800 GI/2020

(599)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2004—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 07]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 16—फरवरी—22, 2020, िजनवार/माघ 27—फाल् गुन 3, 1941

No. 07]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 16— FEBRUARY 22, 2020, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 27—PHALGUNA 3, 1941

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

गषि मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 14 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 192-—केन् री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 ( ा

संिोजित, 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, गषि मंत्राल के जनम् नजलज त का ाल में जिन् िी

का का लसािक ज्ञान र ने वाले कमलचारर ों की सं्‍ ा 0% से अजिक िो िाने के फलस्ट् वप ृ गषि मंत्राल के इन

का ाल ों को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:—

केन् री ररिवल ृुजलस ल,

ृुजलस उृ मिाजनरीक्षक का का ाल ,

रुत का ल ल,

रेंि-तीन, श्री कुंिा गेस्ट् ट िाउस, ालावाला, िेिरािून,

उत् तरा ण् ड-24 005

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-17032020-218709

CG-DL-W-17032020-218709

600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

केन् री औगिकोजगक सुरक्षा ल,

वरर्‍ कमांडेंट का का ाल ,

के.औ.सुरक्षा ल, चतु ल आरजक्षत वाजिनी, जिवगंगई,

तजमलनाडु-630301

[फा. सं. 11029/01/2019-जिन् िी]

सिेली घोष रॉ , सं ुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2020

S.O. 192.—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 office of

the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff, having working knowledge of Hindi has gone

above 80%:—

Centre Reserve Police Force,

Office of the Dy. Inspector General of Police,

R. A. F. Range-III, Shri Kunja Guest House, Balawala

Cenrtal Reserve Police Force, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand-248005

Central Industrial Security Force

Office of the Senior Commandant,

CISF, 4^th Reserve Battalion, Shivgangai

Tamilnaidu-630301

[F. No. 11029/01/2019-Hindi]

SAHELI GHOSH ROY, Jt. Secy.

जवत्त मंत्राल

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 193.—ृेंिन जनजि जवजन ामक और जवकास प्राजिकरण अजिजन म, 2013 (2013 का 23) की

िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित् त िजतिय ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन् री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री सुप्रजतम ंिोृाध् ा को ृिभार

ग्रिण करने की तारी से 65 वषल की आ ु ृूरी िोने तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, 4.50 ला

रुृए प्रजतमाि के समेदकत वेतन (आवास त ा कार की सुजविा के ज ना) ृर ृेंिन जनजि जवजन ामक और जवकास

प्राजिकरण (ृीएफआरडीए) में अध् क्ष के ृि ृर जन ुतिय करती िज।

[फा. सं. 19/1/2019–ृीआर]

अंिुमन िमाल, उृ सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

601

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 19^th February, 2020

S.O. 193.—In exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and

Development Authority Act, 2013 (23 of 2013), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Supratim

Bandyopadhyay to the post of Chairperson, PFRDA, with a consolidated salary of Rs. 4.50 lakh per month

(without facility of house and car) for a period of 05 years, with effect from the date of assumption of charge of

the post or till attaining the age of 65 years or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 19/1/2019-PR]

ANSHUMAN SHARMA, Dy. Secy.

कार्मलक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मलक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 194.—केंर सरकार एतद्द्वारा, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का

अजिजन म सं्‍ ा 25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजतिय ों का प्र ोग करते हुए असम

राज् सरकार, गषि और रािनीजत (ए) जवभाग :: दिसृुर, गुवािाटी की दिनांक 25 अतियू र, 201 की अजिसूचना

सं. एचएमए.19015/110/201 -रािनीजत(ए)-एच और ृी (ईसीएफ :: 4671)/14 के माध् म से प्राप्त सिमजत

से, राक वजली के रास्ट्ते मेघाल से ांग्लािेि को दकए िाने वाले अवजि को ला व्याृार के सं ंि में भारती िंड

संजिता, 1 60 (1 60 का अजिजन म सं. 45) की िारा 420, 471, 46 , 323, 506 के तित करीमगंि ृुजलस

ाना मामला सं्‍ ा 647/201 त ा ऐसे दकसी एक ा अजिक अृरािों से िुड़े ा उससे सम् द्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास,

िु्‍प्रेरणा और षड ंत्र त ा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए एवं / अ वा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि(िों)

का अन्वेषण के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजतिय ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त असम

राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/63/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस.ृी.आर. जत्र ृा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2020

S.O. 194.—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 Assam, Home & Political (A) Department :: Dispur, Guwahati issued vide

Notification No. HMA.19015/110/2018-Political(A)-H&P (eCF::84671)/14 dated 25^th October, 2018, hereby

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

Assam for investigation of the offences relating to Karimganj PS Case No. 647/2018, u/s 420, 471, 468, 323,

506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) regarding illegal coal trade from Meghalaya to

Bangladesh via Barak Valley and any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one

or more of such offences and/or any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising

out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/63/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 20 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 195.—केंर सरकार एतद्द्वारा, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का

अजिजन म सं्‍ ा 25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजतिय ों का प्र ोग करते हुए ज िार

राज् सरकार, गषि जवभाग (ृुजलस िा ा) की अजिसूचना सं. 9/सी ीआई- 0-15/2019 एचृी-9112/ृटना,

दिनांक 01.11.2019 के तित िी गई सिमजत से, नवािा टाउन ाने में मु्‍ डाकघर, नवािा, ज िार के सरकारी

िन से सं ंजित भा.िं.सं. की िारा 409, 420, 467, 46 के अंतगलत ििल प्रकरण सं. 592/2019, दिनांक

09.05.2019 का अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे दकसी एक ा अजिक अृरािों से िुड़े ा उससे सम् द्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास,

का अन्वेषण के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजतिय ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त

ज िार राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/38/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्र ृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2020

S.O. 195.—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 Bihar, Home Department (Police Branch), issued vide Notification No.

9/C.B.I.-80-15/2019 HP-9112/Patna dated 01.11.2019, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole State of Bihar for investigation into the Nawada

Town P.S. Case No-592/2019 dated 09.05.2019, under section 409, 420, 467, 468 IPC relating to Government

money pertaining to Head Post Office, Nawada, Bihar and any attempt, abetment and conspiracy, in relation to

or in connection with one or more such offence(s) and/or any other offence(s) committed in the course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/38/2019-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 20 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 196.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म,1946 (1946 की

अजिजन म सं्‍ ा 25) की िारा 5की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजतिय ों का प्र ोग करते हुए उत्तर

प्रिेि राज् सरकार,गषि (ृुजलस) अनुभाग-4,आिेि सं. /VI-ृी-4-2019, ल नऊ,दिनांक 2 नवं र, 2019 के ृत्र

सं. 3565 ी/VI- ृी-4-19 के माध् म से सूजचत सिमजत से, िज़रतगंि ृुजलस ाना, जिला ल नऊ में भारती िंड

संजिता (वषल 1 60 की अजिजन म सं. 45) की िारा 409, 420, 467, 46 , 471 के तित ििल मामला अृराि

सं. 540/2019 का अन्वेषण त ा उत्तर प्रिेि ृॉवर सेक्टर इम्प्लॉईि रस्ट्ट की िनराजि को प्राईवेट कम्ृनी िीवान

िाउससंग फाईनांस कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड (डीएचएफसीएल) की असुरजक्षत जनजि में गजरकानूनी प ृ से िमा कराने से

संज जित िांच/अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे एक ा अजिक अृरािों से िुड़े ा उससे सं द्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और

षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने

के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजतिय ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज्

में करती िज।

[फा.सं. 228/37/2019–एवीडी-II]

एस.ृी.आर. जत्र ृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2020

S. O. 196.—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 Uttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section-4, Order No. /VI-P-4-2019,

Lucknow, conveyed vide letter No. 3565 B/VI-P-4-19 dated 2^nd November, 2019, hereby extends the powers

and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole State of Uttar Pradesh for

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

603

investigation of Case Crime No. 540/2019 under section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (Act

No. 45 of 1860), registered at Police Station, Hazratganj, District Lucknow, as well as for enquiry/investigation

into illegal deposition of funds of U.P. State Power Sector Employees Trust into insecure funds of private

company Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFCL) and any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in

relation to or in connection with one or more of such offences and/ or any other offence (s) committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/37/2019-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 14 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 197.—केन् री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन

सावलिजनक क्षेत्र के उृक्रमों के जनम् नजलज त का ाल ों को, जिनके 0 ा अजिक प्रजतित कमलचारी वषन् ि ने जिन् िी का

का लसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, अजिसूजचत करती िज :-

गंगटोक जडृो

इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,

ागे ोला, डाकघर: माजिटार,

ृूवल जसदिम – 737136

िम्मू एएफएस

इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,

23 सवंग ए र फोसल स्ट्टेिन,

िम्मू, सतवारी – 1 0003

[सं. 11011/1/2017 (जिन् िी)]

ऊषा ज न्िोला, सं ुक् त जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2020

S.O. 197.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose

of the Unoin) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector

Undertakings under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more

percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi :—

Gangtok Depot

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Bagekhola, Post Office: Majhitar,

East Sikkim - 737136,

Jammu AFS

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

23 Wing Air Force Station,

Jammu, Satwari-180003

[No. 11011/1/2017 (Hindi)]

USHA BINJOLA, Jt. Director (OL)

604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 12 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 198.-—राष्ट्रृ जत, श्री अिोक कुमार ससंि ृी ासीन अ जिकारी केन्री सरकार औगिको जगक

अ जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल सं. 2, चंडीगढ़ को दिनांक 07.02.2020 से छ: माि तक की अवजि अ वा जन जमत

प ृ से ृि भरे िाने तक अ वा अगले आिेिो तक केन्री सरकार औगिको जगक अ जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल सं. 1,

चंडीगढ़ के ृी ासीन अ जिकारी के ृि का अजतररतिय प्रभार जवस्ट्तषत करते िैं ।

[सं. अ-11016/02/2019-सीएलएस-II]

सतीि चन्िर, अवर स‎जचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2020

S.O. 198.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Chandigarh entrusted to Shri Ashok Kumar

Singh, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Chandigarh for a

further period of six months with effect from 07.02.2020, or till the post is filled up on regular basis, or until

further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/02/2019-CLS-II]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2020

—bl ea=ky; dh fnukad 16-01-2020 dh vf/klwpuk la- ,y 12011@90@2009&vkbZvkj

¼ch.-II½ ds iapkV lanHkZ la- 54@2009 esa fuEufyf[kr la”kks/ku fd;k tkrk gSA

iapkV la- 54@2009 ds i`’B la- 1 ij fyf[kr 1 ikVhZ ,oa 2 ikVhZ dks fuEu

lfpo]

tujy eSustj ¼vkbZ-th-½

flaMhdsV cSad bEiykbt ;wfu;u]

flaMhdsV cSad]

la- 138] 2 esu jksM]

tujy eSustj vkfQl

fllknjhiqje]

la- 69] 9 esu jksM] Cykd 2] t;kuxj]

caxyksj & 560020

caxyksj%&560011

tujy eSustj ¼vkbZ- th-½

lfpo]

flaMhdsV cSad]

flaMhdsV cSad bEiykbt ;wfu;u]

tujy eSustj vkfQl

la- 138] 2 esu jksM]

la- 69] 9 esu jksM] Cykd 2] t;kuxj]

fllknjhiqje]

caxyksj%&560011

caxyksj &560020

[la- ,y-12011@90@2009-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

605

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2020

S.O. 199.— This Ministry’s Notification No. L-12011/90/2009-IR(B-II) dated 16/01/2020 in Award I.D.

No. 54/2009 is amended as under :—

At page No. 1 of the Award I.D. No. 54/2009, 1 Party & II Party may be:

Read As :-

I Party :

II Party

The Secretary,

The General Manager (IG),

Syndicate Bank Employees Union,

Syndicate Bank,

No. 138, 2^nd Main Road,

General Manager’s Office

Seshadripuram,

No. 69,9^thMain Road, II Block, Jayanagar,

Bangalore-560020

Bangalore-560011

Instead of :-

I Party :

II Party

The General Manager(IG),

The Secretary,

Syndicate Bank,

Syndicate Bank Employees Union,

General Manager’s Office

No. 138, 2^nd Main Road,

No. 69, 9^th Main Road, II Block, Jayanagar,

Seshadripuram,

Bangalore-560011

Bangalore-560020

[No. L-12011/90/2009- IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20^TH DECEMBER 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 54/2009

I Party

II Party

The Secretary,

Syndiacte Bank employees

Union, No. 138,

2^nd Main Road,

Seshadripuram,

Bangalore – 560020.

The General Manager (IG),

Syndicate Bank,

General Manger’s Office,

No. 69, 9^th main, II block,

Jayanagar,

Bangalore - 560011.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. S. B. Sai Prakash

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/90/2009-IR(B-II) dated 23.11.2009 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.

606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bellary, Karnataka

in awarding the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage for a period of one year Sh.

Ramakrishna, employee Number 352482, Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Royal Circle, Bellary vide its

order No. 53/ROB/IRC/F-12/AIR2007 dated 18.05.2007 is justified and legal? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The 1^st Party Trade union has espoused the cause of the workman, employee of the 2^nd Party who

suffered minor punishment by way of Disciplinary Action taken by the 2^nd Party. Before imposing the

punishment order, he was issued charges alleging, assisting a co-employee for cheating and impersonation

against the employee Bank. The claim of the 1^st party before this Tribunal is, the enquiry was concluded in a

day and Enquiry report was submitted based on which the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of

reduction of Basic Pay by one stage for a period of one year which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority;

he did not cause any financial loss to the Bank nor did gain any pecuniary gain / benefit at the cost of the Bank;

all the charges are flimsily framed, irrelevant and unwarranted.

The 2^nd Party refuted the allegations made by the 1^st party stating that all opportunities were provided

to the 1^st Party.

On the rival pleadings of both the parties on 23.04.2012 a Preliminary Issue was framed on Domestic

Enquiry and the 2^nd Party has led its evidence by examining its Enquiry Officer as MW-1 and got marked Ex

M-1 to Ex M-19 and he was discharged without cross examination. There was no rebuttal evidence from the

1^st Party; the Preliminary Issue is answered in the affirmative. Thereafter also, the 1^st Party remained

continuously absent.

Heard Sh. RU for the 2^nd Party.

The allegation against the workman as per the Charge Sheet was to the effect that, while working as a

Clerk at Bellary main branch between 30.07.1990 to 24.06.2000, he introduced SB A/c No. 37280 at Bellary

main Branch on 20.05.1996 in the name of Smt. Lakshmamma W/o Sh. Honnurappa........ Said Account holder

was sanctioned FL Dairy Loan on 06.06.1997, and the loan became irregular / NPA. The residential address

furnished in the account opening form is the residential address of Sh. Honnaiah who was a Clerk at Regional

Office Bellary and known to the 1^st Party. The Account Holder is the wife of said H. Honnaiah but in the

account opening form, the name is mentioned as Sh. Honnurappa. Sh. Honnaiah in his letter dated 23.06.2005

admitted the liability of the loan availed by his wife. Thereby, the 1^st Party facilitated the wife of H. Honnaiah

for furnishing false and misleading information to open the account. He has assisted Sh. Honnaiah in

committing act of cheating and impersonation.

During the enquiry, the 2^nd Party examined one Official witness / their Senior Manager working at

Vigilance Unit and produced 16 documents. The witness was thoroughly cross-examined; the 1^st party did not

adduce rebuttal evidence. The loan transaction papers, the statements of witnesses formed the part of

Management Exhibits. MW-1 in his deposition stated that, he visited the residence of Smt. Lakshmamma at

Gadang Street, Bellary along with the Senior Manager (RC), Bellary Branch and Manager (RD) Bijapur Main

Branch on 22.06.2005. During the said visit, Smt. Lakshmamma confirmed her signatures on the loan

documents; in this regard, he produced the joint inspection report (marked as MEX-11) and statement of the

witnesses recorded by him.

The 1^st Party did not dispute the fact that, he had introduced the SB Account 37280 of Smt.

Lakshmamma at the request of Sh. Honnaiah / Staff of Bellary RO. However, his explanation was that, Smt.

Lakshmamma was his relative and Sh. Honnaiah had told him that, he does not have SB A/c at Bellary main

Branch.

The Enquiry Officer took note of the fact that, at the introducer’s column the 1^st Party had not stated for

how long he knew Smt. Lakshmamma; that impressed the Enquiry Officer to record that being a responsible

staff signing as introducer without knowing the depositor’s address and antecedents was not proper on the part

of the 1^st Party. Having noticed that, there was no evidence establishing the allegation of furnishing false and

misleading information assisting Sh. H. Honnaiah in cheating and impersonation and the Loan Account was

closed on full settlement thereby, causing no loss to the Bank, the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of

the commission of gross misconduct of “doing prejudicial to the interest of Bank vide clause 5 (J) of the

Bipartite settlement” for introducing Smt. Lakshmamma without verifying the correctness of the facts

mentioned in the account opening form.

The Disciplinary Authority has passed a detailed order by considering the defence viz a viz the Enquiry

Report and the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer, before imposing the punishment of withholding the

Basic Pay of the workman by one stage for one year. As such the punishment order does not have any

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

607

implication on his future career; neither it has caused any monetary loss to him. It cannot be inferred as

disproportionate to the misconduct proved. By catena of Judgements, higher Courts have reminded the

Tribunals to contain from intervening in the Punishment Order, where the charges are proved during the

Domestic Enquiry. The jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D Act cannot be exercised in the present

circumstance.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20^th December, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 13 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 200.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससल मिाप्र ंिक, सतलुि िल जवगिकुत जनगम जलजमटेड, जिमला, एच.ृी. और अन् एवं उनके कमलचारी के

प्र ंितंत्र के सं द्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमलकारों के ीच अनु ंि में जनर्िलष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औगिकोजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल - चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संिभल सं्‍ ा 12/2015) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 14.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 5/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2020

S.O. 200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court-2 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, Shimla, H.P. & Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 14.01.2020.

[No. L-42012/85/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No.12/2015

Registered on:-18.05.2015

Swaroop Chand S/o Ami Chand, R/o Vill. Jhalli, P.O. and Sub.

Tehsil Nithar, Distt. Kullu, H.P..

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, Unit Rampur Hydro Electric Project (412 MW)

Jhakhri, Tehsil Rampur Bsr, Distt. Shimla, H.P.

The Project Manager, Gamon India Limited, Rampur Hydro Electric Project (412 MW), Package-1,

Avaeri, P.O. Nogli, Tehsil Nirmand, Distt. Kullu, H.P.

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Hydel Project Private Limited,

9, PPCL Colony, Opposite Radhaswami Bhawan, Uday Vihar, Haridwar,

Bye-pass Road Dehradoon.

…Respondent/Management

608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on:-07.01.2020

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/85/2015-IR(DU) Dated 07.05.2015, under clause

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

the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bharat Hydel Project Pvt. Ltd., a sub-contractor

of M/s Gammon India Ltd. engaged by S.J.V.N Ltd. in terminating the services of sh. Swarup

Chand S/o Sh. Ami Chand w.e.f. 23.11.2014 is valid, just and legal? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

Both the parties were put to notice and claimant Swaroop Chand filed statement of claim, with the

averment, that he was employed with respondent no.1 as watch and ward staff/security guard in the Rampur

Hydro Electric Project 412 MW, package-1, in the month of August 2012, initially on the payment of Rs.5,000/-

per month, which was later on increased to Rs.10,000/- per month. He worked 12 hours per day till 23.11.2014

when the services of the workman was terminated by respondent no.3 with the connivance of other respondents.

The principal employer i.e. respondent no.1 assigned the work of construction on contract and execution of

Adits, Head Race Tunnel, Diversion Tunnel from Jhakri to Averi to M/s Gammon India Limiter i.e. respondent

no.2 who had further contracted out some portion of Head Race Tunnel to M/s Bharat Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd.

i.e. respondent no.3. The work of the workman was extracted by the respondents together for the benefit of the

respondents especially the principal employer i.e. respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has violated the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it has not given any notice or compensation

in lieu of notice while terminating the services of the workman which is against the settled principles of Law.

Therefore, it is prayed that the termination of the workman dated 23.11.2014 may be set aside and other relief

which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit may kindly be ordered in favor of the petitioner/workman in the interest

of justice and fair play.

Respondent No.1 has filed its written statement, alleging therein that the present claim application is

not maintainable against the replying respondent as there is no averments made in the petition as to how the

answering respondent is liable to pay compensation and other relief as claimed in the petition by the petitioner.

The petitioner/workman was engaged in the service by M/s K.R. Care Securicos, Head Office Sai 9, Kilokary,

near CTC Plaza Ashram, New Delhi-110014 and claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There

is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It is therefore, prayed that the petition filed

against the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed in view of the reply given by the respondent in the

interest of justice and fair play.

Respondent no.2 and 3 has not filed any written statement and was proceeded ex parte vide order

dated 06.10.2015.

The workman has filed its replication to the written statement filed by respondent no.1, alleging the

same facts which are already alleged in the claim petition as such, it does not required to be repeated again.

In support of his case, the workman Swaroop Chand appeared in the witness box and tendered his

affidavit in evidence which is marked as Ex.A-1 and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of

respondent no.1. Furthermore, claimant has examined an independent witness Bhim Sen, who has also been

cross-examined by the learned counsel of respondent no.1.

Respondent No.1 has examined Sh. Narinder Kumar, AGM(Law), RHPS, who has filed his affidavit

Ex.MW1/A and cross-examined by the workman counsel.

I have heard Sh. O.P. Chauhan, AR for the workman and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, AR for respondent no.1

and have gone through the records carefully.

Before averting to the real controversy between the parties, it is pertinent to mention that some facts

are admitted between the parties which are required to be mentioned in order to cut-short the discussion with

respect to those facts. Admittedly, respondent no.1 i.e. General Manager, Satjul Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., is the

main-employer who has contracted with the respondent no.2 i.e. The Project Manager, Gamon India Limited,

for completion of work and subsequently respondent no.2 has sub-contracted the work to respondent no.3 i.e.

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Hydel Project Private Limited, for its completion. The dispute

between the parties relates with the relation of respondents and workman because respondent no.1 General

Manager, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited has specifically alleged in its written statement that workman was

employed by M/s K.R. Care Securicos for security purposes and there did not exist relationship of employer and

employee between the workman and respondents as such, the claimant is not entitled for any relief.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

609

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

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

factum of his employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages

for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he was worked with the

employer for 240 days or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop.

Sugar Mills Ltv. Vs. Sowaran Singh(2005) 8 Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries

Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.

10.

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

the factual scenario in the present case is bit different inasmuch as the management/respondent no.1 in its

written statement has categorically denied the factum of employment of the claimant inasmuch as it has been

asserted that the workman was engaged by M/s K.R. Care Securicos as such, it has to be proved by the

workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and

claimant/workman. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal

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

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

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

contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for

deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The

definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee

or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from

which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing

whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on

fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”

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

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

eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the

Act. In these circumstances, it stands proved that claimant is a workman and relationship of employer-employee

has to be between the parties.

11.

The issue as to whether the workman was engaged by respondent no.1 directly or through contractors

is the bone of contention between the parties. Hence, question remains to be seen whether the workman has

proved that he was directly engaged with the respondents in the month of August, 2012 and regularly continued

till his termination in the year 2014. This fact has to be proved by the documentary evidence as well as oral

evidence. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that there is no single document to prove that

workman/claimant was directly employed by the respondent no.1 or other respondents no.2 and 3.

12.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja

Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognised tests to find out

whether the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-

1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and

2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?

13.

The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor to the workman as watch

and ward security guard in the Rampur Hydro Electric Project initially on monthly wages of Rs.5,000/- which

was later increased to Rs.10,000/- per month has to be proved by the competent evidence. Workman has not

mentioned anything regarding the mode of payment of wages, salary, letter of appointment etc. in his claim

statement as well as affidavit filed as evidence. It is also not clear either by the claim statement or by the

affidavit of the workman that who was the ultimate employer under whom he was rendering his services. It is

pertinent to mention that workman has neither stated in his claim statement nor in his replication with respect to

the written statement filed by the respondent no.1 regarding the security agency M/s K.R. Care Security Ltd. It

appears that workman was engaged by M/s K.R. Care Security Agency and was paid accordingly by him that is

why there is nothing on record to prove the factum of salary, mode of payment and attendance register, if any,

with respect to the services rendered by him. In this connection, learned counsel of the workman has contended

that payment of salary was subject to the control and supervision of the respondent no.1 and virtually it was

paid by the respondent no.1 as is alleged by the workman during the course of cross-examination by the

respondent no.1 counsel. I am not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel of the workman as

nothing is mentioned in the pleading/claim petition as well as affidavit submitted by the workman in support of

the claim petition. It is also pertinent to mention that there is nothing in the form of evidence that the workman

610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was directly paid by respondent no.1, 2 or 3 as the case may be. Thus, on this issue, it can be inferred that there

is nothing on record to prove the factum of salary/payment by the respondent M/s Bharat Hydel Project Pvt.

Ltd. as the sub-contractor of respondent no.1 Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Unit Rampur Hydro Electric

Project.

14.

Secondly, so far as, the question of controls and supervision is concerned. Workman as witness has

categorically stated that his work was supervised by the respondent no.1. Except this, nothing is brought on

record to prove that it is respondent no.1 who was supervising and controlling the work of workman/claimant.

The learned counsel of claimant argued that he was rendering the services in the premises of respondent no.1

and it has all control and supervision through its employees. There is no such reliable evidence on record.

However, the apex court in the case of International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo

Workers Union [209 (13) SCC374] has held as follows:-

“If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work

under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the

worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to

regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the

contractor.

The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when

such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses

whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short,

worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the

contractor as he decides whether the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to

what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal

employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is

secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.”

15.

Thus, the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly establishes that mere supervision

of work is not sufficient to prove the relationship of employer and employee till it is proved that there was a

complete control and supervision. The management control includes the authority of dismissal, taking of

disciplinary action and continuity of service etc. Claim petition filed by the workman is mum on this score and

workman has not mentioned any specific averments in his affidavit regarding the appointment, authority of

dismissal or taking of disciplinary action by respondent no.1. There is nothing on record to prove that it is the

respondent no.1 who grants leave or has authority to take any disciplinary action. In my considered opinion,

mere saying of supervision regarding the security premise of the work as alleged by the witness may not be

called effective and absolute control. Such control is being emphasized to control the work of the respondents

for a specific work inefficient manner done by the respondents in the establishment regarding which there is no

evidence at all.

16.

Learned counsel of the workman/claimant argued that though there is no documentary evidence with

respect to the engagement of workman by the respondents but an independent witness namely Bhim Sen has

been examined by the workman to prove the factum of employment by the respondent no.1 being the principle

employer, who has engaged respondent no.2 as his contractor and respondent no.2 has engaged respondent no.3

as a sub-contractor. Hence, it should be presumed that respondent no.1 namely The General Manager, Satluj Jal

Vidyut Nigam Limited, Unit Rampur Hydro Electric Proect(412 MW) was the employer of the workman as

such, there exists relationship of employer and employee. No doubt witness Bhim Sen has stated that he was

working as Fitter with respondent no.1 during the year 2008-2014 and get Rs. 22,000/-. This witness has further

stated that Sh. Swaroop Chand along with other co-workmen were working as Security Guard with respondent

no.1 till 2014 when he left the work of the company. This witness has refused like as workman/claimant that he

was working with M/s K.R. Care Securicos Security Ltd. Contrary to this, learned counsel of respondent no.1

argued that this witness was not in the job with the respondent as is alleged by him in his examination-in-chief.

It is further argued that the photocopy of the identity card Ex.WW1/M1 is fake and forged but there is nothing

on record to prove that the identity card of the witness Bhim Sen is factually fake and forged. Hence, mere

suggestion of respondent no.1 counsel has no force in the light of the statement of this witness on oath. The

factum of relation with respondent no.1 or respondent no.2 or 3 is still remains to be proved because there is

nothing on record to justify the claim that workman was paid by respondent no.1, 2 or 3 whatsoever as is stated

by the workman. I may also in the consonance of the argument of the learned counsel of respondent no.1 that

there is nothing like principal-employer envisaged in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 like as Employees

Provident Fund, 1952 Act, where liability has to be incurred by the principal-employer regarding the payment

of employees provident fund in case contractor fails in his duty to pay fund as is envisaged in the provisions of

the Act itself. Learned counsel of respondent no.1 has further drawn my attention towards the Photostat copy of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

611

the identity card filed by the witness Bhim Sen and argued that this certificate is issued by the Kedar Rai Govt.

Contractor and not by respondent no.1 as such evidence given by the witness Bhim Sen cannot be accepted on

its face value. The contention of learned counsel of respondent no.1 has truth in itself as witness Bhim Sen has

not submitted any documents regarding his engagement by any of the respondent nos.1, 2 or 3. Hence, his oral

evidence cannot be treated trustworthy in the absence of documentary evidence.

17.

In view of the above legal and factual discussion and due regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Tribunal is of the view that workman has failed to prove that he was engaged by M/s. Bharat Hydel

Project Ltd., a sub-contractor of M/s Gammon India Ltd. engaged by S.J.V.N. Ltd. Hence, the workman is not

entitled for any relief as claimed in the claim petition and the award is answered in negative against the

workman.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 13 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 201.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

औगिकोजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल - चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संिभल सं्‍ ा 13/2015) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 14.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/84/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2020

S.O. 201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court- 2 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, Shimla, H.P.& Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 14.01.2020.

[No. L-42012/84/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 13/2015

Registered on:-18.05.2015

Sunder Singh S/o Late Sh. Prem Shukh, R/o Village & P.O. Kungal Balti,

Tehsil Rampur, Distt. Shimla, H.P..

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, Unit Rampur Hydro Electric Project (412 MW)

Jhakhri, Tehsil Rampur Bsr, Distt. Shimla, H.P.

The Project Manager, Gamon India Limited, Rampur Hydro Electric Project (412 MW), Package-1,

Avaeri, P.O. Nogli, Tehsil Nirmand, Distt. Kullu, H.P.

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Hydel Project Private Limited,

9, PPCL Colony, Opposite Radhaswami Bhawan, Uday Vihar, Haridwar,

Bye-pass Road Dehradoon.

…Respondent/Management

612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 22, 2020/PHALGUNA 3, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on:-07.01.2020

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/84/2015-IR(DU) Dated 07.05.2015, under clause

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

the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bharat Hydel Project Pvt. Ltd., a sub-contractor

of M/s Bharat Hydel Project Pvt. Ltd., a sub contractor of M/s Gammon India Ltd. engaged by

S.J.V.N. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh. Sunder Singh S/o Late Sh. Prem Sukh w.e.f.

23.11.2014 is valid, just and legal? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and

from which date?”

Both the parties were put to notice and claimant Sunder Singh filed statement of claim, with the

averment, that he was employed with respondent no.1 as watch and ward staff/security guard in the Rampur

Hydro Electric Project 412 MW, package-1, on 01.07.2012, initially on the payment of Rs.5,000/- per month,

which was later on increased to Rs.10,000/- per month. He worked 12 hours per day till 23.11.2014 when the

service of the workman was terminated by respondent no.3 with the connivance of other respondents. The

principal employer i.e. respondent no.1 assigned the work of construction on contract and execution of Adits,

Head Race Tunnel, Diversion Tunnel from Jhakri to Averi to M/s Gammon India Limiter i.e. respondent no.2

who had further contracted out some portion of Head Race Tunnel to M/s Bharat Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. i.e.

respondent no.3. The work of the workman was extracted by the respondents together for the benefit of the

respondents especially the principal employer i.e. respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has violated the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it has not given any notice or compensation

in lieu of notice while terminating the services of the workman which is against the settled principles of Law.

Therefore, it is prayed that the termination of the workman dated 23.11.2014 may be set aside and other relief

which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit may kindly be ordered in favor of the petitioner/workman in the interest

of justice and fair play.

Respondent No.1 has filed its written statement, alleging therein that the present claim application is

not maintainable against the replying respondent as there is no averments made in the petition as to how the

answering respondent is liable to pay compensation and other relief as claimed in the petition by the petitioner.

The petitioner/workman was engaged in the service by M/s K.R. Care Securicos, Head Office Sai 9, Kilokary,

near CTC Plaza Ashram, New Delhi-110014 and claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There

is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It is therefore, prayed that the petition filed

against the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed in view of the reply given by the respondent in the

interest of justice and fair play.

Respondent no.2 and 3 has not filed any written statement and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated

06.10.2015.

The workman has filed its replication to the written statement filed by respondent no.1, alleging the

same facts which are already alleged in the claim petition as such, it does not required to be repeated again.

In support of his case, the LR of the workman Smt. Raksha Devi appeared in the witness box and

tendered her affidavit in evidence which is marked as Ex.WW1/A and has been cross-examined by the learned

counsel of respondent no.1.

Respondent No.1 has examined Sh. Narinder Kumar, AGM(Law), RHPS, who has filed his affidavit

Ex.MW1/A and been cross-examined by the workman counsel.

I have heard Sh. O.P. Chauhan, AR for the workman and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, AR for respondent no.1

and have gone through the records carefully.

Before averting to the real controversy between the parties, it is pertinent to mention that some facts

are admitted between the parties which are required to be mentioned in order to cut-short the discussion with

those facts. Admittedly, respondent no.1 i.e. General Manager, Satjul Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., is the main-

employer who has contracted the work to respondent no.2 i.e. The Project Manager, Gamon India Limited, and

subsequently respondent no.2 has sub-contracted the work to respondent no.3 i.e. Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, Bharat Hydel Project Private Limited, for its completion. The dispute between the parties relates with

the relation of respondents with the workman because respondent no.1 General Manager, Satluj Jal Vidyut

Nigam Limited has specifically alleged in its written statement that workman is employed by M/s K.R. Care

Securicos and there does not exists relationship of employer and employee between the workman and

respondents as such, the claimant is not entitled for any relief.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 22, 2020/फाल् गुन 3, 1941

613

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

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

factum of his employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for

240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he was worked with the

employer for 240 days or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar

Mills Ltv. Vs. Sowaran Singh(2005) 8 Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated

Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.

10.

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

the factual scenario in the present case is bit different inasmuch as the management/respondent no.1 in its

written statement has categorically denied the factum of employment of the claimant inasmuch as it has been

asserted that the workman was engaged by M/s K.R. Care Securicos as such, it has to be proved by the workman

that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and claimant/workman. In this

regard, reference can be made to the decision of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011

Supreme Court 2532, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the

Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as follows:-

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

contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for

deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The

definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee

or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from

which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing

whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on

fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”

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

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

eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the

Act. In these circumstances, it stands proved that claimant is a workman and relationship of employer-employee

has to be between the parties.

11.

The issue as to whether the workman was engaged by respondent no.1 directly or through contractors is

the bone of contention between the parties. Hence, question remains to be seen whether the workman has

proved that he was directly engaged with the respondents on 01.07.2012 and regularly continued till his

termination in the year 2014. This fact has to be proved by the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence.

At the very outset, it may be mentioned that there is no single document to prove that workman/claimant was

directly employed by the respondent no.1 or other respondents no.2 and 3.

12.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja

Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognised tests to find out whether

the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-