4730 GI/2020

(2657)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 38]

नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 11—अक् तूबर 17, 2020, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 19—आज‍ वन 25, 1942

No. 38]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 11—OCTOBER 17, 2020, SATURDAY/ASVINA 19—ASVINA 25, 1942

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)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 22 अगस्ट् त, 2020

का.आ. 920.—भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजन म, 1955 (1955 का 23) की िारा 20 की उृ-िारा (1) के

सा ृठ त िारा 19 के ण्ड ( ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारती स्ट् टेट

बैंक के उृ-प्रबंि जनिेिक श्री अजिनी भाठट ा (िन् म जतज : 5.5.1962) को उनके ृिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से

और अजिवर्षिता की आ ु (अ ाित 31.5.2022) प्राप् त करने तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, भारती

स्ट्टेट बैंक में प्रबंि जनिेिक जन ुक् त करती िज।

[फा. सं. 4/1/2020-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-24102020-222728

CG-DL-W-24102020-222728

2658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 22^nd August, 2020

S.O. 920.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of

section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Ashwani Bhatia (date of birth: 5.5.1962), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India as Managing

Director, State Bank of India with effect from the date of assumption of office and up to the date of his attaining

the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.5.2022), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/1/2020-BO.I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 921.—रा्‍ री कषत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीणि उृबंि) स्ट् कीम, 1980 के ृजरा 8 के उृ-ृजरा (1) के सा

ृठ त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1980 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा (3) के ंड (क)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतिद्वारा, श्री एस. िठरिंकर, प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍

का िकारी अजिकारी, ृंिाब एंड ससंि बैंक, जिन्िें दिनांक 3.9.2020 की प्रभावी जतज से स्ट्वजछछक आिार ृर

सेवाजनवषजत्त की अनुमजत िी गई िज, के स्ट् ान ृर केनरा बैंक के का िृालक जनिेिक श्री एस. कष्‍णन को ृिभार ग्रिण

करने की तारी से उनकी अजिवर्षिता की आ ु प्राप्त करने की तारी (अ ाित 31.5.2022) तक अ वा अगले

आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, ृंिाब एंड ससंि बैंक में प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍ का िकारी अजिकारी के ृि ृर

जन ुक् त करती िज।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2020

S.O. 921.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of

the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, Central Government

hereby appoints Shri S. Krishnan, Executive Director in Canara Bank as Managing Director and Chief

Executive Officer in Punjab and Sind Bank, with effect from the date of assumption of office, and up to the date

of his attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.5.2022), or until further orders, whichever is earlier, vice

Shri S. Harisankar, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank who has been

permitted to retire on voluntary basis with effect from 3.9.2020.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 28 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 922.—रा्‍ री कषत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीणि उृबंि) स्ट् कीम 1970 के ृजरा 3 के उृ-ृजरा (1) के सा

ृठ त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृिारा (3) के ंड (ग)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंरी सरकार, एतिद्वारा, कॉलम (2) में जवजनर्िि्‍ ट व् जि ों के स्ट् ान ृर

कॉलम (3) में जवजनर्िि्‍ ट व् जि ों को कॉलम (1) में जनर्िि्‍ ट बैंकों के बोडि में तत् काल प्रभाव से अ वा अगले आिेिों

तक, जनिेिक के ृि ृर नाजमत करती िज:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2659

(1)

(2)

(3)

सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजड ा

श्री ोमस मजथ् ू

श्री ृी. िे. ोमस (िन् म जतज : 2.1.1959)

ूको बैंक

डॉ. अरजवन् ि िमाि

डॉ. तुली रॉ (िन् म जतज : 23.12.1965)

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संि कुमार जमश्रा, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2020

S.O. 922.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of

paragraph 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central

Government hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board

of the banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table,

with immediate effect and until further orders:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Central Bank of India

Shri Thomas Mathew

Shri P. J. Thomas (date of birth: 2.1.1959)

UCO Bank

Dr Arvind Sharma

Dr Tuli Roy (date of birth: 23.12.1965)

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 12 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 923.—आरबीआई द्वारा बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 की िारा 22(4) के अंतगित

लाइसेंस को रद्द करने के जनणि से असंतुष्ट िोने ृर उनके जनणि के जवरुद्ध सिकारी बैंकों द्वारा िा र की गई अृील

ृर बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 की िारा 22(5) के अंतिगत जनणि लेने िेतु केन्री सरकार द्वारा

श्री सुिीर ‍ ाम, आर् िक सलािकार, जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग, जवत्त मंत्राल , भारत सरकार को नामोदिष्ट दक ा िाता

िज।

[फा. सं. 7/103/2020-बीओए-I]

ए. के. घोष, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2020

S.O. 923.—Shri Sudhir Shyam, Economic Advisor in the Department of Financial Services, Ministry

of Finance, Government of India is designated by the Central Government to decide the appeal preferred by

Cooperative Bank under Section 22(5) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, aggrieved by the decision of the

RBI cancelling its license under Section 22(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

[F. No. 7/103/2020-BOA-I]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

कार्मिक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 14 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 924.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 की

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

कनािटक राज् सरकार, सरकारी आिेि सं. ई-एचडी 28 सीआईडी 2020, बंगलुप , दिनांक 21 मई, 2020 के

2660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

माध् म से प्राप् त सिमजत से अवजि सॉफ्टवे र के प्रचालन से संबंजित और रेलवे ठटकटों से िुड़े रािागोृालानगर

ृुजलस स्ट्टेिन, बंगलुप जसटी में भारती िण्ड संजिता की िारा 419, 420 सृठ त 34 (1860 का अजिजन म

सं.45) और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 (2000 की अजिजन म सं. 21) की िारा 43, 65, 66, 66 (सी),

66(डी),70 के अंतगित ििि मामला अृराि सं.16/2020 के संबंि में दकए गए अृराि(िों) के अन्वेषण करने के

जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी

संव्यविार के क्रम में दकए गए दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के

सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त कनािटक राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/23/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2020

S.O. 924.—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 Karnataka, issued vide Government Order No. E-HD 28 CID 2020,

Bengaluru, dated 21^st May, 2020, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Karnataka for investigation into the offence(s) relating to the

case Crime No. 16/2020, u/s 419, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860) and u/s 43, 65, 66,

66(c), 66(d), 70 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000) of Rajagopalanagar Police Station,

Bengaluru City pertaining to the operation of illegal software and cornering Railway tickets, and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

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

[F. No. 228/23/2020-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbuas ¼Hkwfe esa ç;ksDrk ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962

¼1962 dk 50½] ¼blds ckn bls mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 2 dh mi&/kkjk ¼v½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh;

ljdkj uhps nh x;h lkj.kh ds LrEHk ¼1½ esa mYysf[kr O;fDr dks eSllZ fjyk;al b.MLVªht fyfeVsM ¼vkj-vkbZ-,y-½

हेतु mDr lkj.kh ds LrEHk ¼3½ esa mYysf[kr isVªksfy;e izksMDV ikbiykbuksa ds fy, LrEHk ¼2½ esa mYysf[kr {ks=ksa ds

laca/k esa mDr vf?kfu;e ds rgr l{ke izkf?kdkjh ds कार्यों dk fuoZgu djus ds fy, ,rn}kjk izkf/kd`r djrh gS :-

O;fDr dk uke vkSj irk

{ks=kf/kdkj

isVªksfy;e izksMDV ikbiykbu

¼ikbiykbuksa½ ds uke

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

Jh ch- ,l- nos] vij lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Ùk½]

l{ke izkf?kdkjh] fjyk;al b.MLVªht fyfeVsM]

izFke ry] vkuan egy Vkoj – I]

Jhth vkjdsM ds lkeus] vkuan egy jksM]

vMktu] lqjr - 395009] xqtjkr

xqtjkr jkT;

ds lHkh ftys

ngst–xka/kkj–cMkSnk ikbiykbusa

vksQ”kksj ,lch,e ikbiykbusa

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2661

2. xqtjkr jkT; esa eSllZ fjyk;al b.MLVªht fyfeVsM ds fy;s fnukad 22.04.2017 dks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa çdkf'kr

fnukad 20.04.2017 dh vf/kLkwpuk lk-vk- 964 }kjk iwoZ esa vf/klwfpr l{ke izkf/kdkjh] Jh vkj- ,e- iVsy, ¼lsokfuo`Ùk

Hkk ç ls½ dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

3. ;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls ykxw gksxhA

[Qk. la. vkj-11025¼15½@13@2020-vksvkj-I@bZ-34808]

ih- lksekdqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5^th October, 2020

S.O. 925.—In pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Central

Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the

functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for M/s. Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), in respect

of areas mentioned in column (2) for the petroleum product pipelines mentioned in Colum (3) of the said Table:-

TABLE

Name and Address of the Person

Area of Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum

Product Pipeline(s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri B. S. Dave, Additional Collector (Retired),

Competent Authority, Reliance Industries Limited, 1^st

Floor, Anand Mahal Tower – I,

Opp. Shreeji Arcade, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan,

Surat – 395009, Gujarat

All districts of Gujarat

State

Dahej

–

Gandhar

–

Baroda Pipelines

Offshore SBM Pipelines

Earlier notified Competent Authority for M/s. Reliance Industries Limited in the State of Gujarat,

Shri R. M. Patel, Retired IAS vide S.O. 964 dated 20.04.2017 published in the Gazette of India dated

22.04.2017 stands de-notified.

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

[F. No. R-11025(15)/13/2020-OR-I /E-34808]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 926.—केन्र 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, श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल के प्रिासकी

जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ािल ों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अ‎जिक कमिचाठर ों ने जिन्िी का का िसािक ज्ञान

प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:

1. कमिचारी राज् बीमा जनगम - िा ा का ािल िसीडीि।

2. कमिचारी राज् बीमा जनगम - िा ा का ािल जगरीडीि।

3. कमिचारी राज् बीमा जनगम - उृ क्षेत्री का ािल भोृाल।

[सं. ई-11016/1/2017-रा.भा.नी.]

गोृाल प्रसाि, आ‎र् िक सलािकार

2662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2020

S. O. 926.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official

purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following

offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Employees State Insurance Corporation - Branch office, Jasidih.

2. Employees State Insurance Corporation - Branch office, Giridih.

3. Employees State Insurance Corporation - Sub Regional Office Bhopal.

[No. E-11016/1/2017-RBN]

GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Adviser

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 927.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976

प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:

1. कमिचारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न - क्षेत्री का ािल , दिल्ली (ृजिम)

2. कमिचारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न - क्षेत्री का ािल , दिल्ली (मध् )

[सं. ई-11016/1/2017-रा.भा.नी.]

गोृाल प्रसाि, आ‎र् िक सलािकार

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2020

S. O. 927.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official

purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following

offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Employees Provident Fund Organization - Regional Office, Delhi (West)

2. Employees Provident Fund Organization - Regional Office, Delhi (Central)

[No. E-11016/1/2017-RBN]

GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Adviser

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 928.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि प्रबंि, प्राछ सुरक्षा सेवा, भुवने‍ वर एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके

कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल ,

भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 21/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 25.09.2020 को प्राप्त

हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2663

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 928.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 21/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Managing, Oriental Security Service, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar Others and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on 25.09.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

I.D. Case No. 21 of 2018

1. Sh. Pratap Kumar Samantaray, Managing Director Oriental Security Service, BBSR

2. The Director, NISER, Jatni, Khordha

Vrs.

Smt. Pragyan Paramita Sethi

The authorized representative of Management No.1 is present. He files a Memo along with an

appointment offer to the applicant. As per the order of appointment the applicant is required to report her duty

within three days at East Cost Railway, Mancheswar and she would be paid wages as per the norm of the

Railway. But, the applicant was found absent. As it appears from the pleadings advanced by the Management

and conduct of its authorized representative that the Management is prepared to give engagement to the

applicant in place where suitable job for the applicant is available. The applicant workman is found absent to

pursue her dispute. In the above facts and circumstance there is no alternative than dismissing the applicant

U/s. 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act for non-prosecution i.e. for default of the applicant workman. The case be notified as

required under the Act.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 929.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि अिीक्षण ृुरातत्वजवि्, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, समानतारृुर, भुवने‍ वर एवं उनके कमिचारी के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 11/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 16.09.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 11/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of india Samantarapur, Bhubaneswar

Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.09.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

I.D. Case No. 11 of 2018

The Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India, Samantarapur,

Bhubaneswar.

…1^st Party Management

-Versus-

Sri Bipin Bihari Patra,

At/P.O.Kotanga,P.S.-Konark,

District-Puri.

…2^nd Party Workman

30.10.2019 This Industrial Dispute Case is registered on the statement of claim filed by Bipin Bihari Patra

resorting to the Provisions of Sec.2-A(2) of I.D.Act wherein allegation has been raised that the

Service of the applicant workman was terminated without compliance of the provisions of the

I.D. Act.

On being noticed the 1^st Party Management appeared and filed l its written statement. As no step was

taken by the Management subsequently he was set exparte. Thereafter the case is protracting for evidence of

the applicant workman. Inspite of several adjournments the workman failed to appear and adduce his evidence.

The case cannot be allowed to linger for an indefinite period in this manner . In absence of any information

from the workman it is difficult to hold that the dispute is persists between the parties. It is also difficult on the

part of the Tribunal to pass any award without evidence of the applicant workman. On the other hand it has

been well settled that there is no provision in the Act to pass a Nil Award or No Dispute Award in case the

disputant fails to make appearance and prosecute his claim.

Having regard to the above settled principles the case registered on the Statement of Claim of the

Workman resorting to the provisions of Sec.2-A(2) is dismissed for default of the applicant and the case is

disposed of . Copy of the order be sent to the parties for their information and necessary action.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 930.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि ृेजस्ट्टका लेबर सर्विस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, अिमिनगर (एम एस) एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि श्रम न् ा ाल , अिमिनगर के

ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 62/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 30.09.2020को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 930.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 62/2018) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Pestika Labour Service Pvt. Ltd.,

Ahmednagar (Ms.), Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.09.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2665

ANNEXURE

IN THE FIRST LABOUR COURT, AT–AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Sau. H.S.Bhosale, Judge)

Exh. O-6

REFERENCE (I.D.A.) No. 62/2018

(CNR No. MHLC160004632018)

M/s. Pestika Labour Service Pvt. Ltd.

The General Manager, BSNL, A. Nagar

Sub Divi. Engineer, BSNL, Pathardi

…First Party

VERSUS

Sayyad Mustak Fattubhai

Hanuman Takali,Tal.: Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

…Second Party

AWARD

( Delivered on : 27.02.2020 )

1. This reference is referred by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour vide

referred order dated 25-10-2018 for adjudicating the matter of 2^nd party who was illegally terminated from

20-3-2018 and demanded to reinstate in services with full back wages and pay as per permanent employee . This

court has issued notices to the second party vide Exh. O-2 & O-4 despite of service of notices to the 2^nd party for

filing statement of claim the 2^nd party did not appear before this court not filed statement of claim. In my

opinion the 2^nd party is not interested in proceeding with the present reference. Hence, I am inclined to pass the

following order:-

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for non prosecution.

2. Appropriate copies of this Award be sent to the concerned authority for publication. In such circumstances

there is no order as to costs.

Date : 27.02.2020

HEMALATA BHOSALE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 931.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 61/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 30.09.2020को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 61/2018) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Pestika Labour Service Pv.t Ltd,

Ahmednagar (Ms.), Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.09.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE FIRST LABOUR COURT, AT–AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Sau. H.S. Bhosale, Judge)

Exh.O-6

REFERENCE (I.D.A.) No. 61/2018

(CNR No. MHLC160004622018)

M/s. Pestika Labour Service Pvt. Ltd.

The General Manager, BSNL, A. Nagar

Sub Divi. Engineer, BSNL, Pathardi

...First Party

VERSUS

Pacharne Raju Namdeo

R/o. Koregaon, Po. : Mohate,

Tal.: Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar

…Second Party

AWARD

( Delivered on : 27.02.2020 )

1. This reference is referred by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour vide

referred order dated 25-10-2018 for adjudicating the matter of 2^nd party who was illegally terminated from

20-3-2018 and demanded to reinstate in services with full back wages and pay as per permanent employee . This

court has issued notices to the second party vide Exh. O-2 & O-4 despite of service of notices to the 2^nd party for

filing statement of claim the 2^nd party did not appear before this court not filed statement of claim. In my

opinion the 2^nd party is not interested in proceeding with the present reference. Hence, I am inclined to pass the

following order:-

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for non prosecution.

2. Appropriate copies of this Award be sent to the concerned authority for publication. In such circumstances

there is no order as to costs.

Date : 27.02.2020

HEMALATA BHOSALE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 932.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि एस्ट्टेट प्रबंिक, एस्ट्टेट मजनेिमेंट ूजनट, डी आर डी ओ, चांिीृुर, बालासोर उड़ीसा एवं उनके कमिचारी

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 11/2016) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 12.02.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 11/2016) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Estate Manager, Estate Management Unit, D R D O, Chandipur, Balasore Orissa, Others and

their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12.02.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2667

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 11 OF 2016

Dated Bhubaneswar, the 21^st August, 2019

Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Between:

The Estate Manager,

Estate Management Unit,

DRDO, Chandipur, Balasore.

M/s. D.P.Services,

At/PO. Chandipur, Dist. Balasore

Represented through its Proprietor.

M/s. ACP Services.

At/PO. Chandipur, Dist. Balasor

represented through its Proprietor.

…First party management

AND

Shri Bishnu Jena @ Bishnu Chandra Jena

S/o. Late Dhaneswar Jena, At: Sonapur,

PO. Chandipur, Dist. Balasore – 756025.

…Second party workman

Appearances:

Shri P. R. Nayak

: For first party management No. 1

Shri K. K. Swain

: For first party management No. 2

Rahidul Ali Mollah

: For first party management No. 3

Shri Bishnu Jena

: Second party workman himself.

ORDER

Second party workman is present and he submits a memo informing that he is not interested to

prosecute the case further. None appears on behalf of the managements. Having regard to the memo filed by the

workman and his submission, the case is dismissed without deciding the merit of the application preferred by

the workman and the case is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 933.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससि सिा क अिीक्षक, डाकघर, कराड, (ृुणे) और अन् एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में श्रम न् ा ाल ,-1 ृुणे के ृंचाट

(संिभि सं्‍ ा 258/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 11.03.20 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 933.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 258/2017) of the Labour Court -1 Pune, as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Assistant Superintendent, Post

Office, Karad Pune & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.03.20.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE

( Presided Over by : Kalpana N. Phatangare )

Reference (IDA) No. 258/2017

Assistant Superintendent,

Post Office, Karad,

West Sub – Division, Karad,

Tal. & Dist.:- Karad – 415 110.

…First Party

AND

Mr. Bhimrao Dnyandev Kamble

R/o. At/Post :- Garvade,

Via – Bahule,

Tal.:- Patan, Dist.:- Satara.

…Second Party

Appearances :-

Mr. P. S. Sapre

: Advocate for the first party

Mrs. S. A. Nagrale : Advocate for the second party

AWARD

( Passed on this 12th December 2019 )

The present Reference is directly filed by second party under Sub–Section (2) and (3) of Section 2A of

The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 as per certificate (xerox) given by Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Pune consequent upon his termination from the services w.e.f. 20.05.2014 by the

management i.e. ASPOs Karad West Sub Division.

Brief facts of the ‘Statement of Claim’ Exh.:-U-1 are as follows:-

There are more than 100 employees working with first party on different posts. Second party through

first party provides services to the public and charge for the said service, therefore, first party is an

‘Industry’ and all Labour Laws are applicable to it. It is submitted that second party was working with

first party as ‘G. D. S. Packer’ for more than 32 years continuously. He has completed more than 240

days continuous service with first party. Second party has worked honestly and properly. He was paid

Rs. 8,512/- per month.

It is alleged that while the second party was working as ‘G. D. S. Packer’ he was posted at Bahule Post

Office, his services were came to be terminated on 20.04.2013. It is submitted that it was came to the notice of

‘Reviewing Officer’ of Inspection Squad that as the date of birth of second party was 01.06.1964 on 01.05.1982

i.e. appointment date he was 17 years 11 months old. It means he has not completed 18 years at the time of his

appointment. Therefore, his appointment was irregular. Accordingly Directorate, New Delhi by order dated

19–23/97–ED TRG dated 13.11.2017 decided to terminate his services. He may submit his Written Reply within

30 days from the receipt of said notice. It is submitted that this order is not applicable to the second party as his

appointment is dated 01.05.1982.

It is submitted that when second party was appointed at that time first party had asked second party

whether he is ready to work with it and was allowed to resume. At the time of resuming the duty, second party

has submitted his school leaving certificate as proof of his birth. The officers of the first party after verifying the

documents allowed second party to resume the duty and has not taken any objection regarding his age. Under

such circumstances, the Memo dated 29.04.2013 issued to second party is ex–parte, illegal and making injustice

upon the second party.

It is alleged that with bad intention of keeping second party away from the promotion and excluding

him from getting the benefits of permanent employees, memo dated 29.04.2013 was issued. This act of first

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2669

party is nothing but unfair labour practices. Second party was not given opportunity of hearing. At the time of

his termination, second party was not given Retrenchment Compensation or legal dues payable to him. He was

also not given provident fund or gratuity amount. He was kept away from getting the benefits of permanent

employees. Therefore, prayed that it may be declared that second party is employee of first party and he was

illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 20.05.2014. He prayed to be reinstated in service on his previous post

along with continuity of service and consequential benefits w.e.f. 20.05.2014.

The first party appeared in the matter and filed its 'Written Statement' vide Exh.:-C-3. It is submitted

that second party was appointed as ‘Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer’ (i.e. GDS PKR) and GDS is extra

departmental Agents and not departmental employee and shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union.

Therefore, The Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. It is submitted that ASPOs Karad West Sub Division

Karad is a recruiting authority of GDSPKR, GDSMD and GDSMC (i.e. other that GDSBPM) for jurisdiction of

Karad West Sub Division, the ASPOs post comes under Ministry of Communication, Department of Post’s,

which is not doing business only serve the member of public on behalf of Government of India.

It is submitted that Mr. Bhimrao Dnyandev Kamble, Ex – GDSPKR Bahule SO, date of birth

01.06.1964 had selected as GDSKPR Bahule SO w.e.f. 01.05.1982. While having age 17 years and 11 months

i.e. below 18 years of age, which is irregular appointment, bad in law and contravention of Rules. Second party

was appointed as GDSPKR with clear intimation that his engagement as GDSPKR shall be in the nature of

contract liable to be terminated by him or recruiting authority. Also he was not entitled for salary, as he is

entitled for payment of Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) and other allowances as may be prescribed

by Government on the basis of workload. It is submitted that while having age 17 years 11 months i.e. below 18

years of age, which is irregular appointment as per Directorate Order No.:- 19-23/97-ED TRG dated 13.11.2017.

It is submitted that at the time of appointment, second party has not completed 18 years of age.

Therefore, his appointment was in contravention of rules. Therefore, Poss Satara Division Satara directed to

ASPOs Karad West Sub Division Karad to take immediate action to terminate the irregular appointments of

GDS immediately by observing proper procedure of issuing one months notice and as per guidelines on the

subject. Hence, ASPOs Karad West Sub Division Karad issued show cause notice to second party vide his letter

No.:-A.S.P./Karad West/Appointment/GDSPKR/2013 dated 29.04.2013 and thereby asked him to submit his

written say within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice.

It is submitted that second party had worked as GDSMD Sonaichiwadi BO, Bahule SO w.e.f.

16.06.1980 to 16.02.1981 (on temporary basis) and his services came to be terminated from there due to below /

under age and the said fact is clearly mentioned by him in his application dated 02.04.1982 for the post of

GDSPKR Bahule So. This indicated that second party was below / under age before applying post of GDSPKR.

Second party was well aware before he had applied for the post GDSPKR.

10)

It is submitted that second party was not selected for the post of MTS on selection cum seniority basis.

Also he was not a departmental employee of the Department. While checking the cases for selection of GDS to

MTS cadre for seniority cum fitness quota for the year 2013, first party noticed that second party was appointed

under age. It is submitted that action taken against the applicant is as per rule. ASPOs Karad West Sub Dn

Karad considering all the points mentioned in the representations dated 28.05.2013 to the Show Cause Notice

dated 29.04.2013 and decided that the appointment of second party was irregular and action taken by ASPOs

Karad West is correct one.

11)

It is submitted that second party and all GDS were not entitled to salary, they were entitled to TRCA

depends on workload also not entitled for any type of retirement benefit and pension benefit. Reference is

without merits, hence, the same may kindly be dismissed the Reference with cost.

12)

On the basis of rival contentions, issues are framed vide Exh.:-O-1. Those issues along with their

findings and reasons therefor are as follows :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Whether the second party proves that

…. Yes.

First party illegally terminated his

services w.e.f. 20.05.2014, without

following due process of law ?

Whether the first party proves that

…. No.

second party was under age i.e. less

than 18 years and therefore, his

appointment was irregular as per

Rules applicable to the first party ?

2670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether the second party proves that

…. Yes.

he is entitled to the reliefs, as claimed ?

What Order ?

Reference is answered in

affirmative.

REASONS

13)

Second party examined him vide Exh.:–U–7. He closed his oral evidence as per Pursis Exh.:-U-9. First

Party filed documentary evidence and closed its oral evidence vide pursis Exh.:-C-8. Heard arguments advanced

by both the parties. Perused the record.

AS TO ISSUE Nos. 1 TO 4 :-

14)

These issues are interlinked with each other. Therefore, those are taken for discussion simultaneously.

On behalf of first party it is argued that second party was working with first party. His services were came to be

terminated as at the time of appointment he was 17 years and 11 months old i.e. has not completed 18 years. As

per letter Exh.:-C-7 second party has admitted that at the time of appointment his age was 17 years 11 months.

During cross he has admitted that he submitted a letter in which he submitted that he was given employment

though he was not completing 18 years therefore, he may be taken back in service. This shows that second party

was aware that he has not completed his age of 18 years at the time of his appointment. At the time of joining

the service, he was no ful–filling the criterion. Hence, his reference be rejected.

15)

On the other hand, Ld. Advocate Mrs. Sangita Nagrale for second party has argued that second party

was appointed in the year 01.05.1982 with first party as G.D.S. Packer. On 13.11.2017 on G. R. on which basis

he was given he was show cause notice that his appointment was irregular as he has not completed 18 years of

age and when he was appointed he was 17 years and 11 months old. It is argued that second party has told

original birth date. But even then he was appointed and he was not rejected. He has served for 32 years. His

services were terminated as per G. R. which was of the year 1997. Second party was appointed in the year 1982.

Then how he can be terminated on the basis of year 1997 whereas he was appointed in the year 1982. Then how

the back effect can be given of the G. R. of the year 1997. Further second party has served for more than 32

years. Whether his 32 years service which was given by first party itself can be said as illegal. Hence, his

Reference be allowed.

16)

In view of aforesaid discussions, it can be seen that there is G. R. of the year 1997 on the basis of

which services of second party were terminated. Whereas second party was appointed in the year 1982. No

objection was taken at the time of his appointment. Second party has submitted his school leaving certificate at

the time of his appointment. This shows that second party has not deceived anybody. The back effect of the G.

R. and the appointment which was given by first party itself shows irregularity in termination. Further the long

spam of service of 32 years cannot be washed out for no misconduct. Hence, the dismissal is shockingly

disproportionate. It needs to be set aside. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, hence, the

termination dated 30.07.2013 is illegal.

17)

Second party has submitted his school leaving certificate and first party even thereafter has allowed

him to resume the duties. Therefore, in view of this position though he was under age at the time of

appointment, he has not deceived anybody to secure employment nor the first party objected for the same.

Therefore, issue no. 2 is answered in the negative. In view of answers to issue Nos. 1 and 2, second party is

entitled to get reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service, full back wages from date of

termination till the date of actual reinstatement along with consequential benefits. Hence, issue No. 3 is

answered in the affirmative. In answer to issue No. 4 following order is passed :

ORDER

The Reference is answered in the affirmative.

The dismissal order dated 20.05.2014 is illegal, hence, quashed and set aside.

First party is hereby directed to reinstate second party on his previous post with continuity of service and

full back wages from the date of termination till actual reinstatement along with consequential benefits.

Parties to bear their own costs.

DATE : 12.12.2019

KALPANA N. PHATANGARE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2671

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 934.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि टाइम्स जसक् ोठरटी सर्विसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड भुवने‍ वर उड़ीसा एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 45/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को 14.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 934.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 45/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Times Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Bhubaneswar Orissa, Others and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 14.01.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 45 OF 2018

Dated Bhubaneswar, the 19^th August, 2019

Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Between:

Times Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

Represented through it’s Manager (Ops),

Plot No. N-5/496, IRC Village, Nayapalli,

Bhubaneswar – 751015,

Dist.: Khordha (Odisha).

…First party managemet

AND

Shri Ratnakar Behera

S/o. Sarat Chandra Behera,

Village – Miteipur, P.O: Bantu,

P.S: Nimapara, District : Puri. 752106.

…Second party workman

Appearances:

NONE : For both parties

ORDER

None appears from either sides on repeated calls. It is seen that the second party workman is not taking

any steps after filing his sworn affidavit evidence. In absence of any documents towards his appointment and

his continuous working for more than 240 days in a calendar year, it is difficult on the part of the Tribunal to

give any award. That apart, neither his claim statement nor his sworn affidavit disclose the date of engagement

in the first party establishment and if the workman was working continuously for more than 240 days in a

calendar year. Be that as it may, I find it just and proper to dismiss the claim statement for default of the second

party workman.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

2672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 935.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि वठरष्ठ डाक अिीक्षक, ि ृोर , उड़ीसा एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके

भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 01/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 24.09.2020 को प्राप्त

हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 935.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 01/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jeypore (Orissa), Others and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24.09.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRINUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 01/2018

Date of passing Award – 17^th September, 2020

Between:

Department of Posts. Govt. of India

Represented through

Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,

Koraput Division,

Jeypore(K)-& Others

PIN: 764001

…Ist Party Management

(AND)

Sri Samir Kumar Samantray,

S/o. Sri Jagadananda Samantray,

At: New Street, 5^th Lane, Near Trimurty Club,

PO: Jeypore, Dist: Koraput

…2^nd Party workman

Appearance:

Sri Surendranath Panda,

Sr. Supdt of Post Offices,

Koraput Division,

Jeypore(K)

…For the Ist party management

Sri Samir Kumar Samantray

…For the 2^nd Party workman

AWARD

The applicant has approached the tribunal resorting to the provisions of Section 2(A) Sub-Section (2)

and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) since he has alleged to have been

retrenched without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2673

The case of the applicant, in short, is that he was working as a data entry operator along some others in

the office of Head Post Office, Koraput being engaged by the Head Post Master. His appointment was on daily

wage basis at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day with minimum data entries of 300 transactions and at the rate of

Rs. 0.50 paise for each transaction entry exceeding 300. He worked in such capacity of data entry operator from

the month of April,2013 till the end of the month of May, 2016. It is his claim that he was not paid wages from

December, 2014 onwards. Though, he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year continuously and un-

interruptedly, he was disengaged w.e.f. June, 2016 without compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F of the

Act. Hence, prayer is made for reengagement and payment of arrear wages.

On being noticed the Superintendent of Post Office, Koraput Division, Koraput has contested the claim

taking stand that the applicant was not issued with any appointment letter. On his own approach he was given

the work of data entry under the scheme of MGNREGA. The said scheme does not provide any guaranteed

employment for continuous and uninterrupted period. Since the fund allotted under the scheme was spent

/exhausted and no information/ allotment was received, the applicant and others were disengaged. The applicant

being a beneficiary under the scheme is not an employee or workman and as such he has no relief under the

Industrial Disputes Act. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues involved in the dispute are as follows:

Whether the application preferred by the applicant workman is maintainable under the provisions of

Section 2 (A) of Sub-Section (2) & (3) of the Act.

If the disengagement of the applicant w.e.f. May, 2016 was illegal and unjustified.

If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to.

The applicant has examined himself only in the case and filed Xerox copies of his complaints to

different authorities which is marked as Exhbit.1. On the other hand the management has examined the witness

to refute the claim of the workman.

FINDINGS

For the sake of convenience on the issues are taken into consideration simultaneously.

As it appears from the pleadings of the parties that there is no serious dispute to the effect that the

applicant was engaged by the 1^st party management for work of data entries under the scheme of MGNREGA.

The management has not also disputed the claim of the applicant that he worked as data entry operator from

April, 2013 to May, 2016. It is also admitted fact that the applicant was receiving his wage from the

management at the rate of Rs.250/- per day with minimum entries of 300 numbers and Rs. 0.50 paise more for

each entry exceeding to 300 entries. No serious dispute is also raised in regard to continuous and uninterrupted

engagement of the applicant for a period of 240 days in a calendar year raising alleged disengagement.

The only contention on the part of the management is that the applicant was not given any appointment

and he was engaged under the scheme of MGNREGA. The scheme/project having been completed further non-

engagement cannot be amounted to retrenchment. No notice pay or retrenchment compensation is mandatory

compliance while refusing work under the scheme. The applicant being a daily wager and aware of the fact that

his engagement depended on the funds allotted to the scheme, as no notice or notice pay in lieu of notice is

required when he was not given further engagement. But, it cannot be over sighted that his engagement under

the scheme was continuous for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his alleged disengagement.

There is no credible evidence for the management to establish that the applicant was aware or informed that he

was given engagement under the scheme and he would be disengaged when the scheme would be closed or

allotment of fund would be stopped or his engagement was subject to availability of the fund. Therefore, refusal

of employment to him due to non-availability or non-allotment of fund could not be covered U/s. 2(oo)(bb) of

the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. On the other hand it is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between

SM Nalajkar and others Vs. TELECOM District Manager, Karnataka in civil appeal No. 1239-1244 of 2001

that the engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice

that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or up to

the occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived.

The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a

notice to the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that his employment was

short-lived and as per the terms of the contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract

and the scheme or project coming to an end. But, in the case at hand there is no evidence except oral evidence

of M.W.1 that fund being exhausted under the MGNREGA scheme, there was no scope for engagement of the

workman and there is no material to show that the workman was aware of the term of his engagement. Hence,

he was entitled to notice pay or compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 F, when he was

disengaged even though, it is the right of the employer to close the work/undertaking for any reason.

2674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Coming to the case at hand, the applicant workman was not given any notice before refusal of his

employment. He was not paid any rehabilitation compensation as required U/s. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. He was not informed or apprised that he was given engagement under a scheme or project or subject to

availability of the fund for the same project. Thus, taking totality of facts and circumstances into consideration

it can be held that the workman was retrenched without compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, his disengagement or refusal of employment amount to retrenchment. Since his

employment was not permanent one and he worked for 2 to 3 years only in daily wage basis, the compensation

of Rs. 20000/-(twenty thousand) to the applicant would meet the end of justice in the case.

The amount shall be paid within 3 months from the date of its award failing which the applicant is

entitled to interest @6.5% per anam on the said amount from date of this award.

Send a copy of the award along with original to the Ministry for its notification and necessary action at

their end.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 936.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि िगन्ना जसक् ोठरटी सर्विस, भुवने‍ वर (उड़ीसा) एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न् ा ाल , भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 02/2016) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

16.09.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42012/195/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 02/2016) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Jagannath Security Service, Bhubaneswar, (Odisha), Others and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 16.09.2020.

[No. L-42012/195/2015-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

I.D. Case No. 2 of 2016

M/s. Jagannath Security Service,

36/C-I, Chakeisihani , P.O. Rasulgarh,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)751010.

M/s. Anil Security, Bhubaneswar

1/289, Baramunda Housing Board Colony,

Baramunda, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)751003.

The Branch Incharge, Central Avian Research

Institute, Bharatpur, Khnadagiri, Bhubaneswar,

(Orissa) -751009.

1^st t Party Managements

-Versus-

The Vice President, Contract & Construction

Labour Union, 32 Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

(Orissa)-751009.

…2^nd Party Union

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2675

23) 7.8.2019

Authorised Representatives of the Management Nos.1 and 3 are present. The 2^nd Party Union

as well as the disputant workman is found absent on repeated calls. On perusal of the

records it reveals that the Management No.2 is already set exparte before the settlement of

issues as he failed to make his appearance and file his written statement. The case is posted

today for evidence of the 2^nd Party workman. She is found absent today so also on the

previous date of hearing i.e. 11.3.2019. It is submitted by the Authorised Representatives of

the Management Nos.1 and 3 that the workman did not attend the Tribunal on earlier

occasions also and in view of default of the workman the reference case should be dismissed.

It is seen from the record that the 2^nd Party Workman is not taking any steps to adduce her evidence

for last two adjournments. The dispute under reference is raised by the workman cannot be adjudicated in

absence of evidence on the part of the 2^nd Party. It is also difficult to hold if any dispute is presently lingering

between the parties. In absence of evidence of the 2^nd Party workman neither the dispute can be adjudicated nor

any award can be passed as defined U/s.2 sub clause-b of the Act. There is also no provisions in the Act to

pass a no dispute or nil award in case the disputant fails to make his appearance and to prosecute his claim. It

has been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in the case between M/s. IDL Chemical Ltd., -Versus-

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991) CLT 73 and in the decision of the Hon’ble

High Court in the case between B.R.Bermen and Mohatta (India) Private Ltd., –Versus- 7^th Industrial Tribunal,

West Bengal and others (Short Noted in 1977 Lab. I.C.(NOC)13(CAL) that so long the dispute remains

unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without adjudication of the dispute between the parties, there is no

bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded from referring the dispute over again so that there may

be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by the Act.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as the settled principles I am constrained

to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No.L-42012/195/2015-IR(DU) dated. 15.12.2015 in exercising its authority U/s.10

of the Industrial Act,1947(14 of 1947) without adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly the reference case is

disposed of without any award. A copy of the award be sent to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment for necessary action at their end.

Dictated & corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 937.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि सुनील कुमार ृालो सुरक्षा एिेंसी, भुवने‍ वर, (ओजडिा) एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुवने‍ वर को ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 85/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

14.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 85/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Sunil Kumar Palo Security Agency, Bhubaneswar, (Odisha), Others and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 14.01.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 85 OF 2018

Dated Bhubaneswar, the 2^nd July, 2019

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Between:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Palo, Proprietor,

Sunil Kumar Palo Security Agency

(P.K. Security Agency)

Plot No.190, Room No. 2, Prachi

Enclave, Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar – 751016,

District – Khurda. (Odisha).

The Director, All India Radio, Cuttack

Office of A.I.R., Cuttack,

03 Cantonment Road,

Cuttack – 753001 (Odisha).

…First party management

AND

Mr. Keshab Kumar Nayak

(Ex-Serviceman Army)

C/o. Shantisantosad Nayak,

At/P.O: Erada, Via: Sabarang,

Dist.: Bhadrak – 756123 (Odisha).

…Second party workman

Appearances:

Col S.K. Palo.

: For first party management

Mr. K.K. Nayak : Second party workman himself

Applicant workman is present so also the authorized representative of the management. Case is posted

today for filing of rejoinder by the workman and for hearing on settlement of issues. Heard parties on settlement

of issues.

Perused the statement of claim and written statement. On perusal of statement of claim, it reveals that

the case is registered on receipt of the application from the workman under Section 2-A sub-section 2 of

Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010. As per this provision an individual workman can file an application

directly before the Industrial Tribunal for a dispute relating to his dismissal/ termination/ retrenchment/

disengagement. The statement of claim reveals that prayer has been made for directing the management No.1 to

pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the workman for loss of his prestige, dignity, character and harassment and for payment of

Rs.90,000/- towards retrenchment and Rs.40,000/- towards reimbursement of the expenditure made by the

applicant workman in filing the case. Such prayer of claim is not maintainable under the provisions of Section

2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the statement of claim/application filed by the workman being devoid

of merit is stands rejected.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2677

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 938.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंरी

सरकार मेससि जनिेिक, राष्ट्री चावल अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, कटक, ओजडिा एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुवने‍ वर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 42/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

14.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42011/13/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 938.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 42/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director, National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Odisha, Others and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 14.01.2020.

[No. L-42011/13/2017-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRSIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

I.D.CASE NO. 42 OF 2017

Dated Bhubaneswar, the 13^th August, 2019

Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Between:

The Director,

National Rice Research Institute, Bidyadharpur,

Cuttack, Odisha.

The Director General,

Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-II, Pusa,

New Delhi – 110012.

M/s. Anil Security Service Contractor,

C/o. National Rice Research Institute,

Bidyadharpur, Cuttack, Odisha. 753004.

Sh. Tripura Behera,

Contractor, C/o. National Rice Research Institute,

Bidyadharpur, Cuttack, Odisha. 753004.

…First party managements

AND

The General Secretary, CRRI Shramik Sangha,

C/o. National Rice Research Institute,

Bidyadharpur, Cuttack, Odisha. 753004.

…Second party Union

Appearances:

NONE

: For first party managements

Shri Arjuna Ch. Das

: For second party Union

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour have referred the industrial dispute vide its Order

No. L-42011/13/2017 (IR(DU)) dated 5.6.2017 for its adjudication in exercise of power under clause (d) of sub-

2678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

section (1) and sub-section 2-a Of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (herein after

referred to as ‘the Act’) and the schedule of reference is as follows:

“Whether the demand of the union (CRRI Shramik Sangha) for equal pay to equal work in respect of their

member workmen Sri K.K. Sethy & 42 others (list as annexed) who are working under various contractors

at NRRI, Cuttack with 1/30 basic wages of regular Group-C workman along with D.A. & HRA as

applicable at par with contract labour of CIFA & other institutions of ICAR in similar category is legal

and/or justified ?If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

Authorised representative of the Union is present. The case is lingering at the stage of filing of

statement of claim. Authorised representative of the Union files a memo and submits for withdrawal of

reference on a contention that in view of the reference No. L-42011/152/2018 (IR(DU)) dated 19.11.2018 the

dispute arised in the present reference needs no adjudication. According to him the reference in I.D. Case

No.78/2018 is a modification of the present reference. Having regard to the submission it is felt just and proper

to with draw the reference without adjudication as the second party union is not interested to prosecute the

matter. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to the Ministry for information and

necessary action at their end.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 939.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससि अध् क्ष, नेिनल िूट मजन् ुफजक्चरसि कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, कोलकाता और अन् एवं उनके कमिचारी के

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कोलकात के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 01/2011) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 30.09.20 को प्राप्त हुए े।

[सं. एल-42011/32/2011-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2011) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chaiman, National juet Manufacturers Corporation Limited, Kolkata & Others, and their workmen which

were received by the Central Government on 30.09.20.

[No. L-42011/32/2011-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 01 of 2011

Parties:

Employers in relation to the Management of M/s. National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd,

Represented by The Chairman Cum Managing Director having its Registered Office at 4, N.S.Road, Kolkata-

700 01

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

For Management

: Sri D. Barman, Advocate

On Behalf of Workmen

: Mrs. A. Bannerjee, Advocate

State: West Bengal

Industry: Textile

Dated: 16, September 2020

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2679

AWARD

1. Brief Facts are that the Workmen Sri Sadhan Chakraborty, Sri Kundal Mohan Goswami, Sri Rabindra Nath

Biswas, Sri Sujoy Banerjee, Sri Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee, Sri Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Sri Suresh Chandra

Ghosh, had joined at Khardah Unit of M/S National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd on 02.05.1978, August

1985, 27.09.1980, 15.11.1980, 01.05.1986, 02.05.1986 and March 1983 respectively and worked in the

Company continuously and efficiently without any allegation. However they except Suresh Chandra Ghosh

were retrenched by the company w.e.f 18.01.2010 which gave rise to industrial dispute. Consequent upon failure

of conciliation proceedings the matter has been referred by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide order No-L-42011/32/2011-IR (DU) dated 04.04.2011 in exercise of its powers conferred

under section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of the industrial disputes Act 1947 in following terms:

‘‘Whether the action of the managent of National Jute Manufacturing Corporation, Khardah Unit

having registered office at Chartered Bank Building, 2nd floor, 4 N.S.Road, Kolkata-700001, in

retrenching 6 workers namely S/Shri Sadhan Chakraborty, Kundal Mohan Goswami, Rabindra Nath

Biswas, Sujoy Banerjee, Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee and Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, w.e.f 18.01.2010 is

legal and justified ? What relief the workmen are entitled to ?."

2. After receipt of above reference, notices were sent to the parties whereupon the workmen filed their statement

of claim stating that the company illegally retrenched them from w.e.f 18.01.2010 without complying with the

requirements provided under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act ( here-in-after called "The Act" for

brevity) as they did not apply for Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered by the Company. The company also did

not pay to them arrears of salary as per Award no-NT--01 of 1993 by National Tribunal, Kolkata and Agreement

dated-19/20.06.2003 despite direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta in W.P.No-8547 (W) of 2009.

It is further stated that the company arbitrarily neither gave any valid notice giving lawful reason for

retrenchment nor salary in lieu thereof. Thus the workmen have claimed that their retrenchment is illegal and

unjustified and that they should be reinstated with full back wages.

3. In Written Statement filed by the management of Company it has been pleaded that he company had incurred

heavy losses, therefore the company was referred to BIFR on 11th August 1992. After failure of all attempts to

improve performance of mills, BIFR recommended winding up of NJMC in terms of provisions of Sick

Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 and referred the case to Calcutta High Court for further

action. The revival scheme of two mills i.e Kinnison and Khardah was submitted to the Court conveying

Government's intention to revive. It is also stated that the Khardah Mill of the company had been in total

nonfunctioning state since 2005 and all clerical staff and sub-staff had become surplus. The management,

therefore, floated a VRS for the clerical staff and sub-staff whch remained in force till 30th April 2009. The

management could not bear the burden of paying idle salary to any clerical staff and sub-staff of Khardah Mill,

therefore the Khardah Mill was left with no option but to retrench the surplus staff and sub-staff of the Mill. The

workmen under reference were clerical staff and sub-staff of the Khardah Mills who had been retrenched by the

management vide retrenchment notice dated 15th January, 2010 with effect from 18th January, 2010. The

retrenchment was effected on justifiable grounds and on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation, 10% additional amount to be adjusted against shortfall in payment of retrenchment

compensation and also unpaid wages till 16th January, 2010. The provisions of section 25F of the Act had been

duly complied with by the management at the time of effecting the retrenchment of the workmen concerned.

Permission from the appropriate Government was not required before effecting the retrenchment of the

workmen concerned as the industrial establishment did not employ 100 workmen on an average per working

day for the preceding 12 months of the retrenchment in question. It is wrong to say that lawful reason for

retrenchment was not given by the company. The retrenchment notices were sent at the recorded address of the

workmen concerned and the amount mentioned in each of the notices was sent through demand draft. The

reference is, therefore, not maintainable.

4. The workmen also filed their rejoinder reiterating their case as mentioned in their statement of claim.

5. Sri Kundal Mohan Goswami has been examined on behalf of the workmen but he could not be cross-

examined due to absence of the management. Certain documentary evidences have been filed by both the parties

which shall be dealt with at appropriate stage.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

workmen that the retrenchment of the workmen under reference is illegal and not justified in as much as the

provisions of section 25F of the Act were not complied with by the company. No lawful reason for retrenchment

of the workmen was given by the company. The company also did not serve any retrenchment notice in the

prescribed manner to the labour department of the appropriate Government. The company's case is that the

provisions of section 25F of the Act had been duly complied with by the management at the time of effecting

2680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the retrenchment of the workmen. The retrenchment was effected on justifiable grounds and on payment of one

month's pay in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation, 10% additional amount to be adjusted against

shortfall in payment of retrenchment compensation and also unpaid wages till 16th January, 2010.

7. The question which emerges for consideration is whether the management complied with the provisions of

section 25F of the Act before retrenching the workmen under reference. For better appreciation of the point in

controversy, It is apposite to reproduce the provisions of Section 25F of the Act which are as below:

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-

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

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until--

(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

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

the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay² 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 Government³ or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

8. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows that no workman employed in any industry who has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until

the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act are satisfied. Admittedly the

workmen in present case were in continuous service of the Corporation. Hence it was imperative for the

employer to comply with above conditions as enumerated in section 25F of the Act to make retrenchment

effective. The first condition for effecting a valid retrenchment is that the workman sought to be retrenched,

must be given one month's notice before retrenchment is to become effective in case the services are required to

be terminated immediately or to give salary in lieu of one month notice if retrenchment is to be effected before

the expiry of one month. The second and equally important condition is that at the time of retrenchment, the

workman must be paid retrenchment compensation computed at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed

year of service.

9. Where the workmen under reference were in continuous service of the Corporation, burden lies on the

employer Corporation that above conditions were complied with before retrenchment of the workmen. The

Corporation claims that the workmen were given one month salary in lieu of notice and also retrenchment

compensation computed at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed year of service. Though the

Corporation has filed copy of notices dated 15.01.2010 stating therein the reason for retrenchment and also the

fact that demand draft of salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation were sent through speed post as

the workmen had refused to accept the same at 10.45 A.M on 16.01.2010, but It is material to note that no oral

evidence has been adduced by the Corporation to prove the notices and refusal by the workmen. Sri Sadhan

Chakraborty is said to have received the notice and demand draft of one month's notice pay and compensation

but no documentary or oral evidence has been file to prove it. Burden lies on the Corporation to prove that the

notice pay and compensation were tendered to the workmen on or before 18.01.2010, the date of retrenchment.

In notices filed on record the date of demand draft is mentioned but no date of speed post is given. Thus it is not

proved that the notices along with demand drafts were sent to them before their retrenchment. The minimum

which the Corporation ought to have done was to produce the receipt of speed post and AD with which demand

drafts were sent at the address of workmen to show that the offer of compensation was made to the workmen on

18.01.2010. However, the fact of the matter is that no such document was produced. Therefore, I am convinced

with the non- compliance of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act.

10. Apart from above the employer is also required to comply with Clause (c) of section 25F of the Act. Under

clause (c) notice in the prescribed manner is required to be served on the appropriate Government or such

authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government. But in present case admittedly notice on the

appropriate Government was never served. Compliance of condition under clause (c) of section-25F of the Act

is not condition precedent but a condition subsequent and mandatory as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Raj Kumar Vs Director of Education & Ors. AIR 2016 SC 1855. Relevant portion may be reproduced as

under--

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2681

‘‘Thus, this Court read the ID Act and the relevant Rules there under together and arrived at the

conclusion that Section 25F(c) is not a condition precedent for retrenchment. By no stretch of

imagination can this decision be said to have held that there is no need for industries to comply with

this condition at all. At the most, it can be held that Section 25F(c) is a condition subsequent, but is

still a mandatory condition required to be fulfilled by the employers before the order of retrenchment

of the workman is passed."

11. Thus non-compliance of clause (c) of section 25F of the Act is obvious which renders retrenchment of the

workmen illegal and unsustainable. Next question follows whether after the retrenchment has become illegal,

re-instatement of the workmen with full back wages is automatic? It is noteworthy that the workmen neither in

their statement of claim nor in their evidence have mentioned that they were not gainfully employed during the

period after their retrenchment. The question of automatic reinstatement with back wages has been considered

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Board & Another, 2009 IV-L.L.J

336 that the re-instatement is not automatic.--

7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that

if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back

wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and

in long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the

termination of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of

reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

12. In the case in hand the workmen under reference had joined the services of the Corporation thirty five to

forty years back ranging from 1978 to1986. Thus the workmen must have reached the age of superannuation or

must be on the verge of superannuation. In both the cases, their re-instatement is not proper. Therefore, I come

to the conclusion that instead of granting them relief of reinstatement with back wages, it would be more

appropriate to grant them lump sum compensation.

13. In these circumstances the retrenchment orders dated 15.01.2010 terminating services of the workmen under

reference is set side. However, instead of reinstatement the workmen are entitled to get lump sum compensation

of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lac) each.

14. The reference is answered accordingly and Award is passed.

Dated: Kolkata

The 23^rd September, 2020

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 940.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससि अध् क्ष, प्रबंि जनिेिक, ृुनवािस उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड, कोलकाता और अन् एवं उनके कमिचारी के

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कोलकाता के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 30/2006) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 30.09.20 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/59/2006-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2006) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Managing Director, Rehabilitation Industries Corporation Limited, Kolkata Kolkata & Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 30.09.20.

[No. L-42012/59/2006-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 30 of 2006

Parties:

Employers in relation to the Management of Rehabilitation Industries Corporation Ltd, Represented by The

Chairman Cum Managing Director having its Registered Office at 25, Mirza Galib Street, Kolkata-700 016.

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

For Management

: Sri D. Barman, Advocate

On Behalf of Workmen

: Mr. S.S. Roy, Advocate

: Sri S. K. Karmakar Advocate

State: West Bengal

Industry:

Dated: 23^rd September, 2020

AWARD

Bereft of unnecessary details the workman Sri Paresh Chandra Rey Was working in The

Rehabilitation Industries Corporation Ltd since 1976 in its Leather Unit factory at Boonhooghly on temporary

basis and he continued in the service till 13^th October 1980 when his services were terminated by the

management of the company. The issue of termination of his services was taken up by the Union resulting in an

industrial dispute. Consequent upon failure of conciliation proceedings the matter has been referred by the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide order No-L-42012/59/2006-IR (DU) dated

08.11.2006 in exercise of its powers conferred under section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of the industrial disputes Act

1947 in following terms:

‘‘Whether the action of the managent of Rehabilitation Industries Corporation Ltd, National Jute

Manufacturing Corporation Ltd, in terminating the services of Sri Paresh Chandra w.e.f 13.10.1980 is

legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled to ?."

2. After receipt of above reference, notices were sent to the parties whereupon the workmen filed his statement

of claim stating that the company illegally terminating his services without following the provisions of Section

25F of Act. It is further pleaded that as per standing practice of employment the workman who has completed

240 days would acquire the right to be absorbed as permanent workman in the particular unit. The workman

has worked for 240 days. Hence he has acquired unfettered and indefeasible right to have the permanent status

and as such he was deemed to be declared as permanent workman but the company has not extended the said

benefit to him with some ulterior motive and thereby deprive him of his legitimate right and claim. The

management, in order to confuse the matter, took the plea that the workman was appointed on casual basis.

3. No written statement is filed by the management despite service of notice. Hence the case proceeded exparte

against the management and exparte evidence was recorded. The workman filed his affidavit in support of his

case. However at the stage of argument the workman also remained absent.

4. The case of the workman is that the termination of his services which is subject mater of this reference is

illegal and not justified in as much as the provisions of section 25F of the Act were not complied with by the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2683

management of the company. The company’s version could not be brought on the record as no written

statement of the management is on the record.

5. For better appreciation of the point in controversy, It is apposite to reproduce the provisions of Section 25F

of the Act which are as below:

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-

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

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until--

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent

to fifteen days' average pay² 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 Government³ or such authority as

may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

8. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions of section-25F of the Act shows that no workman employed

in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be

retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Section 25-F of the Act are satisfied. Now

before examining the compliance of provisions of section 25F of the Act, it is necessary to look into whether the

workman concerned was in continuous service for not less than one year which is condition precedent for the

application of section 25F of the Act. If answer is in the affirmative then only Clauses (a) and (b) of section 25F

of the Act would apply.

9. “Continuous service” has been defined under section 25B of the Act, which says where a workman is not in

continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) of section 25B of the Act for the period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer when he has actually worked for not

less than two hundred and forty days. The case of the workman is that he has worked for more than 240 days for

the year preceding his termination. Now on the question of burden to prove the completion of 240 days of

continuous work in the year in question, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Range Forest Officer Vs S.T.Hadimani,

2002 (93) FLR 179 has held--

“In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the Management without first

determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in

the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim

was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact

worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own

statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to

come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt

of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was

produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”

10. In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan & Another, 2004 (4) LLN 845 :

Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs Srinibas, 2004 (4) LLN 785 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

Vs Hariram , 2004 (4) LLN 839 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that burden of proof lies

on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his

alleged termination and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove that the

factum of his being in employment of the employer.

11. Referring and analyzing earlier judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in leading case of

R.M Yellatti Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 again held that burden lies on the

workman concerned. The relevant paragraph of the judgment may be reproduced as below:

“Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms

do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying

general principles and on reading the afore stated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly

taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a

given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden

2684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of

termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination.

There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can

only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period,

the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing

of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions

however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman

will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he

had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-

production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be

the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above

judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless

they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case.”

12. Thus applying above principles to the facts of the present case, except for examining himself on affidavit the

workman has filed no document to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one

year prior to his alleged termination. The workman is alleged to have been terminated on 13^th October 1980.

Hence burden lies on the workman to show that he worked for 240 days in preceding one year prior to his

termination i.e from October 1979 to September 1980, but there is nothing on record to prove this fact. The

workman has filed copy of a document dated 31.08.1976 to show that he has worked from 31.08.1976 to

31.12.1976 but this document does not support the workman’s case.

13. Thus in view of above, it cannot be said that the workman concerned worked continuously for one year as

required by Section 25F of the Act. Hence protection of Section 25F is not available to the workman concerned

and his termination is held to be valid and justified. The question under reference is answered in affirmative.

The workman is not entitled for any relief.

14. The Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata

The 23^rd September 2020

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj cSad vkQ cMkSnk 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;] bZjukdqye] dksphu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 21@2014½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-39025@01@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2020

S. O. 941.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, Cochin as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Bank of Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.10.2020.

[No. L-39025/01/2020-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2685

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 24^th day of February 2020, 5 Phalguna 1941)

ID No. 21/2014

Workman

Shri. Manoharan K.

10 Lakshamveedu Colony

Thiruvankulam

Ernakulam – 682305

By Adv.Ashok B. Shenoy

M/s. ANP Associates

Management

The Regional Manager

Bank of Baroda

Regional Office, Vasudeva Building

T. D. Road

Ernakulam – 682011

By M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 09.01.2020 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

24.02.2020 passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed U/s 2(A)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The workman was employed in the subordinate cadre as a Peon in the service of the management Bank

at their M.G.Road, Ernakulam branch in Ernakulam district. He was employed from 21.08.2009. He was

employed continuously and regularly against a regular and permanent vacancy to do regular and permanent

nature of duties of Peon. He had been discharging all the duties entrusted to him diligently, honestly and without

any complaints. On 23.11.2013 the workman’s services were orally terminated by the Manager of M.G.Road,

Ernakulam branch of the management Bank. The workman raised an industrial dispute against the management

challenging the termination of his service before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on 29.11.2013.

The conciliation proceedings ended up in failure. According to the workman, the termination of his service by

the management amounts to retrenchment. The workman was employed continuously from 21.08.2009 to

23.11.2013 and he was retrenched from service of the Bank without any notice of retrenchment or wages in lieu

of such notice as mandated by Sec 25F of the ID Act, 1947. The management did not pay any retrenchment

compensation as mandated in Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947. Retrenchment of workman’s service is therefore illegal,

unjust and also null and void. It is also illegal, unjust and void for violation of provisions of Para 522, 523 and

524 of Sastri Award. Employees much junior in service to the workman are retained in service by the

management. This is in violation of mandatory provisions of Sec 25G of the ID Act, 1947 and Para 507 of Sastri

Award. The management employed fresh and new hands in service of the management against the very same

work for which the workman was employed. This is in violation of Sec 25H of ID Act, 1947 and Clause 20.12

of 1^stBipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1996 and Para 493 of Sastri Award. Hence the termination of the workman is

illegal and is stained by malafide and victimization. The workman was treated by the management as temporary

workman against permanent vacancy just to deprive him off the status and privilege of a permanent workman.

By adopting this practice, the management was indulging in unfair labour practice prohibited U/s 25T of ID Act,

1947 and Para 495 and 522 of Sastri Award. In terms of clause 20.12 of the 1^st Bipartite Settlement

dt.19.10.1966 the management is bound to retain and absorb the workman in regular service especially when the

vacancy against which he was employed is permanent and continues to exist. Since retrenchment the workman

is without any job and income. Hence the workman pleaded that the action of the management in terminating

the services of the workman w.e.f. 23.11.2013 be declared illegal and unjust and also declared that he be

reinstated in service of the management with full back wages, continuity of service and other attended benefits.

The management filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim statement. The workman

in this case was neither employed by the Bank nor any letter of appointment issued to him. Hence there is no

question of terminating the service of the workman and application U/s 2A (2) of ID Act is not maintainable.

The above dispute is not referred by appropriate Govt and the claim of the workman is required to be rejected on

that ground also. The management is a nationalized public sector bank having prescribed rules and procedures,

2686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

policies and norms in the matter of recruitment in their regular service. For the appointment in the subordinate

cadre, recruitment is made through notification through Employment Exchange and after complying the

formalities of test and interview. The instructions and guidelines of Govt. of India and Reserve Bank of India in

the matter of reservation are also being followed in the matter. The competent authority for sanctioning of

regular post in the subordinate staff cadre in the management Bank is General Manager(HRM) and the

appointment authority is the Regional Head. The Branch Managers have no authority for appointments in the

management Bank. The workman is not appointed in the management Bank by the competent authority. He was

not engaged in any regular vacancy in any branch of the Bank. There is no employer- employee relationship

between the workman and the management. The workman was intermittently engaged as daily wager on

casual/temporary basis at Ernakulam M.G.Road branch of the management Bank from 21.08.2009 to

23.11.2013. He was paid appropriate wages on daily basis. He was not engaged 240 or more days at any point of

time. He was not engaged against a sanctioned post in the management Bank. It is not correct to allege that he

was engaged against a regular and permanent vacancy. The workman was not given any appointment letter or

even subjected to any recruitment procedure. The workman was engaged by Branch Manager who is not the

appointing authority. Even if he worked for more than 240 days he will not be entitled to claim reinstatement as

he was engaged by Branch Manager who is not the competent appointing authority for appointing subordinate

staff. Management Bank is a public sector organization and is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of

India. Appointment to any post in the management is made only after complying with the statutory rules,

regulations and directions issued by Govt of India from time to time. The appointment in the subordinate staff

cadre is to be made by the competent authority only against sanctioned vacancies and also subject to fulfillment

of eligibility criteria for such appointment. The appointment to the subordinate cadre can be done only through

Employment Exchange. If suitable candidates are not available with Employment Exchange, the management

can explore other sources of recruitment. The workman in this case was never sponsored by Employment

Exchange and not subject to any recruitment procedure. The action of the management in dis-engaging the

service of the workman is proper, legal and valid and there is no violation of the provisions of the ID Act or the

provisions of the Sastri Award. It is baseless and incorrect to allege that the management has violated Sec 25F,

25G and 25H of the ID Act and the provisions of Bipartite Settlement and Sastri Award. It is baseless and

incorrect to allege that the management is in the habit of employing workman against permanent vacancies one

after another and retrench them to be replaced by new hands. The management denied any unfair labour

practice or violation of provisions of ID Act, Bipartite Settlement and Sastri Award. Constitution of India

envisages right of equality and equal opportunity in the matter of public employment under Article 14 and 16

of the Constitution. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or on

contractual basis to claim regularization and absorption in the regular service.

The workman filed replication denying the allegations in the written statement filed by the

management. As per Sec 2A(2) of the ID Act, where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or

otherwise terminates the service of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman

and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall

be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman or any union of workman is

party to the dispute. The management Bank employed the workman on 11.08.2009 against a permanent

vacancy of Peon. No permanent hand was posted thereafter till 23.11.2013 and the workman was employed

continuously and regularly and was discharging the duties of regular and permanent nature. The workman

was entrusted with duties of a sub staff and was under supervision of the branch authorities and had access to

all areas in the premises of the branch including security areas. He had been paid wages against voucher slips

duly authorised by branch authorities and accounted against bank’s Profit & Loss account. The workman was

also paid Bonus upto 23.11.2013 when his services were abruptly terminated without notice. The engagement

of the workman by the Bank was continuous without break and even Sundays are considered as a paid holiday

as is available to every permanent employees. The management Bank is having 85 branches and 2 Administrate

Offices in Kerala and the permanent employees working in the ‘state’ in the subordinate cadre is only 90. There

are considerable number of temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of permanent nature. The management

had regularized 37 temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of permanent nature during the years 2009-10 and

2011. As many as 1966 officers were recruited through campus selection and the averment of the management

that the recruitments are done only through proper notification and selection process is only to justify the denial

of employment to the workman. After retrenchment of the workman w.e.f. 23.11.2013, a new temporary

employee is engaged by the management in Ernakulam M.G.Road branch without affording the workman an

opportunity for re-employment. Sponsorship by Employment Exchange is not a condition precedent for

employment in the post and job against which the workman herein was employed in the management Bank.

Permanent employment is denied to the workman by the management Bank only to deny him the benefits

available to permanent employees.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2687

On completion of pleadings, the workman examined himself as WW1 and marked Exbits.W1 and W2.

Management examined MW1 and MW2 and marked Exbts.M1 to M7 and W3 & W4.

On the basis of the pleadings, the issue to be decided are

1. Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable?

2. Whether the termination of the workman by the management is illegal

and whether he is entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 23.11.2013.?

3. Relief and cost

Issue No. 1 & 2

The management pointed out that an application U/s 2A(2) of the ID Act is not maintainable as there is

no employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management Bank. The management also

pointed out that the dispute is not referred by the appropriate Govt. and the worker is not represented by any

union. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, as per Sec 2A of the ID Act, where an employer

discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminate the services of an individual workman, any dispute or

difference between the workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman

nor any union of the workman is party to the dispute. It is admitted by the management that the workman was

engaged as a Peon on 11.08.2009 and he was dis-engaged on 23.11.2013. Hence there is no controversy on the

fact that there is an industrial dispute as per Sec 2A of the ID Act and the industrial dispute is maintainable.

According to the workman, he was engaged as peon at M.G.Road, Ernakulam branch on 21.8.2009.

He was continued to be employed till 23.11.2013. On 23.11.2013 the workman’s services were orally

terminated by the Branch Manager. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, the oral termination of

the workman amounts to retrenchment. However he was not issued any notice of retrenchment nor wages in lieu

of notice as mandated U/s 25F of ID Act, 1947. The retrenchment of the workman’s service is therefore illegal,

unjust and null and void in law. It is also in violation of Paras 522, 523 & 524 of Sastri Award. According to

the learned Counsel for the management, the workman was never employed by the management Bank and

intermittently used his services as daily wager on casual/temporary basis at M.G.Road, Ernakulam branch of the

management Bank from 11.08.2009 to 23.11.2013, as and when there was some contingencies of work and he

was paid daily wages for the services rendered by him. This engagement is only temporary/casual on a day to

day basis and the workman has no right of employment in the management Bank. The management Bank is a

nationalized bank and therefore follows prescribed rules and procedures for appointment in its regular service.

For appointment in the subordinate staff cadre, the recruitment is made through notification in the employment

exchange and after complying the formalities of test and interview. The workman was not given any

appointment order and there was no retrenchment of the workman by the management Bank. According to the

learned Counsel for the workman policies and procedures relied on by the management Bank are for regular

recruitment and workman has no claim for regularization. According to the learned Counsel for the workman,

the management resorted to regularization of temporary and casual subordinate staff on the basis of settlement

between the union and the management. The learned Counsel for the workman also argued that on the basis of a

Bipartite Settlement between the management Bank and All India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation, 37

temporary subordinate employees were appointed as permanent employees in Kerala branches from 2008 to

2011. The learned Counsel for the workman relied on Exbt.W4 agreement between the Management and the

union to substantiate the point. The management relied on Exbt.M1 to point out that HR Resourcing Policy

covers the appointment of subordinate staff also. According to the learned Counsel for the management,

General Manager(HRM) is the competent authority to sanction the post of sub staff in various zones. It is seen

in Para 7.0 of Exbt.M1, that there is a provision for engagement of sub staff on temporary basis. This

provisions authorized engagement of sub staff for a limited period not exceeding 90 days by the branches. Such

temporary engagement also requires the approval of General Manager(HRM). According to MW1, the Branch

Managers also appoint subordinate staff on temporary basis. He also confirmed that Exbt.M1 document at

Clause 7.3 authorises the Branch Managers to engage temporary staff and the Branch Managers are liable to

report such appointments to General Manager(HRM) of regional office. He also confirmed that for not reporting

such appointments to regional office, disciplinary action can be taken against Branch Managers. However no

disciplinary action was taken against MW1 for appointing the workman as a temporary Peon and for not

reporting the same to Regional Office. He has also stated in evidence that there was no audit objection

regarding the appointment of the workman and also for payment of salary to him. He confirmed that Exbt.M2

to M7 will clearly indicate the number of days that the workman worked in the Bank every year during his

service with the Bank. MW2 also confirmed in his evidence, that no departmental action was taken against the

2688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Branch Manager for engaging the workman as a temporary Peon and paying him salary. From the above

evidence it is very clear that the workman was appointed with the approval of the competent authority and the

payments made to him were fully authorized.

The workman filed an application for production of certain records substantiate to his case that he was

working with the management Bank for more than 240 days in one year immediately prior to his retrenchment.

The management produced

True copy of the Savings Bank account statement for the period 16.01.2010 to 23.11.2013 for the

A/c No.05600100011904 in the name of Sri. Manoharan, the workman in this case. This

document is marked as Exbt.M2 in the proceedings.

True

copy

the

Ledger

account

statement

Sundry

charges

A/c No. 05600054511004 maintained at Ernakulam main branch from 21.08.2009 to 23.11.2013.

This document is marked as Exbt.M3.

True copy of the Debit vouchers relating to the wages paid to temporary employees in A/c

No. 05600054511004 from 21.08.2009 to 23.11.2013. This document is marked as Exbt.M4 in

this proceedings.

True copy of Form-C bonus paid statement under payment of Bonus Act, 1965 submitted to the

controlling authority by Ernakulam main branch for the financial year ending 31.03.2010,

31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, and 31.03.2013. This document is marked as Exbt.M5 in this

proceedings.

True copy of the statement of office account bonus paid A/c no.05600052431001 maintained at

Ernakulam branch from 21.08.2009 to 31.03.2014. This document is marked as Exbt.M6 in this

proceedings.

Debit vouchers relating to bonus paid to employees during the financial year 2008-2009,

2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. This document is marked as Exbt. M7 in this

proceedings.

10.

On a perusal of Exbt.M3, it is seen that the workman was paid wages for 335 days immediately one

year prior to his termination on 23.11.2013. Exbt.M4 is the corresponding debit vouchers relating to the wages

paid to the workman. From Exbt. M5, the Form-C bonus paid statement for the year 2010-11 it is seen that the

workman worked 307 days in the year and he was paid a salary of Rs.1,04,632/- and he was paid Bonus of

Rs.8400/-. For the year 2012 he has worked for 307 days and was paid a salary of Rs.1,03,216/- and was paid

Rs.7700/- as Bonus. For the year 2013, he worked for 318 days and was paid a salary of Rs.1,12,671/- and was

paid Bonus of Rs.7700/-. The corresponding debit vouchers are also produced and is marked as Exbt.M7. The

workman through these documents proved that he worked for more than 240 days during one year immediately

before his termination on 23.11.2013. Hence the management is liable to follow the conditions precedent

contemplated U/s 25F of ID Act, 1947 before termination of his service.

11.

The learned Counsel for the management argued that the workman in this case is only a casual

employee on daily wages and hence he is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the ID Act. The learned

Counsel for the workman relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Sreekumar K.Vs

Managing Director, KTDC Ltd, 2019 (1) KHC 225 to point out that the definition in Sec 2(s)of the ID Act

includes casual employees also. In the above case the Hon’ble High Court held that;

“ Para 18. From this it is quiet evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2(s) of the ID Act

includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra) (in the context governed by

the provisions of the workman’s Compensation Act) is not at all attracted to the case in hand.”

12.

The learned Counsel for the management relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and the State of Bihar and others Vs Devendra Sharma,

Civil Appeal no. 7879/2019, to argue that the management Bank being a ‘state ‘ under Article 12 of the

Constitution, no back door entry in service can be allowed violating Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel for the workman on the other hand relied on various decisions and argued that when there

is a violation of the provisions of ID Act, the dictum laid down in the above decisions is clearly distinguishable.

In Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 321 the

Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) and held that ;

“17. In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our Constitution, a

Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2689

ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16

of the constitution of India. The provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and powers of the Industrial

and Labour Court provided therein were not at all under consideration in Uma Devi’s case (3). The

issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was decided in

Uma Devi’s case.

18. We have noticed that Industrial Disputes Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and

certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving

them the status and privilege of permanent employees.

19. Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer is entitled to benefit under the said provisions if the employer retrenches

the workman. Such a workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month 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 apart from compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in

excess of 6 months. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the

appropriate Govt. or such Authority as may be specified by appropriate Govt by notification in the

official Gazette. If any part of the provisions of Sec 25F is violated and the employer there by, resorts

to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with privilege as provided under the

Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the

employee was in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

Para.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Para.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Para 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment“ on the ground that the

initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of

India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment for such ground, unfair labour practice cannot

be resorted to and thereby the workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and

other benefits in terms of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240

days in a calendar year”.

The above decisions was also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur

Casual Workers Union and others Vs Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 Supreme Court

Cases 786. The Hon’ble Court held that an undertaking of the government which comes within the meaning of

‘industry’ or its establishment cannot justify its illegal action including unfair labour practice nor can ask for

different treatment on the ground that public undertaking is guided by Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India

and the private industries are not guided by 14 & 16 of the Constitution. In Umrala Grama Panchayat Vs

Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, 2015 12 SCC 775 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the

services of the workmen in that case be regularized and made permanent since they worked for more than 240

days in a calendar year.

13.

In view of the above, it is very clear that the management terminated the service of the worker in clear

violation of the provisions of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

14.

The workman also pleaded that he was terminated from the service of the management Bank in

violation of Sec 25G of the ID Act, on the ground that the employees much junior in service to him were

retained in service when he was terminated from the service of the Bank. The workman did not lead any

evidence to substantiate and support violation of Sec 25G of the ID Act. The workman also alleged that the

management appointed fresh hands against the post held by him for doing the same job which he was doing.

Having retrenched him from service of the management Bank the workman has a right to be offered re-

employment against any future vacancy in preference over others. The management failed to implement the

mandate of Sec 25H of the ID Act. There is no evidence in the proceedings to support the case of the workman

that the management violated Sec 25H of the ID Act. The workman also claimed that the management violated

Sec 25T of the ID Act by resorting to the unfair labour practice of employing the workman as casual employee

and continued his service for years together with the object of depriving him the status and privilege of a

permanent workman. As per Sec 2(r)(a), “unfair labour practice” means any practice specified in the 5^th

Scheduled of the Act. In the 5^th Schedule 1(X), “the action of the management to employ workman as badali’s,

casuals or temporary and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them the status and

2690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

privilege of permanent workman, is classified as an unfair labour practice on the side of the management. In this

particular case, it is seen that the workman was appointed as a casual employee on 21.8.2009 and he continued

till 23.11.2013 as a casual employee and his services were terminated when a regular employee joined the

service of the management Bank. Hence it is very clear that the workman was working against a regular post

for little over 3 years and his service were terminated when a regular employee joined the service of the

management Bank. This is a clear case of unfair labour practice.

15.

Considering all the above facts, pleadings and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that the

termination of the workman from the services of the management Bank is abinito void and is in violation of Sec

25F of ID Act, 1947 and retaining him as daily wage employee for more than 3 years and denying him the

benefits of a regular employee is an unfair labour practice in violating of Sec 25T of ID Act.

16.

Issue No.3

Issue No.2 regarding the legality of termination of the workman was decided in favour of the workman

and against the management. The learned Counsel for the workman argued that once this Tribunal found that the

termination of the workman was illegal, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages. The

learned Counsel for the management argued that in the special circumstances of this case, it may not be ideal to

order reinstatement with full back wages and he argued that it is ideal to provide monetary compensation in the

place of reinstatement. Relying on the decision of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs Rajkumar, 2019 1

LLJ 513 SC the learned Counsel for the management argued that the workman was a daily wages employee and

he continued as a daily wage employee and is not entitled for regularization considering the spirit of the decision

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (Supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

above referred case relying on the decision of BSNL Vs Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District

Development Officer and another Vs Satish Kantilal Amerelia 2018 12 SCC 298 held that in the

circumstances of that case it would be just and proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary

compensation to the workman in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential

benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law on the subject in BSNL case (Supra) as follows;

“ Para 33. It is clear from the readings of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of

reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied

mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent

workmen are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, of unfair labour

practice, etc. However when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the

termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Sec 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should given monetary compensation which will

meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

Para 34. The reasons for denying the relief for reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law

that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non payment of retrenchment compensation

and notice pay as mandatorily required U/s 25F of the ID Act, even after reinstatement, it is always

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

compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated

he has no right to seek regularization [see State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi(3)]. Thus when he cannot

claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is

going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the

Court itself in as much as if he going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given

monetary compensation by the Court itself in as much as if he is terminated again after reinstatement,

he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice

pay. In such a situation giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any

purpose.

Para 35. We would, however, like to add a cavate here. There may be cases where termination of daily

wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in

violation of the principles of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors

to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under

some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker

should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course

of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases reinstatement should be the rule and

only in exceptional cases, for the reasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied.’’

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2691

The learned Counsel for the workman on the other hand relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Jasmar Singh Vs State of Haryana and other, 2015 4 SCC 458 and argued that the workman is

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages since the order of termination was void abinitio. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the above case relied on the following observation of the court in Deepali Gundu Surwase

Vs Kranti Junior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya, 2013 10 SCC 324 to hold that when the termination is found to

be illegal, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

“ Para 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or

removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which

he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person

who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in

terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee

relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned but his

entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are

deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the

family has to borrow from relatives and other aquittance to avoid starvation. These sufferings

continued till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the

employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent

judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultravires the relevant

statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages.

If the employer was to deny back wages to the employee, or contesting his entitlement to get

consequential benefits then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening

period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back

wages to an employee who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to

indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the

obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments”.

In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a workman working as a

daily paid worker in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Karnal) for more than 240 days.

In the present case, it is true that the workman was engaged as a daily wage employee and he worked

continuously for more than 240 days for one year before his termination and it is also found that his continued

employment for prolonged time as a daily wage workman was an unfair labour practice U/s 25T of ID Act as he

was engaged as a casual employee for years together with the object of depriving him off the status and

privilege of permanent workman. The management failed to establish that the workman was gainfully engaged

during the period of termination. Hence it is not a simple case where the procedure contemplated U/s 25F of ID

Act is violated.

Considering all the facts, evidence and pleadings, I am inclined to hold that the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in the service of the management Bank with full back wages, continuity of service and other

consequential benefits.

Hence an award is passed holding that the termination of the workman from the services of the

management Bank from 23.11.2013 is illegal, unjust and abinitio void. He is entitled to be reinstated in service

of the Bank with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attended benefits.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 24^thday of February,

2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Shri.Manoharan K., dt.07.04.2016

Witness for the Management:-

MW1 -

Narayanan C., dt.18.09.2019

MW2

Shri.Ziyad Rahuman M., dt.18.09.2019

2692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibits for the Workman:-

True copy of representation dt.29.11.2013 filed by workman before the Asst.Labour

Commissioner(C), Ernakulam

True copy of the letter no.07/26/2013/D2 dt.07.03.2014 by Asst.Labout Commissioner (C),

Ernakulam

True copy of letter dt.04.03.2013 issued by the Dy.General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal

Office, Chennai under RTI Act.

True copy of Tripartite Settlement dt.18.03.2008 between Bank of Baroda and All India Bank of

Baroda Employees’ Federation

True copy of Settlement dt.25.11.2013 between the management of Union Bank of India and the

All India Bank of Union Bank of India Employees’ Association.

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dt.25.06.2013 between the management of Bank of

India and Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions

True copy of letter dt.09.04.2013 of Asst.General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Head

Office, Trivandrum enclosing a Memorandum of Settlement dt.21.10.2011 between the

management of SBT and SBT Employees Union.

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dt.30.08.2014 between the management of Canara

Bank and Canara Bank Employees Union.

True copy of DBOD.CORIA No.15968/04.03.001.2013/13 dt.09.05.2013 issued by Reserve

Bank of India.

W10

True copy of letter dt.27.02.2013 issued by the Dy. Manager, Bank of Baroda, Corporate Center,

Bombay under RTI Act, 2005

Exhibits for the Management:-

True copy of the HR Resourcing Policy of Bank of Baroda

True copy of the statement of Account no.05600100011904 for the period 16.01.2010 to

23.11.2013.

True copy of the ledger account statement of Sundry charges. Account No.05600054511004 of

Ernakulam main branch from 21.08.2009 to 23.11.2013

True copy of debit vouchers relating to wages paid to temporary employees account

No.05600054511004 from 21.08.2009 to23.11.2013

True copy of Form C Bonus paid stamped statement submitted to the Controlling Authority by

the Ernakulam Main Branch for the financial year ending 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011 31.03.2012

and 31.03.2013

True copy of the statement of Bonus account no.05600052431001 maintained at Ernakulami

branch from 21.08.2009 to 31.03.2014

True copy of debit vouchers relating to bonus paid to employees during the financial years

2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj cSad vkQ cMkSnk 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;] bZjukdqye] dksphu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 33@2012½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-39025@01@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2693

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2020

S. O. 942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, Cochin as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Bank of Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.10.2020.

[No. L-39025/01/2020-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 24^th day of February 2020,5 Phalguna1941)

ID No. 33/2012

Workman

: Smt. Sunitha Lakshmanan K.V.

Avaramkottu House

Enanalloor, Kakkattoor

Muvattupuzha – 686675

By Adv. Ashok B. Shenoy

Management : The Assistant General Manager

Bank of Baroda

Regional Office

Vasudeva Building

T.D. Road

Ernakulam – 682011

By M/s.B.S. Krishna Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 09.01.2020 and this Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt

on24.02.2020 passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed U/s 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The workman was employed in the subordinate cadre as a sweeper in the service of the management

Bank at their Muvattupuzha branch in Ernakulam district. She was employed from 26.11.2007 since the branch

started functioning. She was employed continuously and regularly against a regular and permanent vacancy to

do regular and permanent nature of duties of sweeper. She had been discharging all the duties entrusted to her

diligently, honestly and without any complaints. On 29.10.2011 the workman’s services were orally terminated

by the Manager of Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank. The workman raised an industrial dispute

against the management challenging the termination of her service before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) on 31.10.2011. The conciliation proceeding sended up in failure. According to the workman the

termination of her service by the management amounts to retrenchment. The workman was employed

continuously from 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011 and she was retrenched from service of the Bank without any

notice of retrenchment or wages in lieu of such notice as mandated by Sec 25F of the ID Act, 1947. The

management did not pay any retrenchment compensation as mandated in Sec 25F of IDAct, 1947. Retrenchment

of workman’s service is therefore illegal, unjust and also null and void. It is also illegal, unjust and void for

violation of provisions of Para 522, 523 and 524 of Sastri Award. Employees much junior in service to the

workman are retained in service by the management. This is in violation of mandatory provisions of Sec 25G of

the ID Act, 1947 and Para 507 of Sastri Award. The management employed fresh and new hands in service of

the management against the very same work for which the workman was employed. This is inviolation of Sec

25H of ID Act, 1947 and Clause 20.12 of 1^stBipartite settlement dt.19.10.1996 and Para 493 of Sastri Award.

Hence the termination of the workman is illegal and is stained by malafide and victimization. The workman was

treated by the management as temporary workman against permanent vacancy just to deprive her off the status

and privilege of a permanent workman. By adopting this practice, the management was indulging in unfair

labour practice prohibited U/s25T of ID Act, 1947 and Para 495 and 522 of Sastri Award. In terms of clause

20.12 of the 1^st Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1966 the management is bound to retain and absorb the workman

2694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in regular service especially when the vacancy against which she was employed is permanent and continues to

exist. Since the retrenchment the workman is without any job and income. Hence the workman pleaded that the

action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 29.10.2011 be declared illegal and

unjust and also declared that she be reinstated in service of the management with full back wages, continuity of

service and other attended benefits.

The management filed written statement denying the above allegations. According to the management,

the above application and the adjudication here on are not maintainable under law. The workman was neither

employed in the bank nor any letter of appointment was issued to her and therefore there is no question of

termination of her service. Hence application U/s 2A(2) of ID Act is not maintainable. The above dispute is not

maintained by appropriate Govt and hence there is no industrial dispute contemplated under the ID Act. The

workman is not represented by any union and hence the application is liable to be dismissed.

The management is a nationalized public sector Bank with prescribed rules and policies in the matter of

recruitment into its regular service. For appointment in the subordinate cadre, recruitment is made through

notification to Employment Exchange and after complying with the formalities of test and interview. The

instructions and guidelines of Govt and Reserve Bank of India in the matter of reservation are also strictly

followed in the matter of recruitment. The competent authority for sanctioning of regular post in the subordinate

staff cadre in the management Bank is General Manager (HRM) and the appointing authority is the Regional

Head. The Branch Managers can neither sanction nor appoint staff in the subordinate cadre in the management

Bank. The worker in the dispute was not appointed in the management Bank by the competent authority. She

was not engaged in any regular vacancy in any branch of the Bank. She was not appointed an employee of the

managementBank. There is no employer-employee relationship between the worker and the management. The

worker was intermittently engaged as daily wager on casual/temporary basis at the Muvattupuzha branch of

themanagement Bank during 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011. She was being paid appropriate wages on daily basis.

She was not engaged 240 days at any point of time. She was not engaged against a sanctioned post in the

management Bank. The worker was not subjected to any recruitment process by the management Bank and no

appointment letter was given to her. The worker was engaged by Branch Manager who is not the appointing

authority or the sanctioning authority in the management Bank. Temporary and casual engagements on day to

day basis will not create any right of employment in the management Bank. The worker was engaged

intermittently as daily wager from 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011 as sweeper cum peon. Her engagement for 240

days or above alone will not entitle her to claim reinstatement or regularization in the service of the Bank. Her

engagement was through Branch Manager who is not the competent appointing authority for subordinate staff

in the management Bank. The management is a public sector Bank and is a “State” under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India. Appointment to any post in the management is made only after complying with the

statutory rules, regulations and directions issued by Govt of India from time to time. The appointment in the

subordinate staff cadre is to be made by the competent authority only against sanctioned vacancies and also

subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria for such appointment. The appointment to the subordinate cadre can

be done only through Employment Exchange. If suitable candidates are not available with Employment

Exchange, the management can explore other sources of recruitment. The workman in this case was never

sponsored by Employment Exchange and not subject to any recruitment procedure. The action of the

management in dis-engaging the service of the workman is proper, legal and valid and there is no violation of

the provisions of the ID Act or the provisions of the Sastri Award. It is baseless and incorrect to allege that the

management has violated Sec 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act and the provisions of Bipartite Settlement and

Sastri Award. It is baseless and incorrect to allege that the management is in the habit of employing workman

againstpermanentvacancies one after another and to retrench them to be replaced by new hands. The

management denied any unfair labour practice or violation of provisions of ID Act, Bipartite Settlement and

Sastri Award. Constitution of India envisages right of equality and equal opportunity in the matter of public

employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There is no fundamental right in those who have been

employed on daily wages or on contractual basis to claim regularization and absorption in the regular service.

The worker filed replication denying the allegations in the written statement filed by the management.

As per Sec 2A(2) of the ID Act, where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates

the service of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer

connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be

an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman nor any union of workman is party to the dispute.

The management Bank employed the workman on 26.11.2007 against a permanent vacancy of Sweeper when

the branch of the management Bank was opened. No permanent hand was posted thereafter till 29.10.2011 and

the workman was employed continuously and regularly and was discharging the duties of regular and permanent

nature. The workman was entrusted with duties of a substaff and was under supervision of the branch

authorities and had access to all areas in the premises of the branch including security areas. She had been paid

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2695

wages against voucher slips duly authorised by branch authorities and accounted against bank’s Profit &Loss

account. The workman was also paid bonus upto 29.10.2011 when her services were abruptly terminated

without notice. The engagement of the workman by the Bank was continuous without break and even Sundays

are considered as a paid holiday as is available to every permanent employees. The management Bank is having

85 branches and 2 Administrate Offices in Kerala and the permanent employees working in the ‘state’ in the

subordinate cadre is only 90. There are considerable number of temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of

permanent nature. The management had regularized 37 temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of permanent

nature during the years 2009-10 and 2011. As many as 1966 officers were recruited through campus selection

and the averment of the management that the recruitments are done only through proper notification and

selection process is only to justify the denial of employment to the workman. After retrenchment of the

workman w.e.f. 29.10.2011, a new temporary employee is engaged by the management in Muvattupuzha

branch without affording the workman an opportunity for re-employment. Sponsorship by Employment

Exchange is not a condition precedent for employment in the post and job against which the workman herein

was employed in the management Bank. Permanent employment is denied to the workman by the management

Bank only to deny her the benefits available to permanent employees.

After completion of pleadings, the worker filed an IA seeking production of the following documents.

Statement of A/c No.31140100000282 maintained at Muvattupuzha branch of the management

Bank in the name of the workman for the period from 26.11.2011 to 29.10.2011

Ledger a/c statement of Sundry charges and others A/c No.3114005454511004 maintained at

Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank for the period from 26.11.2011

Debit vouchers relating to wages paid to the temporary staff employees to the debit A/c

No.31140054554511004 maintained at Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank for

theperiod from 26.11.2011 to 29.11.2011.

Form-C bonus paid statement/register under payment of Bonus Act, 1965 of Muvattupuzha

branch of the management Bank for the financial year ended 31.03.2008, 31.03.2009,

31.03.2010, 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012.

The management produced item no. 1 & 2 and few debit vouchers of item no. 3 and Form-C bonus for

the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 against item no.4. Thedocuments produced by the management were taken on

record. The management examined MW1 and marked Exbt M1. The marking of Exbt. M1 was objected by the

workman on the ground that it is an incomplete document. Workman examined WW1 ad WW2 and marked

exhibits W1,W8 in addition to the documents called for and produced by the Management. Marking of exhibits

W2to W7 were objected to by the Management on the ground that the Management is not a party to any of

those documents. Hence the documents were marked subject to objection.

On the basis of the pleadings, the issue to be decided are ;

Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?

Whether the termination of the worker by the management is illegal and whether she is entitled to

be reinstated w.e.f. 29.11.2011?

Relief and cost

Issue No.1 & 2

The management pointed out that an application U/s2A(2) of the ID Act is not maintainable as there is

no employer-employee relationship between the worker and the management Bank. The management also

pointed out that the dispute is not referred by the appropriate Govt and the worker is not represented by any

union. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, as per Sec 2A of the ID Act, where an employer

discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminate the services of an individual workman, any dispute or

difference between the workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge,dismissal

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman

nor any union of the workman is party to the dispute. It is admitted by the management that the worker was

engaged as a Sweeper on 26.11.2007 and she was dis-engaged on 29.10.2011. Hence there is no controversy on

the fact that there is an industrial dispute as per Sec 2A of the ID Act and the industrial dispute is maintainable.

According to the worker, she was engaged by the management Bank on 26.11.2007 when the

Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank commenced its operations. She was engaged as a Sweeper and

she continued to be employed till 29.10.2011 continuously and regularly against a regular and permanent

vacancy and was doing regular and permanent nature of duties. On 29.10.2011, her services are orally

2696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

terminated by the Branch Manager. According to the learned Counselfor the worker, the oral termination of the

worker amounts to retrenchment. However she was not issued with any notice of retrench mentnor wages in

lieu of notice as mandated by Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947. Retrenchment of the worker’s service is therefore

illegal, unjust and null and void in law. It is also in violation of Paras 522, 523 and 524 of Sastri Award.

According to the learned Counsel for the management, the worker was never employed by the management

Bank and intermittently use her service between 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011 and she was paid daily wages for the

services rendered by her. Her engagement was only temporary/casual on a day to day basis and the worker has

no right of employment in the management Bank. The managementBank is a nationalized Bank and therefore

follows prescribed rules and procedures for appointment in its regular service. For appointment in the

subordinate staff cadre the recruitment is made through notification in the Employment Exchange and after

complying with the formalities of test and interview. The worker was not given any appointment order and

therefore there was no retrenchment of the worker by the management Bank.According to the learned Counsel

for the worker the policies and procedures relied on by the management are for the regular recruitment and the

worker has no claim for regularization.With regard to the policies also the workman through WW2 established

that the management Bank resorted to regularization of temporary and casual subordinate staff on the basis of

settlement between the union and the management. It is also pointed out that as per Exbt.W2 that there is a

Bipartite Settlement between the management Bank and All India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation for

absorption of casual/temporary peons/sweepers in 3 phases. As per Exbt.W1 it is pointed out that 37 temporary

subordinate employees were appointed as permanent employees in Kerala branches from 2008-2011. The

management relied on Exbt.M1 to point out that the HR resourcing policy covers the appointment of

subordinate staff also. According to the learned Counsel for the management, General Manager(HRM) is the

competent authority to sanction the post of substaff in various zones. However the learned Counsel for the

worker pointed out that the specific guidelines and criteria for recruitment in subordinate staff cadre forms part

of Exbt.M1 as Annexure1, which is not enclosed along with Exbt.M1. Further it is also seen that at Para 7.0 of

Exbt.M1 that there is a provision for engagement sub staff on temporary basis. This provision authorized

engagement of temporary sub staff for a limited period not exceeding 90 days by the branches in rural and semi

urban centers. Such temporary engagement also requires the approval of General Manager (HRM). According to

MW1, Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank is considered as a semi urban branch. It has also come

out in evidence that they were not having any regular sweepers till 29.10.2011 from 26.11.2007 when the branch

operations started. MW1 did not deny the fact that there was a sanctioned post of sweeper when the

Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank was opened on 26.11.2007. Further he admitted that the worker

was being engaged as a sweeper from 26.11.2007. It is admitted by MW1 that the accounts of the Muvattupuzha

branch was audited every year and the payment of wages to the worker was being done through Profit &Loss

account Sundry charges through vouchers. The auditors never pointed out any irregularity in the wages paid to

the worker and no action was also taken against the Manager who made such appointment and payment. Hence

it is only probable that the engagement of the worker had the approval of the competent authority and the

payments made to her were fully authorized.

10.

Having found that the worker was engaged by the management Bank against a permanent vacancy the

further issue to be decided is whether her oral termination on 29.10.2011 is in violation of the provisions of Sec

25F of ID Act, 1947. The worker filed an IA seeking production of certain crucial documents to substantiate her

claim that she worked with the management Bank continuously for more than 240 days one year immediately

prior to her retrenchment. The management produced the statement of account in respect of the A/c no.

31140100000282 of the worker maintained at Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank for the period

from 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011. The management also produced Ledger A/c statement of Sundry charges in A/c

no.31140054511004 maintained by the Muvattupuzha branch of the management Bank from 26.11.2007 to

29.10.2011. The management produced few debit vouchers relating to wages paid to temporary sub staff

employees to the debit of A/c no.31140054511004 maintained at Muvattupuzha branch of the management

Bank for the period 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011. The management failed to produce substantial part of the debit

vouchers which otherwise would prove whether the worker, worked for more than 240 days in an year

immediately prior to her retrenchment on 29.10.2011. The management also produced true copies of the Form-C

bonus paid for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12. According to the learned Counsel for the worker the debit

vouchers relating to the wages paid to the worker from 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011 is very crucial in establishing

the claim of the worker. The management has not provided any explanation in the affidavit filed in IA

no.118/2013 for non production of these documents. Having failed to produce these crucial documents the

learned Counsel submitted that an adverse presumption will have to be drawn against the management. The

learned Counsel relied on the decision of Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015 12 SCC 754. In the

above case, the workman was working with the respondent and his case was that he was appointed against a

permanent and sanctioned post w.e.f.01.01.1987 till his services came to be retrenched and he had rendered

service of more than 240 days in every calendar year and hasreceived salary from the respondent department

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 17, 2020/आज‍ वन 25, 1942

2697

each month. The workman challenged the retrenchment as bad in law as the same is in violation of Sec 25F,

25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of theID Act. Theworkman applied for production of the Muster Roll and the

management failed to produce the relevant Muster Rolls. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier

decisions in Gopal Krishna G Ketker Vs Muhammed Haji Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Murukesam

Pillai Vs Manikyavasaka Pandara, 1917 5 LW 759 held that even if the burden of proof does lie on a party the

Court can draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw

light on the facts of issue. The learned Counsel for the workman also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SriramIndustrial Enterprises Ltd Vs Mahak Singh and others, 2007 4 SCC 94, wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the workman discharged their initial onus by producing the

documents in their possession it is the responsibility of the management to disprove the claim of the workman

that he did not work for more than 240 days with the management one year immediately prior to his/her

termination. In this particular case the debit vouchers for payment to theworker is a crucial document in the

custody of the management to substantiate her claim of working morethan 240 days in a year immediately

before her retrenchment. The management has not offered any explanation for non production of such a crucial

document. Hence an adverse presumption can be drawn that the worker worked continuously for 240 days

immediately prior to her retrenchment. Further the true copy of the ledger A/c statement of Sundry charges of

Muvattupuzha branch from 26.11.2007 to 29.10.2011 would show the details of payment of wages made to the

worker during the said period. On a detailed analysis of the payments made to theworker as reflected in the

Ledger A/c statement of Sundry charges, it can be seen that the worker worked for 365 days from 28.10.2010 to

28.10.2011, one year immediately prior to her retrenchment. The Bank A/c of the worker however does not

reflect all those payments made to her as per the ledger A/c statement of Sundry charges. It is also seen from the

true copy of Form-C bonus paid in the year 2010-11 that the worker worked for 365 days during the year

2010-11 and she was paid a bonus of Rs.8400/- for the period up to 29.10.2011. Also it is seen that bonus of

Rs.5560/- was paid to her for the year 2011-12 upto 29.10.2011. The worker through these documents proved

that she worked for more than 240 days during one year immediately before her termination. Hence the

management is liable to follow the condition precedent before the retrenchment of the workman contemplated

U/s 25 of the ID Act, 1947 before termination of her service.

11.

The learned Counsel for the management argued that the worker in this case is only a casual employee

on daily wages and hence she is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the ID Act. The learned Counsel for

the worker relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Sreekumar K. Vs Managing Director,

KTDC Ltd, 2019 (1) KHC 225 to point out that the definition in Sec 2(s) of the ID Act includes casual

employees also. In the above case the Hon’ble High Court held that;

“ Para 18. From this it is quiet evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2(s) of the ID Act

includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra)(in the context governed by

the provisions of the workman’s Compensation Act) is not at all attracted to the case in hand.”

12.

The learned Counsel for the management relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and the State of Bihar and others Vs Devendra Sharma,

Civil Appeal no. 7879/2019, to argue that the management Bank being a ‘state’ under Article 12 of

theConstitution, no back door entry in service can be allowed violating Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of

India. The learned Counsel for the worker on the other hand relied on various decisions and argued that when

there is a violation of the provisions of ID Act, the dictum laid down in the above decisions is clearly

distinguishable. In Ajaypal SinghVs Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 321

the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Umadevi’s case (Supra) and held that ;

“17. In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our Constitution, a

Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in

ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16

of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and powers of the Industrial

and Labour Court provided therein werenot at all under consideration in Uma Devi’s case (3). The

issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was decided in

Uma Devi’s case.

18. We have noticed that Industrial Dispute Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and

certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving

them the status and privilege of permanent employees.

2698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 17, 2020/ASVINA 25, 1942