing agency to regulate the parking of
vehicles as well as keeping watch on suspicious persons, intruders. The Management Bank has three Armed
Guard to guard the Bank Premises and cash remittance. Hence, there was no scope of employing the
disputant as a guard. That apart the Management has its own Recruitment Rules for such appointment of
Armed Guards. As the security agency was given a contract to deploy a guard in front of the Bank on
working days of the Bank an amount of Rs.1200/- per month was given for such contract which was
subsequently enhanced to Rs.1500/-. The Security Agency was deputing the disputant and one Jayant Kumar
Mohanty on rotation basis . As no appointment was given by the Bank, question does not arise for
retrenchment of the Disputant. The 1st Party Management has also denied the engagement of the disputant for
l240 days continuously and uninterruptedly in any period more particularly in the calendar year preceding to
his alleged retrenchment. There being no engagement of the disputant by the 1st Party Management there was
no violation of provisions of Section-25(f) of the Act. Hence, prayer is made for rejection of the claim
statement.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper
adjudication of the dispute.
[
II—
3(ii)]
293
ISSUES
1)
Whether the reference is maintainable?
2)
Whether the employee (temporary and part time) engaged by the Bank from the period
1997 to July, 2010 is eligible for benefit under Section 25(f) of the I.D. Act with interest or
not ?
3)
If, yes, who will pay the workmen the contractor or the SBI, Rayagada (PE)?
4)
If not, to what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled?
FINDINGS
5.
In order to substantiate its case the 2nd Party Workman has examined himself as W.W.1 and relied on
the documents such as copy of the Written Statement of the 1st Party Management submitted before the ALC,
Bhubaneswar, Copy of Experience Certificate dated. 30.6.2001, issued by the Management, copy of experience
certificate dated.12.10.2007 issued by the Management, copy of experience certificate dated.18.11.2008, copy
of experience certificate dated. 5.10.2009 issued by the Management, Xerox copy of Bankers Cheque issued by
the Bank, and copy of the postal acknowledgment which are marked as Ext.1 to Ext.4 respectively. On the other
hand the 1st Party Management has examined its Chief Manager as M.W.1 to refute the claim of the 2nd Party
disputant.
6.
Law is well settled that when a workman who has been retrenched illegally due to non-compliance
of the provisions of Sec.25(f) of the Act, the burden lies on him to prove that he was engaged or employed by
the employer and he worked for him for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly in the calendar
year preceding to his alleged retrenchment. If, the pleading and evidence of the 2nd Party Workman are taken
for scrutinisation it is found that the disputant workman was not issued with any appointment or engagement
letter. No authentic evidence seems to have been led before the Tribunal to show the employer and employee
relationship between the parties. Not a single scarp of paper except copies of four numbers of Banker
Cheques are filed from which it cannot be inferred that wages for such engagement of 240 days
continuously were paid by the 1st Party Management. Copies of Banker Cheques i.e. Ext.3 series only lead to
a conclusion that the Bank had issued the cheques in favour of the disputant. The reason for issuing the
cheques is not coming out from these documents. On the other hand the disputant has pleaded and testified
that he was engaged through a out sourcing agency. Hence, there was no direct employer and employee
relationship between the Management and the Disputant. In the above back drop the evidence of the Chief
Manager supporting the pleading of the Management cannot out rightly be rejected. Further, his evidence is
no way demolished by the 2nd Party workman. On the other hand the correspondence Ext.1 filed by the
workman vindicates the stand of the Bank. The copies of the Conduct Certificates do not establish the claim
of the disputant since the workman has not named the person who had issued the certificates. These
certificates are unilateral documents and without examination of authors of those certificates no conclusion can
be drawn that the disputant was employed or appointed by the Management directly and he was engaged for
more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year.
Further, it is elicited from the cross examination of the disputant that he was not called for any
interview for the post. Remuneration was paid to him by the out sourcing agency. He has admitted that the out
sourcing agency was his supervising authority. Till 2007 he was receiving salary from the said agency. He has
no salary account in the Management Bank. Thus his evidence is far from wanting to establish his claim
that he was ever appointed or engaged directly by the Management Bank to perform the guard duty and he
was paid wages by the Management Bank for being employed for more than 240 days continuously and
uninterruptedly in a calendar year preceding to his alleged retrenchment. On the other hand it is crystal clear
from his pleading and evidence that he was deployed by the Security Agency and he was paid by the said
agency for such work.
7.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as the settled principle enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court it can be safely held that the Management Bank cannot be held liable for any
retrenchment of the disputant by the out sourcing agency Jagat Janani Security Service without making
payment of notice pay and rehabilitation compensation. Since the disputant fails to establish that his service
was out sourced by the 1st Party Management continuously for a year or more than that the Management Bank
cannot also be held liable to pay EPF contribution of the disputant. Thus the claim of the disputant being
devoid of merit stands rejected.
Accordingly the reference is answered.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bZ'kV dks'kV jsyos 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] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-41011@58@2016-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of E.Co.
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-41011/58/2016-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
Industrial Dispute Case No.69 of 2017
Dated of passing of the award 20.08.2019
Present:
Shri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar.
Between :
1.
The DEN, Civil,
E. Co. Railway, Khurda Road,
Orissa.
2.
General Manager,
E. Co. Railway, Jatni, Khurda Road,
Orissa.
…1st Party-
Managements
-Versus-
1.
The Secretary,
All India Central Council of Trade Unions,
A-13, Nagabhusan Bhavan, Ashok Nagar,
Bhubaneswar, (Orissa).
2.
Shri Ananta Pattnaik,
Rly Contractor, At/P.O. Bachhara,
Jatni, District-Khurda, Orissa.
…2nd. Party
Workman/Union
Appearances:-
For the First Party Management : Sri
For 2nd Party workman/Union : Sri S.Mishra
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute
between the above named parties for its adjudication vide its order No,L-41011/58/2016-IR(B-1) in exercise of
its authority conferred under Clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947) and the Schedule of the reference is as follows:—
[
II—
3(ii)]
295
1)
“Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, E. Co. Railway, Khurda Road,
Orissa and the contractor M/s. BD Sahu working as Labour contractor under East Coast
Railway, Khurda, in terminating the services of Shri Uresh Naik and 11 others (as per
annexure A) House Keeping contract workers, without complying section-25-(F) of Industrial
Disputes Act,1947 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”
2)
“Whether the disengagement of services of Shri Uresh Naik and 11 others by the new
contractor M/s. A Pattnaik and offering employment to fresh workmen in place of old and
experienced workmen who were employed around 07 years with the same Principal
Employer i.e. DRM Office, East Coast Railway, Khurda is legal and /or justified? If not,
what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference notice was issued to the 2nd Party Union who made his appearance and
filed its statement of claim. Thereafter, the Management was noticed to file its written statement. As the
Management failed to appear and file its written statement inspite of notice being found sufficient , it was set
exparte and the case was posted for taking evidence of the 2nd party Union. When the matter was in such stage
the 2nd Party Union failed to attend the Court and adduce its evidence inspite being given several
adjournments. The adjudication process cannot be protracted for an indefinite period awaiting appearance of the
parties on their sweet will. As a matter of fact a dispute cannot be settled in absence of the parties more
particularly in absence of pleadings and evidence of the disputant. As the disputant does not evidence any
interest to proceed with the case and there is absolutely no evidence/materials before the Tribunal for
adjudication of the dispute, there is no alternative than to dismiss the reference case without passing any
award since the I.D. Act and its Rules do not mandate that a nil award or a no dispute award is to be given in
case of absence of the disputant in an adjudication process. Rather, it has been well settled that passing of a no
dispute award/nil award is a misconception. It is also pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the
dispute referred to by the authority concerned, an award cannot be made within the meaning of the award as
defined under section 2-b of the Act. The above position has been settled in a decision of the Calcutta High
Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -Versus- Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal and others short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C(NCC)13(CAL). In the above back drops the case registered on
the reference is dismissed without any award and accordingly the reference is disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the Government of India Ministry of Labour for taking necessary action
at their end.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12025@01@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-12025/01/2020-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : BHUBANESWAR
Present: Sri B.C. Rath,LL.B., Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
I.D. Case No. 41 of 2014
Date of passing of award. 30.10.2019
1)
The Managing Director,
State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan,
8th Floor, Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
2)
The Branch Manager,
SME Branch, State Bank of India, Ground Floor,
Sambalpur-768 001
…1st Party
Managements
-Versus-
Shri Kundan Luha, aged 35 years,
S/o. Sri Muna Luha, At-Pension Para,
P.O./District-Smbalpur-768 001.
…2nd Party Workman
Appearance:-
For the Management : Sri S. K. Khata
For the Workman : Self
AWARD
This award is directed against an applicant U/s.2-A(2) of the I.D.Act,1947 (herein after referred to as
“the Act”) preferred by the above named applicant workman wherein and whereby an Industrial Dispute has
been raised as to his alleged retrenchment/termination from service by the 1st Party Management Bank.
2.
The case of the 2nd Party Workman as revealed from his Statement of Claim is that he was working as
a Sweeper in the office of the Management No.2 from 11.7.1997 to 30.10.2010 continuously and
uninterruptedly. At the time of initial employment he was paid monthly wages through vouchers showing
under contingent expenses. Thereafter, his engagement was on daily wage basis which was 1/3rd of admissible
salary of an employee of the Management Bank in similar category. He was also paid bonus annually like other
workmen of the Bank. His engagement was more than 240 days in a calendar year in between 11.7.1997 to
30.10.2010. When he was continuing as a Sweeper on daily wage basis he made a representation on 11.8.2006
for regularization of his service in the cadre of “ General Attendant” keeping in view a circular of the Bank vide
o.RBO/SAM/PER & HDD/Misc. No.208 dated.3.3.2006. No action was taken on such representation.
Suddenly, on 30.10.2010 he was disengaged from his employment by the Chief Manager, SBI, CB, Sambalpur
and he was paid Rs.19921/- as compensation, cheque of Rs.2957/- towards notice pay .It is the claim of the
workman that temporary messengers engaged subsequent to his employment as Sweepers were regularized in
service whereas he being engaged for about 13 years was disengaged without any reason. The Management
Bank having more than 300 employees in the Head Quarter of Sambalpur did not comply the requirement of
Section 25(n) when he was disengaged from service. The compensation paid to him in shape of Cheque was
not also adequate and less than the amount to which he was entitled to . Thus, his retrenchment being in
violation of the provisions of Section 25(g), 25(n) was illegal and unjustified and not sustainable in the eye of
law . Hence, prayer has been made for his reinstatement with back wages and all service benefits. It is also the
prayer to direct the Management to regularize his service.
3.
On being noticed the Management Bank has contested the claim refuting the allegation raised by the
applicant workman. It is the stand of the Bank that the applicant was never given any appointment in the
Bank either temporarily or regularly. Since any appointment in the Bank is to be made in accordance to
Recruitment Rules. The disputant was given a contract job of cleaning and sweeping the premises of the
Management Bank at Sambalpur on temporary basis . He used to devote about one to one and half hours to
sweep and to clean the Bank Premises and accordingly he was paid 1/3rd. of the minimum wages of an
unskilled labourer prevalent during his engagement. According to the Management when the service of the
workman was no more required he was informed on 30.10.2010 about his disengagement. He was also paid
notice pay and rehabilitation compensation as per the provisions of Sec.25(f) of the Act as the engagement of
[
II—
3(ii)]
297
the applicant was temporary and casual in nature and for a specific work and no no right was vested on the
applicant to continue in service. His engagement was for a specific work of cleaning premises and it was not
an employment or appointment .and the provisions of I.D. Act is not applicable to the disputant workman
when he was informed about his disengagement. It is the further stand of the Management that the
engagement of the applicant being for specific purpose for temporary period on a specific rate of wage
and it was intermittent and on need basis, there was no scope for the workman to raise any dispute under the
provisions of I.D. Act. Since his engagement was temporary he was paid notice pay and rehabilitation
compensation on precautionary basis to comply the requirement of Sec.25(f) of the Act before he was
disengaged from his contract work of sweeping and cleaning . According to the Management the applicant
cannot claim for his continuation in the job or his reinstatement keeping in view the principles settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnatak and others –Vrs- Uma Debi and others AIR
2006 S.C. 1806 wherein it has been observed that when person gets engagement on contractual basis and the
engagement is not based on a proper selection as required by any Recruitment Rules or procedure and he is
aware of the consequence of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature, he cannot
invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when appointment to the post can
be made only by following a proper procedure for selection. Thus, it is the stand of the Management Bank
that the applicant workman being a part time worker for a specific contractual job and paid specific amount
on day to day basis for doing that specific work can not claim for his reinstatement under the I.D. Act and
his application/statement of claim being devoid of merit should be rejected out rightly.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for adjudication of the
dispute.
ISSUES
1)
Whether the present case is maintainable in law?
2)
Whether the disengagement of the workman from service vide order No.46 dated.30.10.2010
of the Management No.2 is legal and justified ?
3)
If, not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
5.
In support of his claim the workman has examined himself as W.W.1 and relied upon certain
documents like Xerox copy of the order No.46 dated. 30.10.2010 passed by the Management No.2, Xerox copy
of representation dated. 11.8.2006 of the workman, Xerox copy of the letter dated. 3.3.2006 issued by the
Management, Xerox copy of the letter dated. 5.1.2006 issued by the Management No. 2, Advocate Notice
dated. 10.7.2012, Copy of Petition dated. 3.8.2012 filed by the workman before the R.L.C.(C) , Copy of the
letter of RLC(C), Rourkela dated. 7.8.2012, copy of compliance letter of the workman dated. 13.8.2012 to the
R.L.C.(C), Copy of Letter dated. 10.9.2012 of R.L.C.(C), Rourkela and Xerox copy of letter of RLC(C),
Rourkela to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour which are marked as Ext.1 to Ext.10 respectively.
To refute the claim the Management has also examined its Chief Manager, SME Branch as M.W.1 to refute the
claim
FINDINGS
6.
For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken into consideration as they are linked to each
other. As it appears from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that there is no serious dispute to the fact
that the disputant workman was engaged from 11.7.1997 to 30.10.2010 in the office of the Management No. 2
Bank to work as a Sweeper. It is the stand and evidence of the Management that the workman was working 2
to 3 hours in a day for the job of Sweeping for which he was being paid in commensuration with the job done
by him. Though a stand has been taken that the workman was employed intermittently and at the time of
need, it is not seriously disputed by the Management that in between 1997 to 2010 he was ever engaged for
less than 240 days in a calendar year. It is also emerging from the evidence and pleadings of the parties that
he was paid directly by the Bank either from the contingent head or in other head. He was stated to have been
paid bonus. His work appears to have been under the control and supervision of the Management No. 2.There is
no document on the part of the Management to show that it was agreed by the workman that he would avail a
specific amount in a month for doing a specific work of sweeping or cleaning premises and there was no
employer and employee relationship between the parties. In the above back drops the applicant can be covered
by the term “Workman” of the Management Bank as defined under the I.D. Act since a daily wager or a part
time worker can be counted as a workman. Admittedly, on 30.10.2010 the applicant workman was issued
with a letter of discontinuance of engagement under Ext.1. His such disengagement leads an inference that he
was a temporary employee of the Management Bank and to a dispute raised by the workman. For all the
aforesaid reasons it can be safely said that the applicant being a workman of the Management Bank No. 2
298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has a right to approach directly to this Tribunal U/s.2-A(2) of the Act in the event of his disengagement and
the conciliation before the labour machinery having been failed. Therefore, the case is maintainable and
accordingly the 1st issue is answered in favour of the workman.
7.
Issue No. 2:- Coming to the question whether the discontinuation/ disengagement of the applicant
under Ext.1 is illegal and unjustified, it may be stated that it is emerging from the evidence of the parties that
no process of recruitment was held while the applicant was engaged as a part time Sweeper. But, there is
nothing on the record to hold that he was not qualified to be eligible to work as a Sweeper as prescribed in
the Recruitment Process or Rule It can not be also over sighted that he was continuing to work as a Sweeper
for about 13 years. Further, his claim for converting him to a full time employee was taken into consideration
keeping in view the Management Bank’s Circular dated.3.3.2006 under Ext.3. The above facts find support
from Ext.4 wherein and whereby his claim was recommended to the higher authority and this piece of
document is not seriously challenged by the Management. There is also no specific denial by the Management
Bank that any junior in similar footing was not given full time appointment keeping in view the circular under
Ext.4. It is also emerging from the evidence of the parties that the Management Bank has more than 300
employees itself in Sambalpur Head Quarter. No evidence is coming forth from the Management Bank that
requirement of Section.25(n) was complied before discontinuing the applicant workman. Be that as it may,
mere compliance of notice pay and rehabilitation compensation cannot exonerate the Management Bank
from the liability cast upon him by the provisions of l.D. Act. Therefore, retrenchment/disengagement of the
applicant workman vide Ext.1 is undoubtedly illegal and unjustified and in violation of the requirement of the
I.D. Act more particularly the provisions of Section 25(g) and 25(n) of the Act.
8.
Issue No. 3:- Now coming to the question what relief to which the applicant workman is entitled, it is
not disputed that the workman worked for more than 10 years in the Management Bank before his
disengagement and the Management No.1 being fully satisfied with his performance had recommended his
case for his full time engagement and there being no specific pleading and evidence on the part of the
Management Bank that no junior to the applicant was absorbed or given full time appointment. Hence, it
can be stated here that it is a fit case where reinstatement with full back wages is the appropriate relief to
which the workman is entitled.
Hence, the Management is directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages within three months
from the date of receipt of notification failing which he is entitled to bank rate of interest on fixed deposit from
the date of the award.
Send a copy of the award along with original to the Ministry for its notification and necessary action at
their end.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkbZ lh vkbZ lh vkbZ cSad fy- 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] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@283@2004-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-12012/283/2004-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
[
II—
3(ii)]
299
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
L-12012/283/2004–IR(B-I)
21/03/2005
xksiky yky dqekor iq= Jh 'kadj yky dqekor
fuoklh & cqgkjh ekrk xyh]
vktkn pkSd] fuEckgsM+k] fpRrksMx<+A
'kk[kk izcU/kd]
¼iwoZorhZ n cSad vkWQ jktLFkku fyfeVsM½
orZeku & vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad fy-]
fuEckgsMk czkUp] fpRrksMx<+A
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % dksbZ ugha
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh vkyksd Qrsgiqfj;k &izfrfuf/k
fnukad % 03&12&2019
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 21-03-2005 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls
vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼M+h½ ,oa ¼2½ ¼,½ ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa
fuEukafdr fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;kA
“Whether the contention of the workman Shri Gopal Lal Kumawat that he has worked continuously for
more than 240 days in consecutive 12 months during the period from 10/11/96 to 12/2/2003 is correct?
If yes, whether the action of the Branch Manager. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Nimbahera Br. Distt.
Chittorgarh (Raj.) in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f., 12/2/2003 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2-
mi;qDrZ fookn izkIr gksus ij vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 21-4-2005 dks mHk;i{k dks uksfVl tkjh dj vkgwr
fd;k x;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd og vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA rRi'pkr fnukad 13-6-2005
dks izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds nkos ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSaA izkFkhZ Jfed
dks foi{kh fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 10-11-96 ls pijklh in ij nSfud etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij dke ij j[kk x;kA izkFkhZ
cSad ds vUnj lkQ&lQkbZ] ikuh Hkjus] Mkd dks p<+kus vkSj fMLisp djus dk dke foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad
12-2-2003 rd djrk jgkA izkFkhZ dks fu;kstd }kjk 1500 :i;s izfr ekg etnqjh dk Hkqxrku udn fd;k tkrk FkkA
Hkqxrku mls ,d lkFk u fn;k tkdj VqdM+ksa esa fn;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkqxrku cSad ds fu;fer deZpkjh ds uke ij
mBk;k tkrk Fkk rFkk mlls gLrk{kj djokdj izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku dj fn;k tkrk FkkA fnuakd 10-11-96 ls fnukad
12-2-2003 rd LFkkuh; Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk tks foi{kh }kjk j[kh tkrh Fkh] foi{kh ls eaxok;k tkuk vko';d gSA
fnukad 12-2-2003 dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks
lsoklekfIr ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k vkSj /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa
dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us bl vof/k esa izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr
djrs le; dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZ vkSj vU; O;fDr;ksa dks fu;kstu esa fy;k x;kA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ rFkk fu;e 77 o 78 dk mYya?ku Hkh fd;k x;kA vr% okn Lohdkj dj fu;kstd }kjk fnukad
12-2-2003 dks dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, lEiw.kZ ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok dh fujUrjrk lqfuf'pr
djrs gq, iqu% fu;kstu esa j[kus dk vkns'k fn;k tkosaA
3-
fnukad 8-8-05 dks foi{kh dh vkSj ls izfrmRrj esa okn ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g dgk x;k fd
nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fu;kstd ,oa deZdkj ds lEcU/k ugha gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks u rks fu;qfDr nh xbZ vkSj u gha
lsokeqDr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us foi{kh cSad esa dHkh dke ugha fd;k vkSj foi{kh us osru ds :i esa izkFkhZ dks fdlh jkf'k
dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;kA foi{kh }kjk dksfj;j lfoZl ds ek/;e ls Mkd fHktok;h tkrh FkhA laHko gS fd izkFkhZ dksfj;j
lfoZl ds deZpkjh ds lkFk dHkh cSad vk x;k gks vkSj cSad ds dk;ZdYkki vkSj izfdz;k dks le>dj QthZ izfof"V;ka
nqjk'k; ls dj nh gksaA lgk;d {ks+=h; Jek;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ ds le{k le>kSrk dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku VqdMksa esa Hkqxrku
fd;k tkus dk dksbZ rF; of.kZr ugha fd;k FkkA ysfdu nkos esa ckn esa fopkj dj ;g rF; tksM+k gSA izkFkhZ us
vukf/kd`r :i ls cSad vfHkys[k dks pksjh dj mldh QksVksizfr;ka izkIr dh gksxhA foi{kh us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh
300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;kA u gha vU;
O;fDr;ksa dks foi{kh us lsok esa fy;kA vr% izkFkhZ fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
4-
fnukad 26-8-2005 dks iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk fuEukafdr fook|d fojfpr fd;s x;s %&
1.
Whether the workman was engaged on 10.11.1996 as a 4th class by the non-applicant Bank, who
continuously worked upto 12.2.2003 and whose service was terminated on 12.2.2003 in violation of
Section 25-F of the Act?
2.
Whether the non applicant bank has recruited the fresh hands after the termination of the workman
in contravention of Section 25-H of the Act?
3.
Relief, If any.
5-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; xksiky yky dqekor ¼izkFkhZ½ dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izn'kZ MCY;q&1 ls MCY;w&20
rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
6-
foi{kh nh cSad vkWQ jktLFkku fyfeVsM dk foy; orZeku esa vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad fyfeVsM esa gks tkus ds
ifj.kkeLo:i bl vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 28-6-2011 dks vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, jktLFkku cSad ds LFkku ij
vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad dks foi{kh ds :i esa la;ksftr fd;k x;k rFkk la'kksf/kr okn 'kkh"kZd fnukad 23-11-2011 dks
izkFkhZ us izLrqr fd;kA
7-
foi{kh us vius lk{; esa psru dqekj xxZ 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izn'kZ&,e 1 ls izn'kZ&,e
12 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
8-
bl izdj.k esa fnuakd 20-7-2016 ls izkFkhZ i{k vuqifLFkr pyk vk jgk gSA izkFkhZ i{k dks cgl gsrq vfUre
volj nsrs gq, fnuakd 18-11-2019 mHk;i{k ds rdZ lquus gsrq fu;r dh xbZ Fkh] fdUrq izkFkhZ i{k fnukad 18-11-19 dks
Hkh vuqifLFkr jgkA vr% foi{kh izfrfuf/k ds rdZ lqus x;s rFkk mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ lk{; dk ifj'khyu
fd;k x;kA
9-
foi{kh dk loZizFke ;g rdZ gS fd ;s rF; izekf.kr djus dk flf)Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gS fd og foi{kh ds v/khu
fu;qfDr gksus rFkk lsoklekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsok djus dk rF;
izekf.kr djsa] fdUrq izkFkhZ us bl flf)Hkkj dk mUekspu ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us bl rF; ds lEcU/k esa tks lk{; izLrqr
dh gS og ek= Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk ds i`"Bksa dh QksVksizfr;ka gSA foi{kh }kjk izLrqr izn'kZ&,e 1 ls izn'kZ&,e 12
Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk ds i`"Bksa ij izkFkhZ us Loa; ds gLrk{kj u gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA foi{kh us vius lk{; ls izkFkhZ
ds lk{; dk [k.Mu fd;k gS vkSj ;g izekf.kr fd;k gS fd izn'kZ&,e 1 fooj.k ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds o"kZ 1997 ls
2002 rd 55 fnu Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk esa gLrk{kj gSaA o"kZ 2002 esa rks ek= 7 fnu gh gLrk{kj fd;s gSaA bl izdkj
izkFkhZ }kjk 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsok foi{kh ds v/khu fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us Loa; Lohdkj fd;k gS
mls foi{kh us i= fy[kdj ukSdjh ij ugha cqyk;kA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk osru Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ izek.k
ugha gSA izkFkhZ ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd Qjojh 2003 esa mlds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ nSfud osru Hkksxh ugha FkkA
vU; fu;qDr fd;s x;s O;fDr;ksa dk izkFkhZ us dksbZ fooj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh }kjk vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa
fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s %&
¼1½ 2018&II ,y-,y-ts- 513 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ eksgEen vyh cuke LVsV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k o vU;A
¼2½ 2005 ¼105½ ,Q-,y-vkj- 378 phQ bfUthfu;j ¼dUlVªD'ku½ cuke ds'ko jko ¼e`rd½ }kjk fof/kd
izfrfuf/kx.kA
10-
eSuas mHk;i{k dh lk{;] foi{kh izfrfuf/k ds rdZ ,oa U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij /;kuiwoZd euu
fd;kA rnqijkUr fook| fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fu.kZ; bl izdkj gS %&
izkFkhZ xksiky yky dqekor us vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g dgk gS fd mls foi{kh }kjk
fnukad 10-11-96 ls nSfud etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij fy;k x;k Fkk fdUrq izkFkhZ ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd mls cSad }kjk
dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds ikl dke djus dk dksbZ izek.k i=
ugha gS mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh us Li"V :i ls] izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr fd;k tkus ,oa mldh lsok lekIr djus ds rF;
vLohdkj fd;s gSaA ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; phQ bathfu;j ¼dUlVªD'ku½ cuke ds'ko jko ¼e`rd½ ds
fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus dk
izkjfEHkd flf)Hkkj deZdkj Loa; ij gh vkjksfir gksrk gSA ;fn ;g izkjfEHkd flf)Hkkj mUeksfpr dj fn;k tkosa rFkk
fu;kstd fo[k.Mu lk{; izLrqr djus esa foQy jgsa rHkh ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd deZdkj }kjk ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa
240 fnu ls vf/kd lsok dh xbZA
11-
blh izdkj ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ekSgEen vyh cuke LVsV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k o vU; ds fu.kZ; esa
;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd ;fn deZdkj us lsoklekfIr dh frfFk ds iwoZorhZ 12 dSys.Mj eklksa esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
[
II—
3(ii)]
301
dk;Z djuk izekf.kr fd;k gks rHkh ;g dgk tk;sxk fd mls /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr
gSA
12-
bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds izdk'k esa lk{; dk foospu djus ij ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vius
vfHkopuksa ,oa lk{; esa xEHkhj fojks/kkHkkl izLrqr fd;k gSA vius okn esa izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd mls fu;fer deZpkjh
ds uke ij dHkh 500] rks dHkh 700] rks dHkh 400 :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk] fdUrq vius lk{; ds 'kiFk&i=
esa izkFkhZ us cSad ds fu;fer deZpkjh ds uke ij VqdMksa esa Hkqxrku fd;k tkus dk dFku ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius
lsokdky dks izekf.kr djus ds fy;s tks izys[k izLrqr fd;s gSa] os Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk ds i`"Bksa dh QksVksizfr;ka gaSA
izn'kZ&MCY;q 1 ls MCY;q &20 rd tks QksVksizfr;ka izLrqr dh xbZ gS] os fnukad 8-11-2000 ls 4-7-2001 rd dh gSA
izkFkhZ us lsoklekfIr dh dfFkr frfFk 12-2-2003 ds iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa vFkkZr 12-2-2002 ls 12-2-2003 dh
vof/k esa lsokjr gksus dk dksbZ izek.k Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk ds :i esa Hkh izLrqr ughsa fd;k gSA vius izfrijh{k.k esa
izkFkhZ us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ&,e 2 ls izn'kZ&,e 12 rd Mkd fooj.k iqfLrdk ds i`"Bksa ij mlds gLrk{kj
ugha gSA izn'kZ&,e 2 fnukad 7-8-2002 ls izfof"V;ksa dks n'kkZrk gS rFkk izn'kZ&,e 12] fnukad 12-2-2003 rd dh
izfof"V;ksa ij lekIr gksrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us tks izys[k foi{kh ls izLrqr djok;s] muds vuqlkj Hkh 12-2-2003 ls
iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa izkFkhZ dk foi{kh ds v/khu fdlh Hkh izdkj ls lsokjr gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ
us foi{kh }kjk mls fd;s x;s dfFkr Hkqxrku dk dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh lk{kh Jh psru
dqekj xxZ }kjk fd;k x;k ;g dFku fd cSad esa Mkd dk dke] cSad ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ugha fd;k tkrk oju~
dksfj;j ,tsUlh ds }kjk djok;k tkrk Fkk] rFkk cSad dh fi;ksu cqd esa xksiky yky dqekor uke dh ftruh
izfof"V;k¡ dh xbZ gS] os izfof"V;sa fdlh dksfj;j deZpkjh dh gkasxh] lR; ds dgha fudV izekf.kr gksrk gSA lk{kh us
izfrijh{kk esa bl lq>ko dks n`<+rk ls vLohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 10-11-96 ls 12-2-2003 rd Mkd forj.k rFkk
vU; prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z xksiky yky dqekor }kjk fd;k tkrk gks] D;ksafd Mkd forj.k dk dk;Z dksfj;j
dEiuh ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk FkkA lk{; ,oa fof/k ds foospu ds mijkUr ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad
10-11-96 dks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa foi{kh ds v/khu fu;qfDr dk rF; rFkk fnukad 12-2-2003 ds iwoZorhZ ,d
dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsokjr jgus dk rF; izkFkhZ us vius fo'oluh; lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha fd;k gSA
bl izdkj izkFkhZ ml ij vkjksfir flf) Hkkj ds mUekspu esa foQy jgk gSA
13-
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k tks fd lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ ,d ekg ds uksfVl RkFkk
uksfVl u fn;s tkus dh n'kk esa ,d ekg ds osru ds cjkcj uksfVl osru rFkk izfrdj ls lEcfU/kr gS] izkFkhZ dks rHkh
fn;k tk ldrk gS] tc vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ ds vuqlkj og 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsoklekfIr ds rqjar iwoZ ,d
o"kZ dh vof/k esa lsokjr gksuk izekf.kr djsaA bl izdkj u rks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr fd;k tkuk gh
izekf.kr gqvk gS vkSj u gha foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk izekf.kr
gqvk gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
14-
bl fcUnq ds vUrxZr ;g fopkj.kh; gS fd D;k foi{kh cSad us izkFkhZ dh
lsoklekfIr ds mijkUr uohu fu;qfDr;ka dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dk mYya?ku fd;k \
bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ xksiky yky dqekor us vius 'kiFk&i= esa dksbZ dFku gh ugha fd;k gS fd mldks lsok ls i`Fkd
djus ds i'pkr fdu&fdu O;fDr;ksa dks foi{kh }kjk lsok esa fu;qDr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr dfFkr :i ls
fnukad 12-2-2003 dks dh xbZ tcfd izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd Qjojh 2003 esa mlds vykok vkSj
dksbZ nSfud osruHkksxh ugha FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gS fd fnukad
12-2-2003 ds mijkUr foi{kh cSad us fdUgha vU; O;fDr;ksa dks uohu :i ls lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k gSA blfy;s
foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA bl izdkj ;g fook| fcUnq
izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
15-
fook|d fcUnq la[;k& 1 o 2 dk fu.kZ; izkFkhZ ds fo:) fd;k x;k
gS rFkk ;g izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 10-11-96 ls 12-2-2003 dh vo/kh esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsok
,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa foi{kh ds v/khu dh gks rFkk foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa ds
foijhr lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gksA blfy;s izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA
16-
dsUnzh; Je eU=ky; }kjk U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr jsQjsUl dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA
17-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr
izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@104@2010-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020
S.O. 123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-12012/104/2010-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2011
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Omi Shankar Prajapati
S/o Sh. Sarvanlal Prajapati,
R/o Rampur Road, Tehsil Sabalgarh
District Morena (M.P)
…Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Jhundpura Branch,
Sabalgarh, Morena
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 10th day of December, 2019)
1.
As per letter dated 27/5/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-12012/104/2010(IR(B-I)). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri
Omi Shankar Prajapati w.e.f. 1-9-2004 is legal and justified? To what relief , the workman is entitled
to ?”
2.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
3.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he has been working in Jhundpura
Branch of respondent/Bank since 1981 to 1995 discharging different works allotted to him by respondent/bank,
details mentioned in paragraph-1 of the claim. He has been doing his job diligently and there were no
complaints against him. He used to work as waterman., daily wager engaged as messenger though he was
shown to be working as a canteen man by the respondent/bank and was paid as a canteen man by the bank. He
never worked in canteen, rather the respondent/bank had engaged him in work of messenger, cleaning,
maintenance of ledger register and law books, counting of cash, bundling of wrong notes and providing water
[
II—
3(ii)]
303
to bank personnel. In the light of settlement between the union and Management in which daily wagers were to
be provided permanent appointment in subordinate cadre. The applicant /workman had also applied for
absorption on 25-3-1997. He was called for interview on 27-3-1997 in which he did appear. The Branch
Manager had made a recommendation vide his letter dated 5-5-1997 for his appointment as waterman to the
Assistant General Manager and his bio-data was sent vide letter dated 8-10-1998. It was also alleged that on
21-12-1998 services of temporary/daily wager/consolidate wagers were terminated but the workman was
continued in engagement. He met with an accident while performing duties of management/bank on 1-9-2004
resulting into permanent dis-ablement and when he came back after recovering, he was removed by the branch
manager and was not allowed to join. He was not paid any notice or compensation. He raised dispute before
the Labour Commissioner after failure of conciliation. The appropriate government referred the dispute to this
Court for adjudication. According to the workman, his termination is violative of Section 25(B), 25(F) and
25(D) and Section 5(A) of the I.D.Act and Rule 77 and 78 of Industrial Disputes Central Rules 1947, hence is
against law. The workman has prayed for reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits setting
aside his termination.
4.
In its written statement of defence, the respondent/Bank has pleaded that the appellant/workman was
engaged as a daily labour for some period at Jhundpura Branch of the respondent/ bank in District Sabalgarh.
He worked for 8 days from 12-6-1981 to19-6-1981 for 64 days from February-1991 to April-1991 and for 730
days from August,1993 to July-1995. He was not engaged by the Bank after July 1995 and even during the
aforesaid engagement for the aforesaid period as daily wager he was never appointed on any post undergoing
recruitment process, hence he does not have right to continue in service of bank. He never completed 240
days in continuous engagement of respondent/bank at any point of time. Also it was pleaded that the Local
Implementation Committee of the staff was constituted for welfare of staff members which runs canteen and
catering for its members working in the Branch, over which the management of the bank has no control. The
canteen staff is engaged by Local Implementation Committee and canteen boys are paid by the Committee. The
applicant was also engaged by Local Implementation Committee of the Branch as canteen boy for the period 1-
8-1995 to 1-9-2004 hence during this period he was not in employment of the bank in any capacity. Thus there
was no occasion of his dis-engagement as stated by him in fact he might have been dis-engaged by the Local
Implementation Committee which runs the canteen of the staff. The Management further denied the allegation
in his statement of claim and requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
5.
At the stage of the evidence the workman has examined himself and has proved four letter issued vide
Branch Officers during the period 1994 to 1997 as Exhibit W-5 to W-10, the photocopy of his bio-data is
Exhibit W-11. Two letter dated 5-5-1997 and 10-8-1998 is Exhibit W-12 and W-13. The letter dated 27-3-2004
issued by the Assistant General Manager of the Branch is Exhibit W-14, application sent by the workman
dated 6-9-2005 is Exhibit W-15, letter issued by Bank Officer dated 5-7-1997 is Exhibit W-16 and letter dated
1-8-1995 Exhibit W-17. The photocopy of particulars of temporary employee, calculation of work done from
1981 to 1995. Application dated 13-12-2005 and certificates issued by Assistant General Manager while doing
Management work is Exhibits W-1 to W-4 respectively. Copy of FIR regarding accident and police report have
also been filed which are certified copy of pay documents Exhibit W-18 and W-29.
6.
The Management has examined its witness Lakurnath, Branch Manger. No document has been filed by
Management.
7.
At the stage of argument, learned counsel Shri Praveen Yadav and Shri Ashish Rohte submitted their
arguments on behalf of applicant workman and management separately. Both the sides have filed written
arguments which are part of record. I have gone through the written arguments also.
8.
After perusal of the material available on record in the light of reply and arguments, the following issue
arise in the case which are points for determination and they are :-
1.
‘‘Whether the dis-engagement of the appellant/workman is justified in law or not?”
2.
‘‘Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?.”
304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
ISSUE NO.1:- Before entering into any discussion on merit , the following provisions relevant to the
case are required to be reproduced, which are as follows:-
Industrial Dispute Act,1947:-
2[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but
does not include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on
reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the
workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf.
2[25B. Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a workman shall be
said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any
fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the
meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous
service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually
worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a
workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the
date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (2),
the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the
days on which- (i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made
under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or
under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with full
wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by
accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; (iv) in the case of a female, she has
been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed
twelve weeks.] 1
25D. Duty of an employer to maintain muster rolls of workmen.- Notwithstanding that workmen
in any industrial establishment have been laidoff, it shall be the duty of every employer to
maintain for the purposes of this Chapter a muster-roll, and to provide for the making of entries
therein by workmen who may present themselves for work at the establishment at the appointed
time during normal working hours.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in
writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the
workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in
excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate
Government 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by
notification in the Official Gazette.]
[
II—
3(ii)]
305
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this
behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed
in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
Industrial Dispute Central Rules-1957
76-Notice of retrenchment.—If any employer desires to retrench any workman employed in his
industrial establishment who has been in continuous service 1 Subs. by S.O. 2485, dated 20th May,
1985. 2 Subs. by S.O. 2485, dated 20th May, 1985. 3 Subs. by G.S.R. 289, dated 2nd March, 1982
(w.e.f. 13-3-1982). 4 Subs. by S.O. 2485, dated 20th May, 1985. The Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957 for not less than one year under him (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’ in this rule
and in rules 77 and 78), he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central
Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that
Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post in the following manner:—
(a) where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days
from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (b) where no notice is given to the workman
and he is paid one month’s wages in lieu thereof, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three
days from the date on which such wages are paid; and (c) where retrenchment is carried out under
an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service, notice of retrenchment shall be
sent so as to reach the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, at least one
month before such date: Provided that if the date of termination of service agreed upon is within 30
days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent to the Central Government, the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Commissioner (Central), and the
Employment Exchange concerned, within 3 days of the agreement.
10.
In the light of above provisions of law what is to be seen in this case is whether firstly the workman
was engaged by respondent/bank and secondly whether the workman had completed 240 days of uninterrupted
service as mentioned above, in the year preceding the date of his disengagement which is 1-9-2004.
11.
According to the workman, he was engaged in doing the job of waterman, messenger, maintenance of
register, counting of cash, bundling of currency notes, offering water to bank customers and office staff as daily
wager in the said period. This is also his case that though he was named and engaged as canteen boy but no
work regarding canteen was ever taken by him by the Management. Whereas the case of Management is that he
was employed as canteen boy for serving canteen items to the bank staff by Local Implementation Committee of
the bank which is run by the staff members .
12.
The workman has stated his pleadings on other point as stated above in his statement of oath. In his
cross-examination he has stated that he was paid through vouchers and payment was credited in his account
whereas the Management witness has corroborated the case of respondent/bank by stating that he was engaged
by Local Implementation Committee to run the staff canteen as canteen boy and bank has nothing to do with his
engagement/disengagement. He was not under supervision and employment of bank. No work of bank was
taken from him.
13.
The documents which the workman has filed relates to the period 1994 to 1995. There is no document
corresponding to the period within one year preceding the date of his dis-engagement except one copy of FIR
for 1-9-2004 stating that the workman was going somewhere for bank work where he met with an accident, this
306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
date is the date of his disengagement. Hence in absence of documentary evidence regarding payment etc. which
could corroborate the case of the workman that he was in fact engaged by Bank and not by Local
Implementation Committee of the Bank. Only the self service statement of the workman on oath will not be
sufficient to hold the continuous engagement of the workman by the bank for a period of 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his dis-engagement. Learned Counsel for workman has referred to case law Jasmer
Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another(2105)4 SCC 458 where it has been laid down that the work done in
different sub-divisions will be computed for calculation of 240 days. The facts of the case in hand are different
than the case law as mentioned above. It is the case of the workman that though he was engaged as a canteen
boy for name sake he used to do the bank jobs as mentioned earlier. This is also to be mentioned here that the
burden to prove that the workman was in continuous engagement in 240 days in the year preceding the date of
his disengagement lies on the workman which he has failed to discharge in the present case.
14.
On the basis of the above discussion the case of the workman that he was engaged by bank and he was
in continuous engagement of Management/Bank for a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his
dis-engagement is held not proved. Accordingly, his dis-engagement is held justified in law and fact. Issue
No.1 is answered accordingly.
15.
ISSUE NO. 2:- On the basis of the findings recorded in Issue No.1, the workman is held entitled to no
relief.
16.
Accordingly, there is nothing on record to hold that the dis-engagement, if any, of the workman is
violative of law. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
17.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
A.
The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the Service of Shri Omi
Shankar Prajapati w.e.f. 1-9-2004 is held legal and justified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 10.12.2019
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2016½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@48@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020
S.O. 124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-22012/48/2016-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
307
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/22/2016-17
Date: 17.12.2019
Party No. 1
The Colliery Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Saoner Mine No. 3 Po/Tq Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Nagpur-440001
V/s
Party No. 2:(a)
The General Secretary,
Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Umrer Area
WCL PO/Tq Umrer
Distt. Nagpur
Nagpur-440001
Party No. 2:(b)
Shri Manohar Govindrao Wankhede
Ex. Employee Saoner Mine No. 3
Shivajee Chowk Patansaongi,
Tah. Saoner Nagpur(MS)
Nagpur-441113
AWARD
(Dated: 17th December, 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the
industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the Management of Western Coalfields Limited and
their workman, Shri Manohar G. Wandhede through the union, Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/48/2016 – IR (CM-II) dated 15.09.2016, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of Superintendent of Mines/Manager of Saoner Mine No. 3 of Western
Coalfields Limited in superannuating the services w.e.f. 01.08.2011 instead of 01/08/2015 of the
workman namely Sh. Manohar Govinda. Loader Time rated of Saoner Mine No. 3 by office
order bearing No. 358 dated 31.07.2011 in not considering the actual date of birth i.e., 01.07.1955
as recorded in form ‘B’ register initially maintained by the Patansaongi mines of the WCL and
also mentioned the same date of birth in office order No. 202 dated 24.03.2001 of the
Superintendent of the Mines/Manager, Saoner Mine No. 3 of WCL is legal, proper and justified?
If not what relief the workman is entitled?”
1.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement. In response to which, the workman Shri Manohar Govindrao Wankhede (“The workman” in short)
through his union, “Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Umrer”, (“The union” in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL, (“Party No.1” in short) filed the written statement.
2.
On behalf of the workman, they filed statement of claim by asserting the following facts:--
i)
That the workman was appointed by Party No. 1 in the post of General Mazdoor on
15.02.1980 and later on he was regularized as a Peace Rated Worker (Loader) w.e.f.
12.05.1981.
ii)
‘‘That in the Form “B” maintained under Rules 48, 51, 77 and 77(a) of the Mines Act and
Mines Rules, workman’s date of birth were recorded as 01.07.1955. He also asserted that, he
is going to be superannuated from the company with effect from 01.08.2011 on completion of
60 years of service. The workman is however, given to understand that Party No. 1 was
maintaining a service sheet wherein, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1950.’’
iii)
That “the workman was constrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court for quashing the said
order of superannuation from service. The Hon’ble High Court, by an order dated 11.04.2012,
has been pleased to dispose of the petition granting liberty to the workman to take such other
steps as are available in law.”
308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iv)
That the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industries has issued Implementation Instruction
No. 76, as an offshoot of National Coal Wage Agreement. This I.I. No. 76 provides detailed
procedure for determination/verification of age of the employees and steps for resolution of
disputed cases of Service records. He also asserted that, the said procedure also requires that,
in case of glaring mistake in reporting of the date of birth, the Age Determination Committee
should refer the employee to Apex Medical Board. So according to him, Party No. 1 has failed
to comply with this mandatory procedure.
v)
That “the workman never gave a declaration or never represented that his date of birth is
01.07.1950. It is also not supported by any documentary or other valid evidence” and prayed
that, “This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to answer the reference in favour of the workman and
direct the Party No. 1 to record the workman’s date of birth as 01.07.1955 and declare that, he
is deemed to have continued in service till the age of superannuation of 60 years i.e. till
01.07.2015 along with all consequential reliefs.”
3.
On behalf the management i.e. Party No. 1, they filed written statement by asserting the following
facts:--
i)
That, the present dispute raised by the Party No. 2 is not an Industrial dispute as per the I.D.
Act 1947. According to them, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case
and present case is liable to be rejected.
ii)
That, the present dispute is a civil in nature because workman i.e. Party no. 2, claiming a
declaration about his date of birth. That the declaration is the specific jurisdiction of civil
court and hence reference is liable to be answered in negative.
iii)
That, the present case of the Party no. 2 is false, frivolous and without merit and the Party no.
2 has tried to mislead this tribunal and not approaching before this tribunal with clean hands,
so reference is liable to be answered in negative.
iv)
That the Party no.2 has raised the dispute regarding his date of birth after his
superannuation/retirement on 31.07.11.
v)
The Party No. 1 admitted the content of para Nos. 1 & 3 and para Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in part of the
statement of claim. They admitted that, Party no. 2 was appointed as a General Mazdoor on
15.02.1980 and regularized as a Piece Rated Worker (Loader) w.e.f. 12.05.1981. It is also
admitted that, he is going to be superannuated from the company w.e.f. 01.08.2011. It is also
admitted that, he filed a W.P.No.1600/2012 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Nagpur
bench. Rest of the statement of claim is denied by the Party no. 1 in their written statement.
In this way Party No. 1 prayed that “Whole prayer clause is completely and specifically denied” and
also prayed that “This reference is liable to be answered in the negative.”
4.
Point of Determination
i)
Whether the actual date of birth of the workman/Party No. 2 is 01.07.1955?
ii)
Whether he is wrongly superannuated from the service w.e.f. 01.08.2011?
iii)
Whether he is entitled to reinstate with full back wages?
iv)
Whether he is entitled to any other relief?
Reasons for Decisions
5.
On behalf of the Party No. 2, he filed written notes of argument asserting the following submission:--
That, “Implementation Instruction No. 76 as an off-shoot of National Coal Wage Agreement. This I.I.
No. 76 provides detailed procedure for determination/verification of age of the employees and steps for
resolution of disputed cases of Service records.” And also argued that, “Non-compliance of the instructions by
the management in the matter of determination of age of the workman has caused great hardship to the
workman” and also prayed that, Tribunal direct “The Party No. 1 to declare the workman, is deemed to have
continued in service till he attain the age of superannuation on 01.08.2015 and grant him all consequential
benefits of back wages, continuity of service etc.”
6.
On behalf of the Party No. 1, they filed written notes of argument asserting the following submission:--
[
II—
3(ii)]
309
i)
That, “Dispute raised by the workman is not an Industrial Dispute as per the I.D. Act 1947.”
and according to them, “This Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case
and the present case is liable to be rejected.”
ii)
That, “The declaration is the specific jurisdiction of Civil Court and hence the statement of
claim filed by the workman, is liable to be rejected with heavy cost.” and also argued that, The
Party No. 2/ workman, “had tried to mislead this Hon’ble tribunal and not approaching before
this Hon’ble tribunal with clean hands and on this count itself, the present case is liable to be
rejected.”
iii)
That Party No. 2 after his superannuation/retirement on 31.07.11 has for the first time raised
the dispute regarding his date of birth. So according to the Party No. 1, “He himself is
responsible for delay in filing of statement of claim, therefore on the count of delay and
latches also, the present case is liable to be rejected.”
7.
On behalf of the workman/Party No. 2, he examined himself i.e. PW-1, Manohar Govindrao
Wankhede, but nobody was examined on behalf of the management/ Party No. 1. Now I want to see the
evidence with factual matrix with reference to argument.
PW-1, Manohar in his chief examination supported the statement of claim, but in his cross-
examination, he admitted some facts. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he admitted that, “It is true to say that,
I was appointed as General Mazdoor with WCL on 15.02.1980.” “It is true to say that, I was regularized as a
Piece Rated worker w.e.f. 12.05.1981.” It is true to say that, while my initial appointment on 15.02.1980, I had
not submitted any document related to my date of birth to WCL. It is true to say that, I have been superannuated
from services w.e.f. 01.08.2011. It is true to say that, WCL has paid me all the retiremental benefits after my
superannuation. “It is true to say that, during the period of my service, I had made only one representation to
WCL regarding my date of birth. I have not filed any document/representation, which was made by me to WCL
in regard to date of birth before this Hon’ble Court.”
8.
On going the above statement of Shri Manohar, I observed that, he has not filed any document
regarding date of birth at the time of initial appointment, representation at the time of evidence. It is also
observed that, in “Form B” register, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1955, but in service record his date
of birth is 01.07.1950. All these documents carry the thumb impression. i.e. it shows that in service record, he is
illiterate, but in the Court proceedings, he signed all related documents. Nobody challenge that, these thumb
impressions were not of workman. It also shows that, documents exhibit W-III and W-IV are contradicting in
each other regarding the date of birth of the workman, which are not supported by any reliable evidence. I
relied on case laws, Secretary & Commissioner, Home Vs R/ Kirubakaran AIR 1993 SC 2647 and Union of
India Vs Harman Singh AIR 1993 1367, in which, following principles are laid down:-
i)
“Normally, in most of the services, the date of birth is recorded in the service records on the eve of
the appointment with reference to the date of birth mentioned if the Matriculation Certificate,
Higher Secondary Education Board Certificate or any other certificate of similar nature produced
by the applicant concerned at the time of making application for his appointment. As such
whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or
near about that time, the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautions because of the
growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute, without explaining
as to why this question was not raised earlier”.
ii)
“The respondent had the occasion to see his service book on numerous occasions. He signed the
service book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded
entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the
respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion
to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till
September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and
unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in
any case have justified the refusal of relief to him”.
9.
Ongoing the above discussions and principles laid down in the above case laws, it appears that, the
workman did not file any document regarding his age at the time of joining his service and in Court proceeding.
He did not apply to the Age Determination Committee before 31.07.2011. It also shows that, he applied before
the Party No. 1 at the verge of retirement without any age proof. So, this Tribunal is helpless. In my humble
opinion, he is not entitled to any benefit regarding his retirement age. He is also not entitled to any extra service
benefit, which he claimed. Hence, it is ordered:-
310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The action of Superintendent of Mines/Manager of Saoner Mine No. 3 of Western Coalfields
Limited in superannuating the services w.e.f. 01.08.2011 instead of 01/08/2015 of the workman namely Sh.
Manohar Govinda. Loader Time rated of Saoner Mine No. 3 by office order bearing No. 358 dated
31.07.2011 in not considering the actual date of birth i.e., 01.07.1955 as recorded in form ‘B’ register
initially maintained by the Patansaongi mines of the WCL and also mentioned the same date of birth in
office order No. 202 dated 24.03.2001 of the Superintendent of the Mines/Manager, Saoner Mine No. 3 of
WCL is legal, proper and justified. He is not entitled to any relief.
S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2018½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@123@2017-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020
S.O. 125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s W.C.L and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.
[No. L-22012/123/2017-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/41/2018-19
Date: 02.12.2019
Party No. 1(a)
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Coal Estate, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440001
Party No. 1(b)
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Saoner Sub Area, Post & Tah. Saoner,
Nagpur-441107
V/s
Party No. 2:(a)
Sh. Shyamrao S/o Narayan Madase,
R/o Qtr. No. 98/4, Bajaj Colony, At Post:
Adasa, Tah. Saoner, Distt
Nagpur-441107
Party No. 2:(b)
The President,
Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),
Br. Sillewara, Tah. Saoner,
Distt
Nagpur-441107
AWARD
(Dated: 02th December, 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
[
II—
3(ii)]
311
industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the Management of Western Coalfields Limited and
their workman, Shri Shyamrao S/o Narayan Madase, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/123/2017–IR
(CM-II) dated 29.10.2018, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and Western
Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Sub Area in denying the change of date of birth in respect of
Shri Shyamrao S/o Narayan Madase is just fair and legal? It not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
1.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement. In response to which Koyla Shramik Sabha(HMS) Union, Saoner (“Party No. 2” in short) did not
appear and did not file statement of claim. The management (“Party No. 1” in short) did not also file their
Written Statement. But on behalf of Party No. 1 Advocate Shri Ramesh Darda, Tushar Darda, K.E. Meshram
advocates filed their Vakalatnama on 11.02.2019.
2.
On perusal of the record, it appears that, alongwith the Party No. 1/management; notices were also
issued separately to the union/Party No. 2 as well as to the workman. Notice sent to the Party No. 2/union was
received and the acknowledgement to the same has been received by this Court, but notice sent to the workman
was returned with remark, “The said man is not residing at this address”. Advocate for the Party No. 1 filed an
application for passing “No Dispute Award”, which is marked as I.A. No. I. In my humble opinion, the
union/Party No. 2 by knowing, did not appear or contest the case. So, application I.A. No. I is allowed. Hence,
it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ Q+wM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhvkj 25@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@204@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020
S.O. 126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CR 25/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, BANGALORE as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.01.2020.
[No. L-22012/204/2001-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 17TH JANUARY 2020
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer
CR 25/2003
I Party
II Party
The Secretary,
FCI Loading and Unloading Workers Union,
No. 28, Raja Snow Building,
S.C. Road, Seshadripuram,
Bangalore – 560020.
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office,
No-10, Pallavi Complex, Kalinga Rao,
Bangalore – 560027.
312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. K. T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party : Mr. B. L. Sanjeev
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L-22012/204/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 31.03.2003 in exercise of
the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between the management of FCI
(Food Storage Deports) and the contract workers of Mysore, KGF, Bangarpet, Bellary, Raichur,
Shimoga and Bhadravati, Depots as in the case of Whitefield and Krishnarajapuram Depots? If
so, whether the workers working in the said depots including the DPS workers of Whitefield &
Krishnarajapuram are entitled to Ancillary Labour Wages and other benefits as claimed by the
FCI Loading and Unloading Workers Union?”
Vide order dated 18.02.2005 corrigendum was issued to the above Industrial Dispute as follows:
“Whether the demand of FCI Loading and Unloading Workers Union vide its claim dated
25.08.2000 for Ancillary Labour Wages and Additional benefits to the FCI Whitefield Godown
Workers, Bangalore and Unkal-Hubli Godown Workers as paid to other FCI Godown workers
in Karnataka like Mysore, KGF, Bangarpet, Bellary, Raichur, Shimoga, Bhadravathi, etc., under
FCI Circular dated (1) 19.01.1989 (2) 16.03.1989 (3) 17.01.1994 and (4) 27.07.1994 is legal and
justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”
1.
The claim of the 1st party Union is, the 2nd Party Management employed labourers for discharge of its
functions of purchase, storage, movement, transport distribution and sale of food grains and other food stuffs, in
the category of, Departmentalized Labourers; Direct paid Labourers; Contractor’s Labourers; Labourers
employed through Co-operative Society;
During the year 1991, the 2nd Party requested its Godown workers who are the members of the 1st party
Union so also members of Karnataka Contract Labour and Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., for executing
handling and transportation work. The members are working in Godown at K.R. Puram, Bangalore from
01.09.1991 to 21.02.1994; Whitefield Godown from 01.01.1991 to 12.07.1996; Unkal Hubli Godown from
01.04.1992 to 07.04.1996, by agreeing to extend various additional benefits and the contract was for two years
to be extended for further periods. It was agreed to pay wages through the Co-operative Society under Schedule
of Rates ASOR; it is the usual custom and usage to increase the tender rate wages once in two years. They also
agreed to extend various Statutory and Welfare Wages for weekly off, wages for ancillary Labourers, incentive
wages for medical expenses, payment of ex-gratia in lieu of bonus, EPF contribution, reimbursement and
payment of Secretarial Staff wages and other benefits as stipulated under the Circulars issued by the 2nd Party
dated 19.01.1989, 16.03.1989, 17.01.1994 and 27.07.1994. The Management has showed differentiation to the
workers working in the Godowns of Whitefield, Bangalore and Unkal Hubli from other Godowns by extending
additional benefits through respective Godowns Co-operative Society to the Godown workers. Initially the 2nd
Party vide circular dated 27.07.1994 had imposed certain conditions for extending the additional benefits but
those Co-operative Societies have not followed the conditions; entire H&T work is done under Benami
transaction in the name of workers Co-operative Society. They are claiming additional benefit for the members
who worked at Whitefield Godown from 01.09.1991 to 11.07.1996 and who worked at Unkal Godown Hubli
from 01.04.1992 to 07.10.1996 as paid to other Godown workers through their respective Co-operative Society.
The 2nd Party had agreed to pay wages for weekly off under its Circular dated 27.07.1994 which is paid
to the other Godown workers by them through their Co-operative Societies; wages for weekly off is mandatory
under law. The wages are quantified for the above period at Rs. 1,67,61,000/- with an interest at 11.16%. The
Unkal Godown workers are entitled to receive 27% ASOR as wages for weekly off from 27.07.1994 to
07.10.1996 amounting to Rs. 39,69,000/- with interest at 11.16%. Workers at Whitefield are entitled to receive
ancillary labour wages per day 5,000 metre tons storage capacity, hence the white filed Godown workers are
entitled for Rs. 29,37,600/- along with EPF contribution at the rate of 11.16% and the Hubli workers are entitled
for Rs. 11,66,400/- plus EPF contribution at the rate of 11.16% on the said amount. As per the Circular dated
27.07.1994, the Whitefield workers are entitled to receive incentives at the rate of Rs. 0.50 paise for each
operation and they are entitled to received Rs. 81,56,414/- with 11.16% EPF contribution; the Unkal Godown
works are entitled for Rs. 30,27,692/- with 11.16% EPF Contribution; the Whitefield Godown workers are
entitled for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 9,62,000/- and Unkal Godown workers are entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/- at the
[
II—
3(ii)]
313
statutory minimum rate of 8.33%. They are entitled to receive Employer Share of EPF contribution at Rs.
13,23,806/- and the Unkal Godown workers are entitled for Rs. 2,66,000/-; towards secretarial staff wages the
workers of both Godown are entitled to receive Rs. 4,00,000/- each.
2.
The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement denied the Claim by stating that, claim is hopelessly vague
and bald, bereft of any material particulars; they have extended eligible benefits to those employees who are the
member of the 1st Party Union.
It is stated that, H&T operation was awarded to the H&T Co-operative Society both at K.R Puram
Godown and Whitefield for the period 27.04.1995 to 29.01.1996 at the same rate as Awarded for the past 2
years but due to difference of opinion among the labourers the work was stopped and the 1st Party which was
functioning in the name of Karnataka Contract Labour and Transport Co-operative Society could not carry out
day to day operation from 21.02.1994. Hence, the 2nd Party awarded the contract to Handling and Transport
Hamalies Co-operative Society from 27.04.1995 to 29.01.1996; the additional benefits mentioned in the circular
dated 27.07.1994 and 16.10.1995 has already been taken care. As per the circular dated 27.07.1994 the basic
rate shall be not less than Rs. 0.85 per bag and the minimum ASOR at which the contract was Awarded was
183%; the 1st Party was carrying on the work from 1991 and the society which carried out the work from
27.04.1995 have been awarded the contract at the rate of 435% ASOR. Both societies had the knowledge of
headquarters circulars at the time of awarding the contract. Even if they have any dispute over this issue, they
should have taken up the matter against the concerned contracting society who was the employer of the workers
represented by the Union. The contract was entered by mutual consent / agreement. The FCI H&T Hamalies
Co-operative Society, is a necessary Party in this Industrial Dispute; the contract labourers are not the
employees of the 2nd Party; there is no Employer-Employee relationship. The rate at which the contract was
Awarded to Karnataka Contract Labour and Transport Co-operative Society (1st Party) at 435% ASOR was on
higher side when compare to the others, H&T contract awarded by the 2nd Party to the workers of other depots.
A dispute is raised by the Union about the Provident Fund issue in Writ Petition No. 9185-1986/1998.
Regional Office Workers Union is the society that had worked in K.R. Puram and Whitefield from 27.01.1995
to 29.01.1996, it is arrayed as 3rd Respondent in the Writ Petition; the relief sought in the petition was to
commence enquiry under Section 7-A of the EPF Act from 1955 onwards; the Writ petition is disposed off on
20.10.2000 directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to proceed with the enquiry in accordance
with law and take necessary action. The 1st Party cannot bring the issue before this forum. Their claim for the
benefits in par with workers of other Godowns is not maintainable since there is no relationship of employer and
employee, it is only a contract for specific period and they have worked directly under the control of the
contractors. The DPS was introduced in the depots of Whitefield, KR Puram and Unkal during the year 1996
but the claim of the 1st Party Union is for the period earlier to the introduction of DPS system.
3.
Both parties adduced evidence. Written argument is submitted by the 2nd Party.
4.
The Secretary of the 1st Party Union was the witness for the 1st Party. He virtually reiterated claim
allegations in his examination in chief evidence.
During his cross examination he admits that, prior to 1996, the 2nd Party used to hire labourers through
societies; the agreement used to be between the concerned society and the 2nd Party said system was
discontinued from 1996 onwards; as per the order of the Government, the loaders and unloaders who had EPF
coverage were taken to Direct Payment System and those DPS workers are getting wages as per Government
orders (the witness is one among such DPS worker). DPS is introduced by the Government at K.R. Puram,
Whitefield, Nanjangud, K.R. Nagar and Hubli Unkal. Presently Nanjangud, Hubli, Unkal and K.R. Nagar
Godowns have merged with Whitefield and K.R. Puram units and the workers are transferred to these two units
in the year 2018; after 1996, the 2nd Party engaged workers for loading and unloading through contract system.
Their claim is for the benefits of the Circular Ex W-1, Ex W-2 and Ex W-5. Contract employees are working in
the depots of Bangarpet, Bellary, KGF, Raichur, Shimoga and Bhadravathi.
5.
Rebuttal evidence is adduced by the Assistant Manager (CONT) of the 2nd Party, asserting the stand of
the 2nd Party. His entire cross examination is denial of the suggestions put to him on behalf of the 1st Party.
Admittedly, the 1st Party is demanding monetary benefits to the Godown workers of Whitefield from
July 1994 to July 1996 and for the period July 1994 to October 1996 in respect of workers at Unkal Godown.
This monetary benefit is quantified on the basis of the earlier circulars issued by the Government. Admittedly,
that was the period where the members of the 1st Party have worked through the intermittent contractor i.e. FCI
Handling and Transport Hamalies Co-operative Society and the period of contract was 27.04.1995 to
21.01.1996. The rates were in accordance with the rates awarded for a previous period of 2 years as on
01.01.1993. It is stated that consequent upon the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in W.A No.
939/19896 and connected cases the governing board of the 2nd Party took policy decision dated 19.10.1996
314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
withdrew all the concessions to co-operative societies and the Co-operative Society was made to participate in
tender enquires in par with Private parties as per usual terms and conditions.
Consequently, fresh Tenders were called for in all the Godowns under the control of the 2nd Party said
policy is not interfered by any judicial order. The society through whom the workers were engaged is not made
party in this adjudication. The details of the eligible employees for the benefits are not made available. Except
the self-serving statement of the General Secretary of the Union no material is placed about the additional
benefits enjoyed by the workmen of the other Godowns for the relevant period. The contract since was between
the 2nd Party and the Society any relief sought by the workmen in excess to the terms of contract is not justified.
No material is brought in to show that the 1st Party workmen had directly worked under the 2nd Party thereby
they are the employees of the 2nd Party. The demand as made by the 1st Party cannot be accepted merely for
asking the same. Without producing tangible evidence about the benefits granted to the workers of other
Godowns and without the details of the concerned 1st Party workmen their demand cannot be endorsed. Hence,
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 17th January, 2020)
Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ,uVh 01@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@439@1995-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020
S.O. 127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. NT-01/1999)of the National Industrial Tribunal Kolkata, as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Food Corporation of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.
[No. L-22012/439/1995-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. NT-01 of 1999
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. Alok Banerjee, learned counsel withMr. Uttam Kumar Mondal,
learned counsel
On behalf of the Workmen
:
Mr. Madhusudan Dutta, Ld. Counsel for for FCI Workers Union.
Mr. Tridib Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for for FCI Handling Workers
Union.
State: National.
Industry: Food & Public Distribution
Dated: 20th January, 2020
[
II—
3(ii)]
315
AWARD
By Order No.L-22012/439/95-IR(C-II) dated 15.12.1998 and subsequent orders of even number of
different dates the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 7B read
with Section 10(1A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this National
Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management in relation to FCI in denying facilities of reimbursement of
First Class Rly. Fare towards LTC (Bharat Darshan) for the block year 1990-93 to departmental
workers of all FCI FSDs of WestBengal, Bihar, Orissa, Assam and NEF Region who reached the basic
pay of Rs.1006.00 per month or above, is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?”
2.
According to statement of claim the workmen under reference are the departmentalized workers of FCI
belonging to East Zone of the corporation. The number of concerned workmen is around 9518 engaged in the
depot operations of loading, unloading etc. of the management. A memorandum of settlement was signed on
31st December, 1983 between the FCI management and the union by which facility of LTC (Bharat Darsan) was
extended to the concerned workmen on the pattern applicable to the FCI employees with immediate effect.
There was no condition in regard to minimum pay limit for availing First Class railway fair to enjoy the benefit
of LTC. Hence the concerned workmen enjoyed First Class railway fare for availing LTC for the Block Year
1982 to 1985 and thereafter. Again a memorandum of settlement was signed on 3rd November, 1989 between
the management and the union replacing the existing scheme of LTC whereby the facility of LTC was restricted
upto a distance of 1500 kilometers each side for the maximum of four adults as it was allowed to the employees
of the corporation. The concerned workmen enjoyed the facility of First Class railway fare for the Block Year
1986 – 1989 for LTC upto the date of signing the memorandum of settlement and thereafter upto the middle of
April, 1990. However, a circular No. IR(L)/2(1)/87 dated 19th April, 1990 was issued by the FCI directing that
only those of the concerned workmen who were enjoying the revised basic pay of Rs.1430/= as on 01.01.1988
would be allowed reimbursement of First Class railway fare in the scheme of LTD for the Block Year 1986 –
1989. The union made representation to the FCI management against this unilateral decision and curtailment of
existing benefits. Ultimately in a meeting held on 21st May, 1990 between the management and the union it was
agreed that the encashment of LTC for the Block Year 1986 – 1989 would be extended upto 1990 at par with
FCI employees viz. for availing First Class fare at any point of pay of Rs.1006/= under the LTC reimbursement
scheme, but when the concerned workmen wanted to avail of the facility of LTC/reimbursement of First Class
railway fare for the Block Year 1990 – 1993, the management suddenly stopped facility with the instruction that
only those of the concerned workmen who had reached Rs.1430/= would be eligible to First Class railway fare
which amounted to curtailment of existing benefits enjoyed by the concerned workmen over the years.
Aggrieved by the action of the FCI management against the terms and conditions of the existing memorandum
of settlement without serving notice in writing of their intention to terminate the settlement in the matter of grant
of First Class railway fare in availing LTD for the Block Year 1990 – 1993, the union of concerned workmen
raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. On failure of
conciliation proceeding the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata. During pendency of adjudication it was revealed that the dispute required to be
referred for adjudication by the National Industrial Tribunal, the appropriate Government referred the same for
adjudication by this National Tribunal as above. It is further pleaded that during pendency of industrial dispute
the management of FCI has however, allowed reimbursement of First Class railway fare for the Block Year
1990 to 1993 to the concerned workmen at a pay point of Rs.1006/= to those only who were departmentalized
upto 31st December, 1987. In some food storage depots the concerned workmen at a pay point of Rs.1006/= and
recruited on or after 01.01.1998 have also been allowed reimbursement of First Class railway fare towards LTC
for the year 1990 – 1993. Thus the present industrial dispute was made on denial by the management of FCI the
facility or reimbursement of First Class fare towards LTC for the year 1990 – 1993 to those of the concerned
316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workmen who were recruited on or after 01.01.1988. The facility of First Class railway fare for LTC for the
Block Year 1990 – 1993 to the concerned workmen recruited on or after 01.01.1988 cannot be denied without
taking recourse to the due process of law.
3.
The management of FCI filed its written statement in reply to the averments made in the statement of
claim pleading inter alia that the departmental labourers of FCI were initially allowed LTC for home town
facility with the Second Class railway fare since 24th July, 1984. However, considering their demand the facility
of LTC was also extended to them on similar pattern to that of regular employees of the corporation and an
agreement to that effect was also signed on 31st December, 1983 between the management and the union. Again
on demand of the union to liberalize the class of railway fare from 2nd class to 1st class at par with the employees
of the corporation, the facility of First Class railway fare was extended also to departmental workers and a
settlement was also entered into on 31st December, 1988 which was valid for a period of five years. Another
memorandum of understanding was signed on 3rd November, 1989 between FCI Workers Union and the
management of FCI for reimbursement of LTC in a block of four years according to which the departmental
labourers were entitled for the benefit as par the pattern applicable to the regular employees of the corporation.
After April, 1989 the regular employees of the corporation were entitled to get LTC with First Class railway fare
whose gross element reached at the stage of Rs.1653/= or above, should have been entitled to get the benefit of
LTC with First Class fare. Since the pay scale of departmental labourers have been revised with effect from
01.01.1988 the departmental labourers who were drawing basic of Rs.1430/= or above would reach the gross
element of Rs.1653/= after taking into consideration the variable Dearness Allowance of Rs.226 and not
otherwise. However, the departmental workers of Calcutta Complex who were enjoying the LTC with First
Class fare in the pre-revised scale were allowed as a special case, to continue to enjoy the said facility of LTC
with First Class railway fare irrespective of their basic pay. The FCI management vide circular dated 19th April,
1990 revised the basic pay for the purpose of entitlement of First Class railway fare at Rs.1430/= with effect
from 01.01.1988. There is no curtailment of existing facility with regard to LTC. The workers of the Calcutta
Complex Depots who had been enjoying the benefit of First Class fare for the purpose of LTC as per the
settlement with the union on 31st December, 1983 and who subsequently deprived of the above facility on
account of fixation of pay point at Rs.1430/= for the purpose of entitlement of First Class railway fare were
allowed to continue with the same benefit irrespective of their pay point in the subsequent revised pay scale as a
special case. Hence the question of curtailment of existing facility does not arise at all.
4.
In reply to the averments made in the written statement the union filed its rejoinder reiterating its stand
made in the statement of claim.
5.
On behalf of the union Shri Dulal Chandra Nath has been examined as WW-01 and Shri Jayanta
Banerjee on behalf of the management as MW-01.
6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the union as well as for the management.
7.
The basic question involved in this case is whether the management of FCI could enhance the
minimum basic pay for the entitlement of First Class fare for the purpose of LTC for the Block Year 1990 –
1993 from Rs.1006/= to Rs.1430/= ? In other words, whether such enhancement of minimum basic pay as
above, amounts to change in condition of service of departmental workers and a notice under Section 9A of the
Act of 1947 was required? Relevant portion of Section 9A of the Act of 1947 may be quoted as below –
9A. Notice of change – No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the condition of service
applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change, -
(a)
without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice din the prescribed
manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or
(b)
within twenty-one days of giving such notice;
[
II—
3(ii)]
317
Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change –
(a)
where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award, or
……………………………
…………………………..
Thus the above provision of Section 9A of the Act of 1947 reveals that where any change in condition
of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in Fourth Schedule is proposed, a notice
in writing is required to be given to the concerned workmen. In the present cased it is not disputed between the
parties that the benefit of LTC bestowed on the departmental workers by memorandum of settlements is a
benefit which is covered under Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1947. Therefore, 21 days notice is required to be
given before any change is effected to the benefits available to the workmen concerned. It is also not disputed
that the management of FCI never gave any notice to the workmen. It has been submitted on behalf of the
management of FCI that a memorandum of settlement was signed between the management and the union
whereby the union had agreed that the facility of LTC with First Class railway fair would be payable to the
departmentalized workers at par with the regular employees of the corporation. It is also not disputed that the
memorandum of settlement was signed between the parties on 31st December, 1983 whereby the facility of LTC
with First Class railway fare was extended to the departmentalized workers of East Zone of the corporation on
the pattern applicable to the FCI employees for the Block Year 1982 to 1985. By signing another memorandum
of settlement of 3rd November, 1989 the facility of LTC was restricted to a distance of 1500 kilometers for a
maximum of four adults declared by the departmentalized workers.
8.
The management has set up its case by stating that before 01.08.1983 the basic pay of the employees
who were drawing Rs.450/= per month were entitled for First Class Railway Fare. This pay point of Rs.450/=
was revised to Rs.1006/= in the revised pay scale as on 01.08.1983. It was due for further revision with effect
from 01.08.1987. It is further submitted that on revision of basic pay of departmental labourers, it became
Rs.1430/= compared to the basic pay of Rs.1006/=. Hence the departmental labourers who were drawing basic
pay of Rs.1430/= or above became entitled for LTC with First Class Railway Fare and accordingly a circular
dated 19th April, 1990 was issued by the department that the departmental workers drawing basic pay of
Rs.1430/= per month may avail reimbursement of LTC with First Class Railway Fare.
9.
Though the management has contended that the basic pay of departmental workers became Rs.1430/=
as on 01.01.1988 compared to Rs.1006/=, but no document has been filed on behalf of the management to
substantiate this point. Contrary to it the management itself has filed a table of pay scale of staff (Class-IV), Ext.
M-06 which shows the pay scale as on 01.01.1990. From Ext. M-06 it is evident that the pay scale of handling
labourers as on 01.01.1990 was Rs.1075 – 1580 and that of ancillary labourers was Rs.1055 – 1515. It is also
mentioned in the document that the above pay scale was the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1988 as
per memorandum of settlement dated 12th June, 1989. This document also discloses that LTC entitlement with
First Class Railway Fare was available at pay point of Rs.1006/= which means that all handling workers
drawing more than Rs.1006/= were entitled for LTC with First Class Railway Fare for the block year 1990 –
1993. Obviously the basic pay of handling workers was more than Rs.1006/=. This document was filed by the
management itself which belies the case of the management. The learned counsel for the management could not
explain as to how the basic pay of handling workers/departmental workers was Rs.1430 as on 01.01.1988 which
is mentioned in the circular dated 19th April, 1990.
10.
From the circular dated 19.04.1990 it is also disclosed that after revision of pay of staff as on
01.08.1983 the pay of staff became Rs.1006/= compared to Rs.450/=, but in Calcutta Complex there was no pay
318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2020/MAGHA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
point of Rs.1006/= in any pay scale of any category of departmental labourers. The maximum pay point was
Rs.963/=. Hence as a special case, FCI permitted the departmental workers of Calcutta Complex to enjoy the
benefit of LTC with First Class Fare despite not reaching the basic pay of Rs.1006/= which also appears to be
discriminatory and arbitrary. It is beyond comprehension why employees of same category were given different
treatment.
11.
The settlement dated 21st May, 1990, Ext. W-05 between the Zonal Office of the management and the
union also substantiates the case of the departmental workers wherein facility of LTC with First Class Fare for
the block year 1986 – 1989 was extended upto 1990 at pay point of Rs.1006/=. Circular No. 20 of 11.08.1989
also shows that the employees drawing basic pay of Rs.1006/= were entitled for reimbursement of LTC with
First Class Railway Fare in the year 1989.
12.
In view of above, the circular issued by the management of FCI on 19th April, 1990 enhancing the
minimum level of pay to Rs.1430/= for entitlement of LTC (Bharat Darshan) is certainly violative of provisions
of Section 9A of the Act of 1947. Hence this action of the management of FCI is not sustainable. Hence the
reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the departmental workers.
13.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 20th Jaunary, 2020
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2020.02.14 16:13:38 +05'30'