This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08032021-225706

CG-DL-W-08032021-225706

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 08] नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 21—फरवरी 27, 2021 शनिवार/फाल्गुन 2— फाल्गुन 8, 1942

No. 08] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 21– FEBRUARY 27, 2021, SATURDAY/ PHALGUNA 2 –PHALGUNA 8, 1942

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी, 2021

का. आ. 147.—के न्द्र सरकार, एतदद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान सरकार, गृह (जीआर-V) विभाग, जयपुर की दिनांक 17.12.2020 की अधिसूचना सं. एफ.19 (44) गृह-5/2020 के माध्यम से जारी राजस्थान राज्य सरकार की सहमति से, वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक, पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, समता नगर शाखा, बीकानेर, राजस्थान द्वारा श्री संजय बंसल, प्रोप्राइटर मेसर्स संजय ट्रेडिंग कं पनी, 105, नई मंडी, बीकानेर एवं अन्यों के विरूद्ध बैंक के साथ धोखाधड़ी करने और इसे लगभग 473.66 लाख रुपये की सदोष हानि कारित करने के संबंध में दर्ज़

915 GI/2021

(387)³⁸⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] कराई गई शिकायत दिनांकित 24.06.2020 से संबंधित अपराध(धों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराध(धों) से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध किसी दुष्प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापनाके सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त राजस्थान राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/03/2021-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2021

S. O. 147.—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 ( 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(44) Home-5/2020 dated 17.12.2020 of Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 24.06.2020 lodged by Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Samta Nagar Branch, Bikaner, Rajasthan against Shri Sanjay Bansal, Proprietor of M/s. Sanjay Trading Company, 105, Nai Mandi, Bikaner and others, pertaining to cheating the Bank and causing wrongful loss to it of approx. Rs. 473.66 lakhs 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. 228/03/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी, 2021

का. आ. 148.—के न्द्र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान सरकार, गृह (जीआर-V) विभाग, जयपुर की दिनांक 28.12.2020की अधिसूचना सं. एफ. 19(44)गृह-5/2020 के माध्यम से जारी राजस्थान राज्य सरकार की सहमति से, सहायक महाप्रबंधक (शाखा प्रमुख), पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, मिड कॉर्पोरेट ब्रांच, चंबर भवन, एम.आई. रोड, जयपुर द्वारा मेसर्स रेणुका फार्मर्स एलएलपी, 802-ए, के .जे. सिटी टावर, सी-स्कीम, जयपुर एवं अन्यों के विरूद्ध बैंक के साथ धोखाधड़ी करने और इसे लगभग 879.84 लाख रूपये की सदोष हानि कारित करने के संबंध में दर्ज़ कराई गई शिकायत दिनांकित 20.05.2020 (सं. सीए 0302020ए0232) से संबंधित अपराध(धों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराध(धों) से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध किसी दुष्प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध काअन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापनाके सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त राजस्थान राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/04/2021-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2021

S. O. 148.—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 ( 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(44)Home-5/2020 dated 28.12.2020 of Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 389 members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 20.05.2020 lodged by Assistant General Manager (Branch Head), Punjab National Bank, Mid Corporate Branch, Chamber Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur against M/s. Renuka Farmers LLP, 802-A, K.J. City Tower, C-Scheme, Jaipur and others (numbered as CA0302020A0232) pertaining to cheating the Bank and causing wrongful loss to it of approx. Rs. 879.84 lakhs 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. 228/04/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी, 2021

का. आ. 149.— कें द्रीय सरकार, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एजाज़ सलीम खान, अधिवक्ता को, परीक्षण न्यायालय और विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों के समक्ष अपील, पुनरीक्षण या इस मामले से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थित मामला संख्या आरसी 1(एस)/2009/ सीबीआई/एससीबी/ मु ंबई (पवनराजे निम्बालकर हत्या प्रकरण) का विचारण करने के लिए उनकी नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या मामले के निपटान की तारीख तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/16/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2021

S. O. 149.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ejaz Salim Khan, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting trial of the case number RC-1 (S) /2009 /CBI /SCB /Mumbai (Pawanraje Nimbalkar Murder Case), instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the trial Court and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of this case before any appellate or revisional Courts established by law, for a period of three years from the date of appointment or till the date of disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/16/2020-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर, 2020

का. आ. 150.—कें द्रीय सरकार, दंतचिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16) की धारा-3 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, एतद् द्वारा भारत सरकार, स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय की दिनांक 24 जनवरी, 1984 की अधिसूचना का. आ. 430 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामतः

2. उक्त अधिसूचना में "धारा-3 के खंड (क) के अंतर्गत निर्वाचित शीर्ष" में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः³⁹⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

स दस्य का नाम	विधि	प्रतिनिधित्व वाली राज्य दंतचिकित्सा परिषद	प्रभावी होने की तारीख
डॉ. गौरव गुप्ता, प्रोफे सर एवं अध्यक्ष, प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स विभाग, हिमाचल दंतचिकित्सा विज्ञान संस्थान, पौटांसाहिब, जिला-सिरमौर-173025, हिमाचल प्रदेश	निर्वाचित	हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य दंतचिकित्सा परिषद	22.12.2018

[फा. सं. वी12025/142/2020-डीई]

डी. वी. के . राव, उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2020

S.O. 150.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely:

2. In the said notification under head "elected under clause (a) of Section 3", the following shall be inserted therein, namely:

Name of the member	Mode	State Dental Council represented	w.e.f.
"Dr. Gaurav Gupta, Prof. & Head, Deptt. Of Prosthodontics, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Dist. Sirmour – 173 025, Himachal Pradesh	Elected	Himachal Pradesh State Dental Council	22.12.2018"

[F. No. V.12025/142/2020-DE]

D.V.K. RAO Dy. Secy.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 151 —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार परमाणु खानिज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान निदेशालय, पश्चिम क्षेत्र, परमाणु उर्जा विभाग, जयपुर (राज) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री राम शर्मा, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 24/2011) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 03.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/4/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 391

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2021

S.O. 151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2011) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur (raj) and Shri Ram Sharma, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 03.02.2021.

[No. L-14012/4/2009 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी

पीठासीन अधिकारी

Reference No. L-14012/4/2009-IR(DU) Dated:13.7.2011

श्री राम शर्मा पुत्र श्री लल्लू लाल शर्मा निवासी प्लाट 13/14, पंचवटी कालोनी, टोक रोड चौधरी पेट्रोल पंप के सामने सांगानेर, जयपुर।

परमाणु खानिज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान निदेशालय पश्चिम क्षेत्र, परमाणु उर्जा विभाग, भारत सरकार ए. एम. डी. कम्पलेक्स. सेक्टर-5, विस्तार प्रताप नगर सांगानेर, जयपुर- द्वारा निदेशक

...अप्रार्थी/विपक्षी प्रार्थीगण की तरफ से : श्री कुणाल रावत अधिवक्ता अप्रार्थीगण की तरफ से : श्री देवेश कुमार बंसल अधिवक्ता दिनांक : 29.12..2020

1. श्रम एवं नियोजन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 13.07.2011 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जावेगा) की धारा 10 (1) (डी) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों के अनुसरण में उपर्युक्त पांॅंचों प्रार्थीगण के संम्बध में निम्नांकित (समेकित रूप में) विवाद न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस अधिकरण को संदर्भित किये गये :-

"Whether the action of the Management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating the services of (1) Sh. Shri Ram Sharma s/o Shri Lallu Lal Sharma, (2) Shri Dhanna Lal s/o Shri Jagdish Bairwa, (3) Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay s/o Shri Hari Kishan Sharma, (4) Shri Chhagan Lal Dhanka s/o Shri Gulab Chand Dhanka and (5) Shri Manoj Kumar Pipliwal s/o Shri kanhaiya Lal Pipliwal. w.e.f. 30.04.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to? ''

2. उपर्युक्त पाँचों विवाद इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त होने पर उभयपक्ष को आहूत करते हुए- प्रार्थीगण को निर्देश दिया गया कि वे अपने दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करें। तदुपरांत प्रार्थीगण की ओर से दिनांक 04.10.2011 को दावे के अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किये गये। प्रार्थीगण के कथन संक्षेप में इस प्रकार वर्णित हैं। प्रार्थीगण को 05.07.2005 से 10.01.2006 के मध्य विभिन्न तिथियों पर चतुर्थ श्रेणी (हेल्पर तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियुक्त किया गया। प्रार्थीगण पत्थर के नमूनों की पिसाई, छनाई, घिसाई व अन्य कार्यालयी कार्य अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियाें के दिशा निर्देश पर करते थे। अप्रार्थी संस्थान उद्योग की परिभाषा में आता हैं। प्रार्थीगण को अप्रार्थी ने दिनांक 30.04.2008 को अवैध रूप से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया।

3. प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नियोजक-कर्मकार के संबंध थे। प्रार्थीगण की सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व धारा 25 (एफ) अधिनियम के अनुसार नोटिस/नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीगण को नहीं किया गया। प्रार्थीगण से जो कार्य करवाया जा रहा था वह स्थाई प्रकृति का था व आज भी अन्य श्रमिकाें से करवाया जा रहा है। प्रार्थीगण ने 240 दिन से अधिक दिनों तक लगातार कार्य किया है। अप्रार्थी ने श्रमिकों की वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई न ही कोई घरेलू जॉंच की- तथा अनुचित श्रम व्यवहार किया। इस प्रकार धारा 25, (एफ)/ (जी)/ (एच) अधिनियम व नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानो का उल्लंघन किया है। प्रार्थीगण सेवा मुक्ति के पश्चात से बेरोजगार हैं। अतः दिनांक 30.04.2008 को की³⁹² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] गई प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैद्य घोषित करते हुए प्रार्थीगण को विगत वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावे।

4. अप्रार्थी/विपक्षी ने दिनांक 04.07.2012 को पॉंचों प्रकरणों में वादोत्तर प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कहा हैं कि प्रार्थीगण को किसी पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई, बल्कि आवश्यक कार्य करने के लिए आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में अंशकालीन संविदा के आधार पर रखा गया था। इसलिए सेवा मुक्ति का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता है। अप्रार्थी उद्योग की श्रेणी में नहीं आता है। प्रार्थीगण को कार्य उपलब्धता पर जारी निविदा व निर्धारित बजट में कार्य सम्पन्न करने हेतु रखा जाने से ऐसी नियुक्ति अधिनियम की धारा 2 (ओ ओ)े (बी बी) के अन्र्तगत आती है व धारा 25-एफ के प्रावधान आकृष्ट ही नहीे होते हैं। प्रार्थीगण एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना प्रमाणित नहीं कर पाये हैं। अप्रार्थी द्वारा अधिनियम व नियमों की अवहेलना नहीं की गई है न ही कोई अनुचित श्रम अभ्यास किया गया हैं। किसी अन्य श्रमिक को कार्य हेतु नहीं लगाया गया है। अतः वाद अस्वीकार किये जावें।

5. प्रार्थीगण ने 24.09.2012 को वादोत्तर का खंडन करते हुए अतिरिक्त कथन भी प्रस्तुत किये हैं-और पुनः दावे के अभिकथनों को स्वीकार करने का निवेदन किया हैं।

6. उपर्युक्त पाँचों विवाद प्रकरणों में प्रार्थीगण के अभिकथन व वादोत्तर समान हैं तथा प्रार्थीगण की सेवा की प्रकृति व सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि भी समान ही हैं। इसलिए इन पॉंचों विवादो में उत्पन्न विवादबिंदु समान होने से इन विवादों का अधिनिर्णयन एकीकृत रूप से उभयपक्ष की सहमति से किया जा रहा हैं।

7. प्रार्थीगण ने अपने अपने दावे के अभिकथन के सर्मथन हेतु साक्ष्य में स्वयं प्रार्थी ए. ड.- 1 श्री राम श्र्मा, श्री धन्ना लाल, श्री राकेश कुमार उपाध्याय, श्री छगन लाल धानका एवं श्री मनोज कुमार पीपलीवाल को परीक्षित किया है। प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श 1 से 17 तक प्रलेखाें को श्री राम शर्मा से संबंधित प्रकरण में प्रदर्शित किया है। चूंकि इन पॉंचों ही प्रकरणों में वादकारण, पक्षकार व साक्ष्य की प्रकृति समान है- उभयपक्ष की सहमति से विवाद सं. 24/2011 श्री राम शर्मा बनाम निदेशक, परमाणु खानिज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान में उभयपक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य को ही पॉंचों विवादो के संबंध में प्रभावी मानकर विवेचन हेतु ग्रहण किया जा रहा है।

इसी क्रम में विपक्षी/अप्रार्थी ने अपने साक्ष्य में एन. ए. ड. 1 विनोद कुमार सी. के. (सहा. कार्मिक अधिकारी) को परीक्षत किया व प्रदर्श आर-1 से आर-6 प्रलेखों को प्रदर्शित किया है।

8. दिनांक 22.12.2017 को इस अधिकरण द्वारा पॉंचों विवादों में अधिनिर्णय पारित कर प्रार्थीगण को कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं मानते हुए दावों को निरस्त कर दिया गया। इस अधिनिर्णय के विरूद्व प्रार्थीगण ने मान. उच्च न्यायालय में रिट याचिका प्रस्तुत की। मान. राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने दिनांक 28.08.2019 को निर्णय पारित करते हुए रिट याचिका स्वीकार कर अधिनिर्णय दिनांक 22.12.2017 को अपास्त कर दिया तथा मामले इस अधिकरण को पुनः विनिश्चित करने हेतु प्रतिप्रेषित कर दिये। मान. उच्च न्यायालय मे यह निर्देश दिया कि प्रार्थीगण द्वारा एनेक्सर-1 (प्रार्थनापत्र दिनांक 27.11.2012) के माध्यम से अपेक्षित प्रलेखों का,े जो विपक्षी के पास उपलब्ध है श्रम न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया जावेें-तथा प्रार्थीगण को इन अभिलेखों को परीक्षित करने तथा अपने पक्ष को स्थापित करने का समुचित अवसर दिया जावे।

इस निर्णय के अनुसरण में विपक्षी को प्रलेखों के प्रस्तुतीकरण का निर्देश दिया गया तथा प्रस्तुतिकरण के उपरान्त उभयपक्ष को अतिरिक्त साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर भी दिया गया। प्रार्थी ने अपने साक्ष्य में पुनः ए. ड. 1 श्री राम शर्मा को परीक्षित किया तथा अतिरिक्त प्रलेखी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श W 17 प्रदर्शित किया। विपक्षी/अप्रार्थी ने अतिरिक्त साक्ष्य में एन. ए. ड. 2 सच्चिदानंन्द नायक उपक्षेत्रीय निदेशक व एन. ए. ड. 3 लखन लाल शर्मा को परीक्षित किया व प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श आर 7 से आर 13 तक प्रलेख प्रदर्शित किये।

9. दिनांक 03.11.2020 से 09.12.2020 तक विभिन्न तिथियों पर उभयपक्ष के तर्क-विर्तक सुने गये व उपलब्ध साक्ष्य का परिशीलन किया गया।

10. प्रार्थीगण के अभिभाषक का यह प्रमुख तर्क है कि एनेक्सर-1 प्रार्थनापत्र दिनांक 27.11.2012 में वर्णित व वांछित प्रलेखों को अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत ही नहीं किया गया है - न ही प्रस्तुत न करने का करने का कोई संतुष्टिप्रद कारण प्रस्तुत किया है। इसलिए अप्रार्थी के विरूद्व यह प्रतिकूल उपधारणा की जावे कि यदि वह प्रार्थित अभिलेखों को प्रस्तुत करते तो प्रार्थीगण का विपक्षी के अधीन नियमित 240 दिन से अधिक कार्यरत रहने का तथ्य प्रमाणित हो जाता। अप्रार्थी ने अधिनियम की धारा 25 (डी) की पालना न करते हुए उपस्थिति का कोई अभिलेख संधारित नहीं किया। जो प्रलेख विपक्षी ने नष्ट हो जाने के कारण प्रस्तुत नहीं कर पाना कहा है उनके नष्ट करने संबंधी कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत ही नहीं की हैं। साक्षी श्रीराम शर्मा के पूर्ववर्ती शपथपत्र में नियुक्ति तिथि 06.07.2005 त्रुटि वश अंकित हो गई है जिसे 06.07.2006 ही पढ़ा जावे जो पश्चातवर्ती अतिरिक्त साक्ष्य शपथपत्र में अकित है। अभिलेखों को नष्ट करने का कोई प्रमाण ही नहीं है। विपक्षी साक्षी लखन लाल स्वीकार करता है कि गेट रजिस्टर में प्रविष्टि किये बिना कोई अन्दर नही जा सकता है। किंतु वही गेट रजिस्टर विपक्षी ने पेश नही किया है। ठेकेदार द्वारा नियुक्ति का तर्क विपक्षी ने दिया है किंतु ठेकेदार का कोई लाईसेंस प्रस्तुत ही नही किया हैं। अतः प्रार्थीगण के दावों को स्वीकार कर प्रार्थित अनुतोष प्रदान किया जावे। उन्होंने अपने तर्को के सर्मथन में निम्नांकित न्यायिक दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत कियेः

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 393

2. किशन सिंह बनाम एक्जिक्टिव इंजी. हरियाणा स्टेट एग्री. मार्केटिंग बोर्ड ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, (सप्ली.) 787

3. डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीकू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़़ा ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, 1236

4. आर. एम. येलाती बनाम असि. एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर सिविल अपील सं. 5124/2004 निर्णय- 07.11.2005.

5. मेकिनोन मैंकजी लि. बनाम मेकिनोन एम्पलाईज यूनियन सिविल अपील सं. 5319/2008 सु. कोर्ट, निर्णय- 25.02.2015.

6. प्रिंसीपल डूंगर कॉंलेज बीकानेर बनाम ओमप्रकाश 1999 लेब. आई. सी. 97 (राजस्थान)

7. बी. डी. ओ. प्रागपुर बनाम योगिंन्दर कुमार 2008 (118) एफ. एल. आर. 460 (हि. प्रदेश)

11. अप्रार्थी के अभिभाषक का यह प्रमुख तर्क है कि प्रार्थीगण ने अपने पुष्ट साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित ही नहीं किया है कि उन्होंने अप्रार्थी के अधीन 240 दिन से अधिक-एक वर्ष की अवधि में कार्य किया जबकि यह सिद्वीभार प्रार्थीगण पर ही आरोपित है। प्रार्थी श्रीराम शर्मा (व अन्य प्रार्थीगण) ने स्वीकार किया है कि उन्हें कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं मिला है न ही कोई आवेदन नियुक्ति हेतु दिया। वर्ष 2005 से 2008 तक एक वर्ष में कितने कितने दिन कार्य किया यह भी याद नहीं हैै। प्रदर्श W- 3 व W- 7 का उल्लेख करते हुए उनका तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने ठेके पर कार्य करने हेतु आवेदन किया है। प्रार्थीगण ने यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि अनुलग्नक-3 (Ex. R/5) उससे संबंधित है तथा इसमें अकिंत कार्य दिवस सही है प्रदर्श W- 10 से W- 12 उसके भुगतान से संबंधित है। स्वीकारोक्ति के उपरांन्त किसी प्रमाण की आवश्यकता शेष नहीं रहती है। साक्ष्य की इस स्थिति में प्रार्थीगण का यह आक्षेप स्वीकार्य नहीं हैं कि अप्रार्थी ने उपस्थिति अभिलेख का संधारण नहीं किया अथवा प्रस्तुत नहीं किया हैैं इसलिए अप्रार्थी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा का कोई आधार नहीं है। प्रार्थी को संविदा के आधार पर कार्य करने हेतु नियत उद्‌ेश्य से रखा गया था इसलिए भी वे अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का संरक्षण नही पा सकते हैं। अप्रार्थी अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान के कार्य से संबद्व है जो उद्योग की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है। अतः वाद अस्वीकार किये जावें। उन्होने अपने तर्क के सर्मथन में निम्नांकित न्यायिक दृष्टांत व अभिलेख संधारण अवधि की विभागीय तालिका की प्रति प्रस्तुत की हैः

1. सुरेन्द्र नगर डिस्ट्रिक्ट पंचायत बनाम डाया भाई अमरसिंह सिविल अपील सं. 6511/2005 निर्णय 25.10.2005 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट)।

2. एम. पी. इलेक्ट्रिसिटी बोर्ड बनाम हरिराम सिविल अपील सं. 2240/2001 निर्णय 27.09.2004 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट)।

3. स्टेट ऑंफ गुजरात बनाम प्रतम सिंह नरसिंह परमार (2001) 9 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज 713।

12. उभयपक्ष के तर्को, साक्ष्य एवं न्यायिक दृष्टांतो में पारित विधि पर सम्यक विचार करने के उपरांन्त इन विवादों में निम्नांकित विवाद बिंदु- न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु उत्पन्न हुए हैंः

1. क्या अप्रार्थी/विपक्षी, अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j) के अर्थान्तर्गत उद्योग है? ...प्रार्थीगण

2. क्या प्रार्थीगण को अप्रार्थी द्वारा चतुर्थ श्रेणी (हेल्पर तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर जुलाई 2005 से जुलाई 2006 के मध्य नियुक्त किया गया तथा प्रार्थीगण ने अप्रार्थी के अधीन 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य एक केलेण्डर- वर्ष में किया है?

...प्रार्थीगण

3. क्या विपक्षी द्वारा प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानाें का अनुपालन नहीं किया गया?

...प्रार्थीगण

4. क्या विपक्षी द्वारा कर्मकारों की वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई गई एवं प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्त करने के उपरांन्त प्रार्थीगण से कनिष्ठतर व्यक्तियों को सेवा में रखा गया? ...प्रार्थीगण

5. अनुतोष?

उभयपक्ष के तर्को साक्ष्य एवं विधि पर विचार के उपरांन्त प्रत्येक विचारणीय बिन्दु पर विनिश्चय इस प्रकार हैः

13.

प्रार्थीगण का यह कथन है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान की जो गतिविधियॉं हैं, वह उद्योग की परिभाषा में आती हैं। पत्थर के नमूनों के परीक्षण से यूरेनियम की पहचान होती थी, उसी के आधार पर यूरेनियम का उत्पादन होता था। इसके विपरीत विपक्षी का यह तर्क है कि अप्रार्थी परमाणु खनिज, अन्वेषण व अनुसंधान के कार्य में रत है जो उद्योग की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है।

14. इस सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. का प्रतिपरीक्षा में किया गया यह कथन महत्वपूर्ण है कि नमूनों के परीक्षण से यह पता चलता है कि पदार्थ यूरेनियम है अथवा नहीं? यदि यूरेनियम होता है तो उसका उपयोग परमाणु संयंत्र में विद्युत उत्पादन में प्रयोग किया जाता है। इस प्रकार उत्पादित विद्युत उपभोक्ताओं प्रयोग में आती है। इस समस्त प्रक्रिया में मानव एवं मशीन का प्रयोग होता है। इस कथन से यह उपधारणा सरलता से की जा सकती है कि उत्पादित विद्युत के उपभोक्ताओं को विक्रय से प्रतिफल स्वरूप धनराशि प्राप्त होती ही है। अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j)³⁹⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] के अन्र्तगत "उद्योग" से नियोजकों का कोई कारबार, व्यवसाय, उपक्रम, विनिर्माण या आजीविका अभिप्रेत हैं। प्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत निर्णय बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कतिपय महत्वपूर्ण दिशा निर्देश प्रतिपादित किये है-तदुनुसार जहॉं कार्यकलापो के संचालन हेतु तंत्रात्मक व्यवस्था जो नियोजक व कर्मकारों के सहकार से संगठित हो, जिसमें सीधा व सारवान तत्व व्यवसायिक हो, जो मानव उपयोग या सेवार्थ उत्पादन व उसके वितरण से संबंधित हो- ऐसा उपक्रम "उद्योग" होता है।

15. इस संबंध में लाभ, हेतुक या लाभार्थ उद्‌ेश्य की अनुपस्थिति असंगत होती है तथा नियोजक- नियोजित के मध्य संबंधपरक कार्यकलाप पर ही बल देते हुए निर्धारण अपेक्षित होता है। विपक्षी द्वारा स्टेट ऑंफ गुजरात बनाम प्रतम सिंह नरसिंह परमार के निर्णय में मान. सर्वाेच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित अधिमत का अवलंब लेते हुए यह कहा है कि भारत सरकार के परमाणु उर्जा विभाग के अधीन संचालित अन्वेषण संस्थान को उद्योग की परिभाषा में नही रखा जा सकता है क्योंकि यह संप्रभुता पूर्ण कृत्य का एक भाग है। प्रार्थी ने ऐसे कोई तथ्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किये है जिससे अप्रार्थी के उद्योग होने का तथ्य निष्कार्षित किया जा सके। मैंने इस तर्क व प्रतिपादित विधि पर मनन किया है।

16. प्रार्थी ने यह तथ्य भलीभॉति प्रमाणित किया है कि विपक्षी /अप्रार्थी यद्यपि परमाणु उर्जा विभाग के अधीन परमाणु खनिज अन्वेषण व अनुसंधान का कार्य करता है- किंतु अप्रार्थी द्वारा संपादित कार्यकलाप जैसा कि विपक्षी के साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. द्वारा वर्णित हैं- विपक्षी को "उद्योग" की परिभाषा के अंतर्गत लाने का आधार प्रकट होते हैैं। नमूनों हेतु लिये गये खनिज पदार्थो का परीक्षण व तदुपरांत उनका विद्युत के व्यवसायिक उत्पादन में प्रयोग, निश्चित रूप से "उद्योग"में संचालित प्रक्रिया मानी जा सकती है विपक्षी संस्थान परमाणु उर्जा विभाग का अंग है जो परमाणु विद्युत का उत्पादन भी करता है।

17. अधिनियम में उपबंधित परिभाषा व सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित अधिमतों के प्रकाश में विपक्षी द्वारा साक्ष्य में प्रदर्शित पत्र प्रर्दश आर-1 में वर्णित विनिश्चय जिसमें श्रम व विधि मंत्रालय द्वारा विपक्षी संस्थान को अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j) के अन्र्तगत "उद्योग" नहीं माना गया है- किसी प्रकार स्वीकार्य एवं ग्राह्नय नहीं है। विपक्षी संस्थान में ऐसे खनिज का परीक्षण व अनुसंधान किया जाता है- जो यूरेनियम प्रमाणित होने पर विद्युत के व्यवसायिक उत्पादन में प्रयुक्त होता है- यह विवादित नहीं है कि इस प्रकार उत्पादित विद्युत के विक्रय से विपक्षी को व्यवसायिक धनार्जन होता है। इसलिए विपक्षी संस्थान निश्चित रूप से "उद्योग" होना प्रमाणित होता है। अतः यह बिंदु प्रार्थीगण के पक्ष में निर्णत किया जाता हैं।

18.

1. इस संदर्भ में प्रार्थी श्रीराम शर्मा ने अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा दिनांक 30.01.2020 में कहा है कि उसकी नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहॉं 06.07.2006 को चतुर्थ श्रेणी (तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर हुई थी। प्रार्थी ने अपने पूर्व शपथ पत्र दिनांक 06.07.2014 में नियुक्ति तिथि 06.07.2005 वर्णित की है, किंतु अभिभाशक प्रार्थी ने इसे टंकण की त्रुटि कहते हुए 06.07.2006 ही मानने का निवेदन किया - इस निवेदन पर विपक्षी ने आपत्ति नहीं की है- अतः नियुक्ति तिथि 06.07.2006 ही साक्ष्य में ग्रहण की जा रही हैं।

19. प्रार्थी ने आगामी कथन में 29.04.2008 तक लगातार कार्य करना व 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना भी कहा है। प्रार्थी ने स्वयं की उपस्थिति विपक्षी द्वारा संधारित गेट-रजिस्टर में करना कहा है। प्रार्थीगण का यह आक्षेप है कि विपक्षी ने मान. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये निर्देश के उपरांत भी एनेक्सर-1 (प्रार्थनापत्र दिनांक 27.11.2012) में वर्णित अभिलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है-यदि वह वांछित अभिलेख प्रस्तुत किया जाता तो प्रार्थीगण की उपस्थिति तथा 240 दिन से अधिक विपक्षी के अधीन लगातार कार्य किया जाना प्रमाणित हो जाता। अतः विपक्षी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा की जावें। विपक्षी का यह तर्क है कि प्रार्थीगण को वस्तुतः अंशकालीन संविदा के आधार पर काम पर लिया गया था। विभाग द्वारा मस्टर रोल रखा जाता था जिसमें उपस्थित हाने पर प्रार्थी की उपस्थिति अंकित की जाती थी। प्रत्येक माह में श्रमिक द्वारा किये गये कार्य दिवसों के अनुसार उसका भुगतान किया गया है। जिस अवधि में प्रार्थीगण द्वारा कार्य नही किया गया- उस समय के मस्टर रोल होना संभव नहीं है। प्रार्थीगण चूंकि नियमित कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्त नहीं थे- इसलिए पे-बिल रजिस्टर में उनका नाम अंकित नहीं है। गेट-रजिस्टर नियमानुसार एक वर्ष के लिए रखा जाता है उसके पश्चात नष्ट कर दिया जाता है-जिसका पृथक से अभिलेख रखा जाना नियम के अनुसार अपेक्षित नहीं है। इसलिए प्रतिकूल उपधारणा के कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है।

20. विपक्षी ने सशपथ कथन करते हुए वांछित प्रलेखों के संबंध में यह कहा हैः

1. गेट-रजिस्टर 11 से 14 वर्ष पुराने हैं- जो मात्र 1 वर्ष तक ही सुरक्षित रखे जाते है इसलिए प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये।

2. वेतन वाउचर्स प्रार्थीगण के संबंध में संधारित ही नहीं किये गये क्योंकि वे नियमित आधार पर नियुक्त नहीं थे। भुगतान संबंधी प्रविष्टि मस्टर रोल पर की गई है- जो प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 395

5. कर्मचारियो की सूची केवल नियमित कर्मचारियाें की रखी जाती है- प्रार्थीगण के नियमित कर्मचारी न होने से- संधारित नहीं की गई व प्रस्तुत नहीं हुई।

6. क्रय पंजिका की, उपस्थिति/भुगतान से सुसंगतता न होने से प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया था किंतु प्रतिपरीक्षा में प्रार्थी के आग्र्रह पर प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-17 के रूप में प्रदर्शित हुआ है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रदर्श आर-7 से आर-11 तक मस्टर रोल प्रस्तुत किये गये है जो - प्रार्थी की उपस्थिति से संबंधित हैं। इन मस्टर रोल के अतिरिक्त विपक्षी ने प्रदर्श आर-5 व आर-6 उपस्थिति पत्रक भी साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत किये है-जिनमें वर्णित उपस्थिति विवरण प्रदर्श W- 7, W- 10, W- 11, W- 12, W- 15, W- 16, से समानता दर्शाता है। यही नहीं प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षा में प्रदर्श आर-5/3/ अनुलग्नक-3 में वर्णित विवरण को स्वयं से संबंधित विवरण होना, व सही होना स्वीकार किया है।

21. प्रार्थी ने अपने साक्ष्य में यह कहा है कि उसे काम करने का पैसा चैक से मिलता था। 06.02.2020 को पुनः किये गये प्रतिपरीक्षण में उसने कहा है कि प्रदर्श आर-7 से आर-11 तक मस्टर रोल के आधार पर उसे नगद भुगतान हुआ है। अंत में यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि उससे जितने दिन काम लिया गया- उसका भुगतान विपक्षी ने कर दिया है।

22. विपक्षी साक्षी सच्चिदानंन्द नायक ने यद्यपि अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में कहा है कि 2006 के कोई मस्टर रोल पेश नहीं किये हैैं। चैक से भुगतान के बैंक स्टेटमेंट पेश किये है जो प्रदर्श आर-13 है किंतु प्रार्थी को किये भुगतान का उल्लेख इसमें नही है क्योंकि 17.12.2006 से बैंक स्टेटमेंट पेश किया है। किंतु बैंक स्टेटमेंट व मस्टर रोल पूरे प्रस्तुत न होने पर भी प्रदर्श आर-5 व आर-6 में वर्णित उपस्थिति विवरण को प्रार्थीगण द्वारा सही होना स्वीकार कर लेने के कारण विपक्षी की सद्‌भाविक्ता पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ता हैं। यह उपधारित करना उचित नहीं है कि विपक्षी ने प्रार्थीगण की वास्तविक उपस्थिति को छुपाने के उद्‌ेश्य से कोई प्रलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किये हों। क्योंकि प्रार्थीगण की उपस्थिति संबंधी विवरण जिसे प्रार्थी ने सही माना है- अभिलेख पर उपलब्ध हैं।

23. अब प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने प्रतिपरीक्षा में किये गये कुछ महत्वपूर्ण कथनों पर भी इसी संदर्भ में विचार करना सुसंगत है।

प्रार्थी कहता है कि उसे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं मिला। वह ठेके का अर्थ समझता हैैं। बी. ए. पास है। प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू- 3 को प्रार्थी ने स्वयं के फोटो व हस्ताक्षर युक्त होना स्वीकार किया है। वह यह भी स्वीकार करता है कि उसने प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू- 3 के माध्यम से ठेके पर कार्य करने के लिए आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया है- उसने वर्ष 2007 में भी ठेके पर कार्य करने के लिए आवेदन किया था। ठेके पर कार्य करने के लिए सभी से (प्रार्थीगण से) अलग- अलग हस्ताक्षर करवाये जाते थे- जो काम करते थे- उसका पैसा मिल जाता था। प्रार्थी के इन कथनो को प्रदर्श आर-4 व आर-5 आदेश से पुष्टि मिलती है जिसमें प्रार्थी को क्वोटेशनों के आधार पर दो माह की अवधि हेतु 6000/- रु. में कार्य करवाने की स्वीकृति जारी की गई है। यह स्वीकृति प्रार्थी के प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श आर-3 के आधार पर है जिसमें प्रार्थी ने काम ठेके पर 6000/- रु. में करने की सहमति दी व परिवचन किया है।

24. प्रार्थी के पक्ष में प्रदर्श W- 5 द्वारा अक्तूवर 2006 में किये गये ठेके के कार्य हेतु 1550/- रु. स्वीकृत किये जाने का उल्लेख है। इससे यह आभास मिलता है कि प्रदर्श R- 5/1 से प्रदर्श R- 6/5 तक स्वीकृत उपस्थिति विवरण में जिस अवधि में प्रार्थीगण को कार्यरत नहीं होना दर्शाया गया है- उस अवधि मेें प्रार्थीगण ने ठेके पर व्यक्तिगत रूप से समयबद्व व उद्‌ेश्य पूर्ति तक निश्चित धनराशि पर कार्य किया है।

25. साक्ष्य की इस स्थिति तथा प्रार्थीपक्ष की स्वीकारोक्ति के अस्तित्व में प्रार्थीगण की विपक्षी द्वारा किसी पद पर नियुक्ति किया जाना प्रमाणित नहीं होता- वरन यह प्रमाणित होता है कि प्रार्थीगण ने विपक्षी के लिए नमूनों के पदार्थ की कटाई, पिसाई, सफाई, पैकिंग, आदि कार्य को ठेके पर करने के लिए निश्चित कार्य संपादन, निश्चित अवधि में,- नियत धनराशि हेतु करने की सहमति व स्वीकृति दी है। ठेके पर कार्य संपादन के उपरांत जनवरी 2007 से अप्रेल 2008 की अवधि में प्रार्थीगण ने विभिन्न महिनों में प्रदर्श R- 5 व R- 6 में दिये गये विवरण के अनुरूप उपस्थित रहकर कार्य भी किया। साक्ष्य के इस विवेचन से अप्रार्थी व प्रार्थीगण के मध्य नियोजक व कर्मकार का संबंध स्थापित होना प्रमाणित नहीं होता है।

26. प्रार्थी की ओर से निर्णय किशन सिंह बनाम एक्जी. इंजीनियर में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह अधिमत दिया है कि जब दैनिक वेतन भोगी को नियमित पद के विरूद्व नियुक्त किया हो- तो सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ)े के प्रावधानों का अनुपालन आवश्यक हैं

27. डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीकू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़़ा के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह मार्गदर्शन दिया है कि धारा 25 (एफ)े अधिनियम के संदर्भ में 240 दिन की लगातार सेवा प्रमाणित करने हेतु एक दैनिक वेतन भोगी से समस्त उपस्थिति अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करने की अपेक्षा उचित नहीं है। कर्मकार ने जब यह दावा किया हो कि उसने 240 दिन कार्य किया है तो- नियोजक पर यह सिद्विभार अंतरित हो जाता है कि वह कर्मकार द्वारा 240 दिन सेवा पूर्ण न करना प्रमाणित करे।

28. हस्तगत प्रकरणों में प्रार्थीगण द्वारा ठेके पर कार्य करना व विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपस्थिति विवरण को स्वीकार कर लेने की स्थिति में इन निर्णयों में प्रतिपादित विधि तथ्यात्मक भिन्नता के कारण प्रार्थीगण के प्रति सहायक नहीं है।

³⁹⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

29. आर. एम. येलाती बनाम असि. एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि 240 दिन सतत सेवा करने के तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने का प्राथमिक सिद्विभार वादी/ प्रार्थी पर ही है- यह दायित्व वादी द्वारा स्वीकार्य साक्ष्य (मौखिक व प्रलेखीय) प्रस्तुत करके उन्मोचित किया जाता है। दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक यदि नियोजक से उपस्थिति व वेतन भुगतान का अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन करें- और नियोजक प्रस्तुत न करे- तो नियोजक के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा करने का विनिश्चय प्रत्येक मामले के तथ्यों पर निर्भर होगा। हस्तगत प्रकरणों की उपर्युक्त परिस्थितियों के प्रकाश में विपक्षी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा किये जाने का कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है। तथा यह निर्णयज विधि प्रार्थी के पक्ष में सहायक नहीं है।

30. प्रिंसीपल डूंगर कॉंलेज बीकानेर बनाम ओमप्रकाश में मान. राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा है कि कर्मकार जब 240 दिन की लगातार सेवा एक केलेण्डर वर्ष में पूर्व करने का दावा करें एवं नियोजक ने इस तथ्य का वाग्छल- पूर्ण खंडन किया हो- तो उसे नियोजक की स्वीकृति समझा जावें।

31. बी. डी. ओ. प्रागपुर बनाम योगिंन्दर कुमार व अन्य में मान. हिमाचल प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित विधि भी तथ्यात्मक भिन्नता के कारण प्रार्थीगण के प्रति सहायक नहीं है।

32. इसके विपरीत विपक्षी की ओर से एम. पी. इलेक्ट्रिसिटी बोर्ड बनाम हरिराम व सुरेन्द्र नगर डिस्ट्रिक्ट पंचायत बनाम डाया भाई अमरसिंह के मामलें में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित अधिमत का अवलम्ब लिया गया है। इस निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्ववर्ती एक केलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन लगातार कार्य करने के तथ्य का सिद्विभार कर्मकार पर ही है। जब कर्मकार इस तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने हेतु कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत न करे तथा नियोजक द्वारा मस्टर रोल प्रस्तुत करने पर उनका खंण्डन भी न करे- तो यह कहा जाना चाहिये कि कर्मकार ने सिद्विभार का उन्मोचन नहीं किया है। न्यायालय को नियोजक के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा तब ही करना चाहिये जब वांछित साक्ष्य का अस्तित्व में होना कर्मकार प्रमाणित करे, जिसे प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता हो। श्रम न्यायालय के समक्ष जॉच का परिक्षेत्र सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्ववर्ती 12 महीनों तक ही सीमित है- इसी अवधि को परीक्षित कर वह निर्धारित करेगा कि कर्मकार को अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) का संरक्षण देय है अथवा नहीं। इन निर्णयों में पारित विधि से यह स्पष्ट मार्गदर्शन प्राप्त होता है कि प्रार्थीगण द्वारा गेट रजिस्टर के प्रस्तुतीकरण की मॉग करने पर उसके नष्ट हो जाने का सशपथ कथन अप्रार्थी द्वारा किया गया है, इसलिए यह नहीं कहा जा सकता है कि अप्रार्थी ने किसी प्रलेख के अस्तित्व में होते हुए भी जानवूझ कर, प्रलक्षित उद्‌ेश्य से उसे प्रस्तुत नहीं किया हो। इसके अतिरिक्त यह भी महत्वपूर्ण है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपस्थिति- विवरण प्रदर्श आर- 5/1 से आर- 6/5 व मस्टर रोल प्रदर्श आर- 7 से आर- 11 तक को प्रार्थीगण ने स्वीकार करते हुए विखंडित नहीं किया है। इसलिए अप्रार्थी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा किया जाना न्यायोचित व विधिसम्मत नहीं है।

33. विपक्षी ने एम. पी. इलेक्ट्रिसिटी बोर्ड बनाम हरिराम के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित विधि का अवलंब लेकर यह भी कहा है कि प्रार्थीगण का कार्य अस्थाई व आवश्यकता जनित था- जिसे आवश्यकता न होने पर बंद भी किया गया था। इस तथ्य की पुष्टि साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. के कथनों से हुई हैं। इस निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह मार्गदर्शन दिया है कि सीमित कार्य के लिए स्थानीय व्यक्तियों को दिया गया नियोजन- सतत व नियमित कार्य हेतु नहीं समझा जा सकता है। जब मस्टर रोल से भी यह प्रकट हो कि नियमित अंतराल पर श्रमिक से कार्य लिया गया है, यह प्रमाणित नहीं होता है कि नियोजक को उस कार्य की सतत आवश्यकता रही हो। अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपस्थिति विवरण व मस्टर रोल के अवलोकन से भी प्रार्थीगण से करवाया गया कार्य सतत प्रकृति का प्रमाणित नहीं हुआ है- क्योंकि उपस्थिति विवरण में प्रत्येक माह में लिया गया कार्य, अंतराल सहित है।

34. प्रार्थीगण का यह भी तर्क है कि प्रार्थीगण से ठेका- श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य यदि लिया गया है तो अप्रार्थी के पास उक्त उद्‌ेश्य हेतु अनुज्ञापत्र होना आवश्यक था- जिसका न होना अप्रार्थी ने स्वीकार किया है- इसलिए प्रार्थीगण को अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियुक्त ही माना जावें। विपक्षी ने इस संबंध में किसी अनुज्ञापत्र की आवश्यकता न होना कह कर तर्क का विरोध किया है। तर्क पर विचार किया गया।

35. ठेका श्रमिक (विनियमन एवं उन्मूलन) अधिनियम 1970 की धारा 1 के अन्र्तगत अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के विस्तार का उपबंध किया गया है। इस अधिनियम की उपधारा 1 (4) (a) के अनुसार प्रत्येक ऐसा स्थापन/संस्थान जहॉ बीस या उससे अधिक कर्मकार नियोजित हों या विगत बारह महीनों के दौरान किसी दिन नियोजित रहे हो- पर ही अधिनियम के प्रावधान प्रयोज्य होगें। इन प्रकरणों में प्रार्थीगण ने ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है जिससे अप्रार्थी के अधीन बीस या उससे अधिक कर्मकारों का नियोजित होना प्रमाणित होता हो। इसलिए प्रार्थीगण का यह तर्क सारवान नहीं है।

36. उपर्युक्त विवेचन से यह स्पष्ट रूप से प्रमाणित है कि प्रार्थीगण सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि 29.04.2008 से पूर्ववर्ती एक केलेण्डर वर्ष की अवधि में अप्रार्थी के नियोजन में 240 दिन लगातार कार्य करने का तथ्य प्रमाणित करने में विफल रहे हैं- इसलिए अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थीगण की छटनी 30.04.2008 से किया जाना भी स्वयं ही प्रमाणित नहीं होता है। परिणामतः प्रार्थीगण अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत किसी प्रकार का संरक्षण प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी प्रमाणित नहीं हुए है। अतः यह विचारणीय बिंदु प्रार्थीगण के विरूद्व निर्णीत किया जाता है।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 397

37.

विपक्षी ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि उन्होंने प्रार्थीगण को अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया न ही नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति का भुगतान किया- क्योंकि नोटिस स्थाई कर्मचारियों को दिया जाता है तथा प्रार्थीगण स्वयं ही काम छोड़ कर चले जाते थे। बिंदु सं. 2 के विनिश्चय के प्रकाश में प्रार्थीगण को चूंकि अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का संरक्षण प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है, इसलिए इन प्रावधानो की पालना किये जाने की बाध्यता अप्रार्थी को नहीं थी- अतः यह बिंदु प्रार्थीगण के विरूद्व निर्णीत किया जाता है।

38.

इस बिंदु के संबंध में प्रार्थी ने अपने कथन में कहा है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा कोई वरिष्ठता सूची नही बनाई वह जो कार्य करता था- उसे अन्य श्रमिंको से करवाया जा रहा है। यह उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने अभिवचनाें या साक्ष्य में उन व्यक्तियों का नाम भी वर्णित नहीं किया है जिन्हें प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त करने के उपरांत कनिष्ठ होने पर भी सेवा में रखा गया हो।

39. विपक्षी ने अपने साक्ष्य में कहा है कि प्रार्थी के कार्य छोड़कर चले जाने के वाद उक्त कार्य की समाप्ति पर किसी अन्य श्रमिक को कार्य पर नहीं लगाया गया है तथा किसी कनिष्ठ श्रमिक को नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई है। प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह भी कहा है कि वर्तमान में ठेके पर जो श्रमिक कार्यरत है वे उस कार्य से संलग्न नहीं है जिस पर प्रार्थी कार्यरत रहा है। वर्तमान श्रमिकों की कार्य की प्रकृति वर्तमान कर्मचारी से भिन्न हैं।

40. प्रार्थी की प्रति परीक्षा में उसने स्वीकार किया है कि प्रदर्श आर- 12 सूची में उसका नाम नहीं है क्योंकि वह स्थाई कर्मचारियों की सूची है। विपक्षी का यह भी साक्ष्य है कि चॅूकि प्रार्थी नियमित कर्मचारी नहीं था इसलिए पे बिल रजिस्टर में उसका नाम नहीं है। प्रार्थी का नाम तो मस्टर रोल में ही अंकित होता था।

41. बिंदु सं. 2 के विनिश्चय से यह स्थापित हो चुका है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थीगण को किसी स्थाई या नियमित पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई थी- वरन प्रार्थीगण को कार्य की आवश्यकता हेतु अस्थाई रूप से संविदा के आधार पर निश्चित राशि के भुगतान पर रखा था। ऐसे श्रमिकों की कोई वरिष्ठता सूची का संधारण किया जाना विपक्षी के लिए बाध्यकारी नहीं है।

42. मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने सुरेन्द्र नगर डिस्ट्रिक्ट पंचायत बनाम डाया भाई अमरसिंह के निर्णय में समान तथ्यों पर विचार करते हुए यह कहा है कि नियमित नियोजन के अभाव में वरिष्ठता सूची का संधारण नियोजक से अपेक्षित नहीं था- दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिकों की वरिष्ठता सूची का संधारण विधिक अपेक्षा नहीं है। इस विवेचन के उपरांत यह बिंदु प्रार्थी के विरूद्व निर्णीत किया जाता है।

विचारणीय बिंदुओं पर प्राप्त विवेचित निष्कर्ष के आधार पर अप्रार्थी संस्थान यद्यपि उद्योग की परिभाषा के अन्तर्गत आना प्रमाणित हुआ है किंतु साक्ष्य के अधार पर अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थीगण की छटनी किया जाना प्रमाणित नही हुआ है- इसलिए अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का संरक्षण प्रार्थीगण को उपलब्ध नहीं है। अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी से किसी कनिष्ठतर व्यक्ति को सेवा में रखा जाना सिद्ध नहीं हुआ है-इस प्रकार प्रार्थीगण अधिनियम के अंतर्गत किसी भी प्रावधान का संरक्षण पानेे को अधिकारवान प्रमाणित नहीं हुए है। इसलिए प्रार्थीगण अप्रार्थी के विरूद्व कोई अनुतोष पाने के अधिकारी नहीं है।

अतः प्रार्थीगण- अप्रार्थी संस्थान के विरूद्व कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी नहीं हैं- अधिनिर्णय इसी प्रकार पारित किया जाता है। अधिनिर्णय की प्रति प्रत्येक औद्योगिक विवाद पत्रावली में संलग्न की जावे तथा पंचाट की प्रतिलिपि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 17 (1) के अनुसरण में प्रकाशनार्थ प्रेषित की जावें।

पंचाट आज दिनांक 29 दिसम्बर 2020 को लिखा व हस्ताक्षरित किया गया।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 152 —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार परमाणु खानिज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान निदेशालय ए पश्चिम क्षेत्र, परमाणु उर्जा विभाग, जयपुर (राज) के

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री धन्ना लाल,कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2011) को जैसा कि

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 03.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/3/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव³⁹⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2021

S.O. 152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2011) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur (raj) and Shri Dhanna Lal, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 03.02.2021.

[No. L-14012/3/2009 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी

पीठासीन अधिकारी

सी.जी.आई.टी. प्रकरण सं. 25/2011 Reference No. L-14012/3/2009-IR(DU) Dated:13.7.2011

श्री धन्ना लाल पुत्र श्री जगदीष बैरवा निवासी 34/22, सेक्टर-3, प्रताप नगर, सांगानेर, जयपुर।

1. श्रम एवं नियोजन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 13.07.2011 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जावेगा) की धारा 10 (1) (डी) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियो के अनुसरण में उपर्युक्त पांॅंचों प्रार्थीगण के संम्बध में निम्नांकित (समेकित रूप में) विवाद न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस अधिकरण को संदर्भित किये गये :-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 399

संविदा के आधार पर रखा गया था। इसलिए सेवा मुक्ति का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता है। अप्रार्थी उद्योग की श्रेणी में नहीं आता है। प्रार्थीगण को कार्य उपलब्धता पर जारी निविदा व निर्धारित बजट में कार्य सम्पन्न करने हेतु रखा जाने से ऐसी नियुक्ति अधिनियम की धारा 2 (ओ ओ)े (बी बी) के अन्र्तगत आती है व धारा 25-एफ के प्रावधान आकृष्ट ही नहीे होते हैं। प्रार्थीगण एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना प्रमाणित नहीं कर पाये हैं। अप्रार्थी द्वारा अधिनियम व नियमों की अवहेलना नहीं की गई है न ही कोई अनुचित श्रम अभ्यास किया गया हैं। किसी अन्य श्रमिक को कार्य हेतु नहीं लगाया गया है। अतः वाद अस्वीकार किये जावें।

6. उपर्युक्त पॉंचों विवाद प्रकरणों में प्रार्थीगण के अभिकथन व वादोत्तर समान हैं तथा प्रार्थीगण की सेवा की प्रकृति व सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि भी समान ही हैं। इसलिए इन पॉंचों विवादो में उत्पन्न विवादबिंदु समान होने से इन विवादों का अधिनिर्णयन एकीकृत रूप से उभयपक्ष की सहमति से किया जा रहा हैं।

1. बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा व अन्य 1978 ए. आई. आर. 548

⁴⁰⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

6. प्रिंसीपल डूंगर कॉंलेज बीकानेर बनाम ओमप्रकाश 1999 लेब. आई. सी. 97 (राजस्थान)

7. बी. डी. ओ. प्रागपुर बनाम योगिंन्दर कुमार 2008 (118) एफ. एल. आर. 460 (हि. प्रदेश)

3. स्टेट ऑंफ गुजरात बनाम प्रतम सिंह नरसिंह परमार (2001) 9 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज 713।

...प्रार्थीगण

5. अनुतोष?

13.

14. इस सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. का प्रतिपरीक्षा में किया गया यह कथन महत्वपूर्ण है कि नमूनों के परीक्षण से यह पता चलता है कि पदार्थ यूरेनियम है अथवा नहीं? यदि यूरेनियम होता है तो उसका उपयोग परमाणु संयंत्र में विद्युत उत्पादन में प्रयोग किया जाता है। इस प्रकार उत्पादित विद्युत उपभोक्ताओं प्रयोग में आती है। इस समस्त प्रक्रिया में मानव एवं मशीन का प्रयोग होता है। इस कथन से यह उपधारणा सरलता से की जा सकती है कि उत्पादित विद्युत के उपभोक्ताओं को विक्रय से प्रतिफल स्वरूप धनराशि प्राप्त होती ही है। अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j) के अन्र्तगत "उद्योग" से नियोजकों का कोई कारबार, व्यवसाय, उपक्रम, विनिर्माण या आजीविका अभिप्रेत हैं। प्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत निर्णय बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कतिपय महत्वपूर्ण दिशा निर्देश प्रतिपादित किये है-तदुनुसार जहॉं कार्यकलापो के संचालन हेतु तंत्रात्मक व्यवस्था जो नियोजक व कर्मकारों के सहकार से संगठित हो, जिसमें सीधा व सारवान तत्व व्यवसायिक हो, जो मानव उपयोग या सेवार्थ उत्पादन व उसके वितरण से संबंधित हो- ऐसा उपक्रम "उद्योग" होता है।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 401

18.

20. विपक्षी ने सशपथ कथन करते हुए वांछित प्रलेखों के संबंध में यह कहा हैः

3. बैंक स्टैटमेंट प्रस्तुत कर दिये है।

4. कार्य आवंटन रजिस्टर- प्रार्थीगण के नियमित आधार पर नियुक्त न होने तथा प्रार्थीगण को कोई विशिष्ट कार्य न दिये जाने के कारण यह रजिस्टर संधारित नहीं किये गये- प्रार्थीगण की सेवा, निविदा प्रस्तुत करने के आधार पर ली गई- इसलिए प्रस्तुत नहीं हुए है।

⁴⁰² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

इन मस्टर रोल के अतिरिक्त विपक्षी ने प्रदर्श आर-5 व आर-6 उपस्थिति पत्रक भी साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत किये है-जिनमें वर्णित उपस्थिति विवरण प्रदर्श W- 7, W- 10, W- 11, W- 12, W- 15, W- 16, से समानता दर्शाता है। यही नहीं प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षा में प्रदर्श आर-5/3/ अनुलग्नक-3 में वर्णित विवरण को स्वयं से संबंधित विवरण होना, व सही होना स्वीकार किया है।

29. आर. एम. येलाती बनाम असि. एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि 240 दिन सतत सेवा करने के तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने का प्राथमिक सिद्विभार वादी/ प्रार्थी पर ही है- यह दायित्व वादी द्वारा स्वीकार्य साक्ष्य (मौखिक व प्रलेखीय) प्रस्तुत करके उन्मोचित किया जाता है। दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक यदि नियोजक से उपस्थिति व वेतन भुगतान का अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन करें- और नियोजक प्रस्तुत न करे- तो नियोजक के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा करने का विनिश्चय प्रत्येक मामले के तथ्यों पर निर्भर होगा। हस्तगत[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 403 प्रकरणों की उपर्युक्त परिस्थितियों के प्रकाश में विपक्षी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा किये जाने का कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है। तथा यह निर्णयज विधि प्रार्थी के पक्ष में सहायक नहीं है।

37.

⁴⁰⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

38.

पंचाट आज दिनांक 29 दिसम्बर 2020 को लिखा व हस्ताक्षरित किया गया।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 153 —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार परमाणु खानिज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान निदेशालय, पश्चिम क्षेत्र, परमाणु उर्जा विभाग, जयपुर (राज) के

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मनोज कु मार पीपलीवाल, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 28/2011) को

जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 03.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/1/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 405

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2021

S.O. 153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2011) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur (Raj) and Shri Manoj Kumar Pipliwal , Worker which was received by the Central Government on 03.02.2021.

[No. L-14012/1/2009 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी

पीठासीन अधिकारी

ReferenceNo.L-14012/1/2009-IR(DU) Dated:13.7.2011

श्री मनोज कुमार पीपलीवाल पुत्र श्री कन्हैया लाल निवासी प्लाट नं. 23 मौजी नगर कालोनी, प्रताप नगर, सेक्टर-8, सांगानेर, जयपुर।

...प्रार्थीगण

1. श्रम एवं नियोजन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 13.07.2011 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जावेगा) की धारा 10 (1) (डी) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियो के अनुसरण में उपर्युक्त पांॅंचों प्रार्थीगण के संम्बध में निम्नांकित (समेकित रूप में) विवाद न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस अधिकरण को संदर्भित किये गये :-

2. उपर्युक्त पॉंचों विवाद इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त होने पर उभयपक्ष को आहूत करते हुए- प्रार्थीगण को निर्देश दिया गया कि वे अपने दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करें। तदुपरांत प्रार्थीगण की ओर से दिनांक 04.10.2011 को दावे के अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किये गये। प्रार्थीगण के कथन संक्षेप में इस प्रकार वर्णित हैं। प्रार्थीगण को 05.07.2005 से 10.01.2006 के मध्य विभिन्न तिथियों पर चतुर्थ श्रेणी (हेल्पर तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियुक्त किया गया। प्रार्थीगण पत्थर के नमूनों की पिसाई, छनाई, घिसाई व अन्य कार्यालयी कार्य अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियाें के दिशा निर्देश पर करते थे। अप्रार्थी संस्थान उद्योग की परिभाषा में आता हैं। प्रार्थीगण को अप्रार्थी ने दिनांक 30.04.2008 को अवैध रूप से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया।

3. प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नियोजक-कर्मकार के संबंध थे। प्रार्थीगण की सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व धारा 25 (एफ) अधिनियम के अनुसार नोटिस/नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीगण को नहीं किया गया। प्रार्थीगण से जो कार्य करवाया जा रहा था वह स्थाई प्रकृति का था व आज भी अन्य श्रमिकाें से करवाया जा रहा है। प्रार्थीगण ने 240 दिन से अधिक दिनों तक लगातार कार्य किया है। अप्रार्थी ने श्रमिकों की वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई न ही कोई घरेलू जॉंच की- तथा अनुचित श्रम व्यवहार किया। इस प्रकार धारा 25, (एफ)/ (जी)/ (एच) अधिनियम व नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानो का उल्लंघन किया है। प्रार्थीगण सेवा मुक्ति के पश्चात से बेरोजगार हैं। अतः दिनांक 30.04.2008 को की गई प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैद्य घोषित करते हुए प्रार्थीगण को विगत वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावे।

⁴⁰⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

4. अप्रार्थी/विपक्षी ने दिनांक 04.07.2012 को पॉंचो प्रकरणों में वादोत्तर प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कहा हैं कि प्रार्थीगण को किसी पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई, बल्कि आवश्यक कार्य करने के लिए आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में अंशकालीन संविदा के आधार पर रखा गया था। इसलिए सेवा मुक्ति का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता है। अप्रार्थी उद्योग की श्रेणी में नहीं आता है। प्रार्थीगण को कार्य उपलब्धता पर जारी निविदा व निर्धारित बजट में कार्य सम्पन्न करने हेतु रखा जाने से ऐसी नियुक्ति अधिनियम की धारा 2 (ओ ओ)े (बी बी) के अन्र्तगत आती है व धारा 25-एफ के प्रावधान आकृष्ट ही नहीे होते हैं। प्रार्थीगण एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना प्रमाणित नहीं कर पाये हैं। अप्रार्थी द्वारा अधिनियम व नियमों की अवहेलना नहीं की गई है न ही कोई अनुचित श्रम अभ्यास किया गया हैं। किसी अन्य श्रमिक को कार्य हेतु नहीं लगाया गया है। अतः वाद अस्वीकार किये जावें।

787

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 407

6. प्रिंसीपल डूंगर कॉंलेज बीकानेर बनाम ओमप्रकाश 1999 लेब. आई. सी. 97 (राजस्थान)

7. बी. डी. ओ. प्रागपुर बनाम योगिंन्दर कुमार 2008 (118) एफ. एल. आर. 460 (हि. प्रदेश)

3. स्टेट ऑंफ गुजरात बनाम प्रतम सिंह नरसिंह परमार (2001) 9 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज 713।

...प्रार्थीगण

5. अनुतोष?

13.

14. इस सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. का प्रतिपरीक्षा में किया गया यह कथन महत्वपूर्ण है कि नमूनों के परीक्षण से यह पता चलता है कि पदार्थ यूरेनियम है अथवा नहीं? यदि यूरेनियम होता है तो उसका उपयोग परमाणु संयंत्र में विद्युत उत्पादन में प्रयोग किया जाता है। इस प्रकार उत्पादित विद्युत उपभोक्ताओं प्रयोग में आती है। इस समस्त प्रक्रिया में मानव एवं मशीन का प्रयोग होता है। इस कथन से यह उपधारणा सरलता से की जा सकती है कि उत्पादित विद्युत के उपभोक्ताओं को विक्रय से प्रतिफल स्वरूप धनराशि प्राप्त होती ही है। अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j) के अन्र्तगत "उद्योग" से नियोजकों का कोई कारबार, व्यवसाय, उपक्रम, विनिर्माण या आजीविका अभिप्रेत हैं। प्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत निर्णय बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कतिपय महत्वपूर्ण दिशा निर्देश प्रतिपादित किये है-तदुनुसार जहॉं कार्यकलापो के संचालन हेतु तंत्रात्मक व्यवस्था जो नियोजक व⁴⁰⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] कर्मकारों के सहकार से संगठित हो, जिसमें सीधा व सारवान तत्व व्यवसायिक हो, जो मानव उपयोग या सेवार्थ उत्पादन व उसके वितरण से संबंधित हो- ऐसा उपक्रम "उद्योग" होता है।

18.

2. इस संदर्भ में प्रार्थी श्रीराम शर्मा ने अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा दिनांक 30.01.2020 में कहा है कि उसकी नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहॉं 06.07.2006 को चतुर्थ श्रेणी (तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर हुई थी। प्रार्थी ने अपने पूर्व शपथ पत्र दिनांक 06.07.2014 में नियुक्ति तिथि 06.07.2005 वर्णित की है, किंतु अभिभाशक प्रार्थी ने इसे टंकण की त्रुटि कहते हुए 06.07.2006 ही मानने का निवेदन किया - इस निवेदन पर विपक्षी ने आपत्ति नहीं की है- अतः नियुक्ति तिथि 06.07.2006 ही साक्ष्य में ग्रहण की जा रही हैं।

20. विपक्षी ने सशपथ कथन करते हुए वांछित प्रलेखों के संबंध में यह कहा हैः

3. बैंक स्टैटमेंट प्रस्तुत कर दिये है।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 409

29. आर. एम. येलाती बनाम असि. एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि 240 दिन सतत सेवा करने के तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने का प्राथमिक सिद्विभार वादी/ प्रार्थी पर ही है- यह दायित्व वादी द्वारा स्वीकार्य साक्ष्य (मौखिक व प्रलेखीय) प्रस्तुत करके उन्मोचित किया जाता है। दैनिक वेतन भोगी⁴¹⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] श्रमिक यदि नियोजक से उपस्थिति व वेतन भुगतान का अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन करें- और नियोजक प्रस्तुत न करे- तो नियोजक के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा करने का विनिश्चय प्रत्येक मामले के तथ्यों पर निर्भर होगा। हस्तगत प्रकरणों की उपर्युक्त परिस्थितियों के प्रकाश में विपक्षी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा किये जाने का कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है। तथा यह निर्णयज विधि प्रार्थी के पक्ष में सहायक नहीं है।

37.

विपक्षी ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि उन्होंने प्रार्थीगण को अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया न ही नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति का भुगतान किया- क्योंकि नोटिस स्थाई कर्मचारियों को दिया जाता है तथा प्रार्थीगण स्वयं ही काम छोड़ कर चले जाते थे। बिंदु सं. 2 के विनिश्चय के प्रकाश में प्रार्थीगण को चूंकि[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 411 अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का संरक्षण प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है, इसलिए इन प्रावधानो की पालना किये जाने की बाध्यता अप्रार्थी को नहीं थी- अतः यह बिंदु प्रार्थीगण के विरूद्व निर्णीत किया जाता है।

38.

40. प्रार्थी की प्रति परीक्षा में उसने स्वीकार किया है कि प्रदर्श आर- 12 सूची में उसका नाम नहीं है क्योंकि वह स्थाई कर्मचारियों की सूची है। विपक्षी का यह भी साक्ष्य है कि चॅूकि प्रार्थी नियमित कर्मचारी नहीं था इसलिए पे बिल रजिस्टर में उसका नाम नहीं है। प्रार्थी का नाम तो मास्टर रोल में ही अंकित होता था।

पंचाट आज दिनांक 29 दिसम्बर 2020 को लिखा व हस्ताक्षरित किया गया।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 154 —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार परमाणु खनिज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान निदेशालय, पश्चिम क्षेत्र, परमाणु उर्जा विभाग, जयपुर (राज) के

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री राके श कु मार उपाध्याय, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद

में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 26/2011) को जैसा

कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 03.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/5/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव⁴¹² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2021

S.O. 154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2011) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur (raj) and Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 03.02.2021.

[No. L-14012/5/2009 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी

पीठासीन अधिकारी

ReferenceNo.L-14012/5/2009-IR(DU) Dated:13.7.2011

श्री राकेश कुमार उपाध्याय पुत्र श्री हरी किशन शर्मा निवासी सेक्टर-8, 82/271 चेतक मार्ग प्रताप नगर, सांगानेर, जयपुर।

1. श्रम एवं नियोजन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 13.07.2011 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जावेगा) की धारा 10 (1) (डी) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियो के अनुसरण में उपर्युक्त पांॅंचों प्रार्थीगण के संम्बध में निम्नांकित (समेकित रूप में) विवाद न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस अधिकरण को संदर्भित किये गये :-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 413

1. बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा व अन्य 1978 ए. आई. आर. 548

2. किशन सिंह बनाम एक्जिक्टिव इंजी. हरियाणा स्टेट एग्री. मार्केटिंग बोर्ड ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, (सप्ली.) 787⁴¹⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] 3. डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीकू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़़ा ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, 1236

6. प्रिंसीपल डूंगर कॉंलेज बीकानेर बनाम ओमप्रकाश 1999 लेब. आई. सी. 97 (राजस्थान)

7. बी. डी. ओ. प्रागपुर बनाम योगिंन्दर कुमार 2008 (118) एफ. एल. आर. 460 (हि. प्रदेश)

3. स्टेट ऑंफ गुजरात बनाम प्रतम सिंह नरसिंह परमार (2001) 9 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज 713।

...प्रार्थीगण

5. अनुतोष?

13.

14. इस सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. का प्रतिपरीक्षा में किया गया यह कथन महत्वपूर्ण है कि नमूनों के परीक्षण से यह पता चलता है कि पदार्थ यूरेनियम है अथवा नहीं? यदि यूरेनियम होता है तो उसका उपयोग परमाणु संयंत्र में विद्युत उत्पादन में प्रयोग किया जाता है। इस प्रकार उत्पादित विद्युत उपभोक्ताओं प्रयोग में आती है। इस समस्त प्रक्रिया में मानव एवं मशीन का प्रयोग होता है। इस कथन से यह उपधारणा सरलता से की जा सकती है कि उत्पादित विद्युत के उपभोक्ताओं को विक्रय से प्रतिफल स्वरूप धनराशि प्राप्त होती ही है। अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j) के अन्र्तगत "उद्योग" से नियोजकों का कोई कारबार, व्यवसाय, उपक्रम, विनिर्माण या आजीविका अभिप्रेत हैं। प्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत निर्णय बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कतिपय महत्वपूर्ण दिशा निर्देश प्रतिपादित किये है-तदुनुसार जहॉं कार्यकलापो के संचालन हेतु तंत्रात्मक व्यवस्था जो नियोजक व[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 415 कर्मकारों के सहकार से संगठित हो, जिसमें सीधा व सारवान तत्व व्यवसायिक हो, जो मानव उपयोग या सेवार्थ उत्पादन व उसके वितरण से संबंधित हो- ऐसा उपक्रम "उद्योग" होता है।

18.

20. विपक्षी ने सशपथ कथन करते हुए वांछित प्रलेखों के संबंध में यह कहा हैः

3. बैंक स्टैटमेंट प्रस्तुत कर दिये है।

⁴¹⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

29. आर. एम. येलाती बनाम असि. एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि 240 दिन सतत सेवा करने के तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने का प्राथमिक सिद्विभार वादी/ प्रार्थी पर ही है- यह दायित्व वादी द्वारा स्वीकार्य साक्ष्य (मौखिक व प्रलेखीय) प्रस्तुत करके उन्मोचित किया जाता है। दैनिक वेतन भोगी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 417 श्रमिक यदि नियोजक से उपस्थिति व वेतन भुगतान का अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन करें- और नियोजक प्रस्तुत न करे- तो नियोजक के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा करने का विनिश्चय प्रत्येक मामले के तथ्यों पर निर्भर होगा। हस्तगत प्रकरणों की उपर्युक्त परिस्थितियों के प्रकाश में विपक्षी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा किये जाने का कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है। तथा यह निर्णयज विधि प्रार्थी के पक्ष में सहायक नहीं है।

37.

विपक्षी ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि उन्होंने प्रार्थीगण को अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया न ही नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति का भुगतान किया- क्योंकि नोटिस स्थाई कर्मचारियों को दिया जाता है तथा प्रार्थीगण स्वयं ही काम छोड़ कर चले जाते थे। बिंदु सं. 2 के विनिश्चय के प्रकाश में प्रार्थीगण को चूंकि⁴¹⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का संरक्षण प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है, इसलिए इन प्रावधानो की पालना किये जाने की बाध्यता अप्रार्थी को नहीं थी- अतः यह बिंदु प्रार्थीगण के विरूद्व निर्णीत किया जाता है।

38.

पंचाट आज दिनांक 29 दिसम्बर 2020 को लिखा व हस्ताक्षरित किया गया।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टार यूनियन दैइची लाइफ इंशोरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड, नवी मुम्बई एवं लखनऊ के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 30/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17011/01/2014-आईआर (एम)]

नवीन वैद्य, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 155.—In In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Company Limited, Navi Mumbai & Lucknow and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-17011/01/2014-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 419

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 30/2014

Ref. No. L-17011/01/2014-IR(M) dated 17.04.2014

BETWEEN :

Shri Durgesh Kumar Choudhary Asstt. Manager Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd. R/o 496/102, Chota Chandganj, Nirala Nagar Lucknow-226020.

1. The CEO

Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 11th Floor, Raghuleela Arcade, I.T. Park Sector 30A, Opp. Vashi Railway Station Vashi Navi Mumbai-400703

2. The Manager

Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 401-402 Ratan Square Building Hazratganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-17011/01/2014-IR(M) dated 17.04.2014, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Durgesh Kumar Choudhary, Asstt. Manager, Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., R/o 496/102, Chota Chandganj, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow and the CEO, Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 11th Floor, Raghuleela Arcade, I.T. Park, Sector 30A, Opp. Vashi Railway Station Vashi, Navi Mumbai & the Manager, Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 401-402 Ratan Square Building, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF STAR UNION DAIICHI LIFE

INSURANCE CO. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI & LUCKNOW IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES

OF SHRI DURGESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY W.E.F. 28.10.2013 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?

IF NOT, WHAT OTHER RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed to Shri Durgesh Kumar Choudhary, Asstt. Manager, Star Union Daiichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., R/o 496/102, Chota Chandganj, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to filed the statement of claim along with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4. The industrial dispute was registered in the Tribunal on 23.05.2014 and the office was directed to issue registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of reliance & list of witnesses on 25.06.2014; but no statement of claim together with documents etc. was filed; however, the workman sought adjournment by filing an application D-3. Since then the workman appeared on next date and thereafter, did not turn up at all nor filed any statement of claim till date.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon it to prove illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court, must fail. In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the management in terminating his services; but no statement of claim had been filed even after lapse of more than six years' time.

⁴²⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

6. In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference is decided against workman. Resultantly the workman is held entitled to any relief.

7. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

8. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

25th January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 95/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/145/2004-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12012/145/2004-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA , HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 95/2004

Ref. No. L-12012/145/2004-IR(B-II) dated 29.09.2004

BETWEEN :

Sh. Budhiram Prasad S/o Late Sh. Lolark Nath Mo. Rajapura, Aurai Road, Bhadohi Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.

Vs.

The Zonal Manager Bank of India B-20/44A-7, Varanasi Zone, Plaza Complex, Bhelupura, Varanasi (UP) – 221010.

AWARD

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 421

3. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA, VARANASI,

ZONE, IN IMPOSING A PUNISHMENT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT W.E.F. 20.11.2003

ON SHRI BUDHIRAM PRASAD, AGRICULTURE ASSISTANT, IS JUSTIFIED AND LEGAL?

IF NOT WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED FOR?"

3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the workman, Budhiram Prasad was working as Agriculture Assistant in Naya Bazar branch of the Bank when he was had been issued a charge sheet dated 28.04.2003. The management of the Bank appointed Sri D.R. Ram, Manager as Inquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 24.07.2003 before the disciplinary authority. A copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer was provided to the workman vide show cause later dated 06.09.2003. The Disciplinary Authority issued punishment order dated 20.11.2003, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, after considering his appeal dated 01.01.2004, vide appellate order dated 05.04.2004.

4. The workman has submitted that he was not feeling well, therefore, he applied for medical leave w.e.f. 03.10.2002; along with medical certificate, issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Jairampur Bhadohi; wherein he was advised for bed rest for 15 days, which was further extended for 15 days vide medical certificate dated 18.10.2002. The workman has submitted that further vide medical certificate dated 02.11.2002 he was advised for 30 days' bed rest being suffering from jaundice. The workman has alleged that the management did not pay salary for the month of November, 2002. It has been stated that the workman met with an accident and got his hand fractured, about which he informed the management with relevant certificates; however, the bank vide its letter dated 24.01.2003, directing him to get medically examined by panel doctor of the bank at Mugalsarai; but could not visit Mugalsarai due to financial constraints. Further, the workman has alleged that the management vide letter dated 20.03.2003 directed to be present at his residence for medical checkup; but none turned form the Bank for medical checkup and the bank vide letter dated 25.03.2003 mentioned that absence of workman from medical checkup shall be considered unauthorized absence and bank is free for taking disciplinary action. The workman has alleged that the management arbitrarily issued charge sheet dated 28.04.2003 and concluded ex-parte inquiry in absence of workman, denying his request regarding his inability in presence due to illness. The workman has alleged that Disciplinary Authority relying on ex-parte inquiry report imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with retiral benefits without disqualification for future employment vide order dated 20.11.2003; and the Appellate Authority confirmed the same vide order dated 05.04.2004, rejecting his appeal. The workman has also alleged that the inquiry officer conducted the ex- parte departmental inquiry without observing the due procedure of domestic inquiry, in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry did not afford proper opportunity to the workman for his defence; and the punishment ordered as well as appellate order is illegal. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside and he be reinstated with consequential benefits.

5. The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has submitted that the workman remained unauthorizedly absent from his duties w.e.f. 03.10.2002 on the plea of sickness and kept on submitting various medical certificates, issued by various doctors; and when the Bank asked him to present himself before Dr. Rajeev at Mughalsarai on 30.01.2003 for medical examination; the workman declined the same, thereafter, he was directed to contact CMO with details of disease and get his medical prescription/certificates counter signed by the CMO; but the workman again did not appear before CMO. The management has submitted that when the workman did not appear before CMO, the management deputed one doctor along with bank's officer to visit the workman's residence for his medical examination; but the workman was not available at his residence for medical examination on 13.03.2003 and 19.03.2003. The management has stated that when workman failed to comply with the directions of the Bank for getting himself medically examined on various occasions, he was issued a charge sheet dated 28.04.2003 and a departmental inquiry was initiated. The workman did not present himself before inquiry officer also, which led to proceed inquiry in his absence and the inquiry was concluded on the basis of material available before the inquiry officer. The management has stated that on submission of the inquiry report on 24.072003, the workman was issued a show cause notice dated 06.09.2003 and was given chance for personal hearing on 20.09.2003 & 06.10.2003; but when the workman did not submit any reply to the show cause or turn up for personal hearing on two successive dates, the order of punishment dated 20.11.2003 was issued, which was confirmed, after considering appeal of the workman, by the Appellant Authority vide order dated 05.04.2004. The management of the Bank has defended its domestic proceedings with submission that the workman had been afforded all reasonable opportunity given under rules the principles of natural justice were fully complied with; and when the workman did not turn up before the Inquiry Officer, in spite of serval communications, the Inquiry Officer had left with no alternate than to proceed ex-parte against workman and conduct an ex-parte inquiry in absence of the workman; hence, there is no anomaly with it; and accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry⁴²² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] proceedings conducted by it may be upheld and the action of the Bank vide order dated20.11.2003 be declared just, fair and legal without any benefit to the workman concerned.

6. The workman has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respective case. The workman examined himself; whereas the management examined Shri Dudh Lal Ram Dev Ram in support of their respective pleadings. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. The workman retrained form proceedings since 27.01.2016. Following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 30.12.2020:

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper.

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges or not?

After framing the above preliminary issues, the submissions of the authorized representative of the management has been heard; and date was fixed for award, keeping in view long pendency of the case, since 2004.

8. Heard learned counsel of the management alone and perused entire material available on record.

Issue No: 01:

9. The authorized representative of the management has submitted that the workman committed gross misconduct of unauthorized absence from duties. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the workman who absented himself unauthorizedly w.e.f. 03.10.2002, did not appear before panel doctor for medical examination nor did he let the Bank's doctor to examine himself at his residence, therefore, he was issued a charge sheet for his alleged unauthorized absence. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that the workman did not appeared before the inquiry and the inquiry was conducted in his absence; however, all reasonable opportunity was afforded to the workman during the entire course of inquiry, but the workman failed to avail the same; and there is no infirmity with the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer.

In rebuttal, the workman did not submit any oral or written submission; however, he has pleaded that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and he was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself.

10. The workman has come forward with a case that he had been issued charge sheet for unauthorized absence, in spite of the fact that he had been giving constant information of his illness with supportive documents. It is also the case of the workman that he was denied proper defence, before the inquiry officer and the inquiry had been conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice. The management has denied the charges and in support of its pleadings has filed number of correspondences; wherein the workman had been directed to get his medical examination done by the doctor, prescribed by the Bank. However, from perusal of the documents relied upon by the parties it is evident that the management made all efforts to get the medical examination of the workman by its doctor to check the claim of the workman about his prolonged illness; but the workman failed to comply with the directions of the management, which led to issuance of charge sheet dated 28.04.2003; however the workman did not present himself before the Inquiry Officer and resultantly the inquiry was conducted ex-parte, in absence of the workman and report was drawn on the basis of the material and statement of the witnesses before the inquiry officer. Moreover, the Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the inquiry report, issued a show cause along with copy of inquiry report to the workman with opportunity for personal hearing. The workman neither filed reply to show cause nor appeared for personal hearing; and accordingly, the punishment order was issued. It is evident form the documents on record that the workman preferred an appeal, which was properly disposed of by the Appellate Authority. Thus, there seems no anomaly with the inquiry or denial of principles of natural justices to the workman by the Inquiry.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon it to prove illegality of the action, here in the instant case, it was burden upon the workman to prove bonafide of his prolonged absence; but he did not turn up during entire inquiry process, unless the punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, in the case in hand, there is no iota of evidence on record which goes to suggest that the workman made any effort to participate in the departmental inquiry and principles of natural justice were ever denied to him during the inquiry. Thus, the workman utterly failed to substantiate that the Inquiry Officer did not conduct the inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice; and accordingly, the issue No. 01 is decided in favour of the management.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 423

Issue No. 02:

11. The workman has pleaded that the inquiry report of the Inquiry officer is based on surmise and conjuncture and are perverse as based on no material. However, the management has denied the allegation of the workman and has submitted that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on the evidence, collected by the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry and are detailed.

From perusal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that the Inquiry Officer has based his findings on the documents produced during the inquiry and statement of witnesses who appeared before the inquiry. The version of the workman could not be taken into account as he did not turn before the Inquiry and the inquiry proceeded in his absence. Thus, it could be well inferred that the findings of the Inquiry Officer do not suffer with the vice of perversity; and accordingly, the issue No. 02 is decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 03:

12. Now, after decision of the preliminary issue no. 01 & 02, in the favour of the management, the pleadings of the workman that the punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate and this Tribunal should interfere into it within the provisions providing under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is taken into account. In this regard, it is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

13. It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of invoking the powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that the Court should interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the misconduct committed or it is harsh. Admittedly, in the instant case the workman was given charge sheet for committing misconduct of 'unauthorized absence from duties'. Moreover, it has been held in preceding para that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; and also that the findings of the Enquiry Officer do not suffer with the vice of perversity.

14. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for misconduct of unauthorized absence; which has been duly proved during departmental inquiry; and the workman had been punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service without disqualification form future employment. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon'ble Apex Court on review of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal position in the following words:

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in

defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the

⁴²⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him

and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and

not the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the

punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found

to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless

shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

15. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

16. The workman was punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, without disqualification from future employment; However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has observed that overstaying on leave or unauthorized absenteeism from the workplace enables the employer to dismiss an employee as it amounts to serious misconduct.

17. Moreover, the Bank being a financial institution, the employee has to work with utmost devotion to its customers and the absence of the workman without any prior approval of the authorities might lead to lack in service to the customers; which is not permissible at all. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore the courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."

18. In the instant case the charge of unauthorized absence had been found to be proved. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances and considering the laws pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman by the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 425 Appellate Authority for proved gross misconduct of 'unauthorized absence'. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

19. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

28th January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 18/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/20/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/20/2017-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 18/2017

Ref. No. L-12011/20/2017-IR(B-II) dated 09.05.2017

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary Central Bank Employees Association C.B.E.A., D-75, Sector-D, LDA Colony Kanpur Road Scheme Lucknow – 226012. (Espousing matter of Shri Vihbakar Kushwaha)

Vs.

1. The General Manager (HRD)

Central Bank of India, Central Office Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021.

2. The Zonal Manager

Central Bank of India 23, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow – 226001.

3. The Regional Manager

Central Bank of India, Regional Office 73, Hazratganj, Lucknow – 226001.

⁴²⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/20/2017-IR(B-II) dated 09.05.2017, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

LUCKNOW DEPRIVING PROMOTION TO SHRI VIBHAKAR KUSHWAHA TO THE POST OF

STENO-OFFICER IS JUST, FAIR AND LEGAL? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN

CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. The case of the workman, Vibhakar Kushwaha, in brief is that he joined the services of the bank as Stenographer on 08.04.1985 and was posted at Regional Office, Etawah; and subsequently, was transferred to Lucknow in same capacity and emoluments, on his own request vide order dated 29.07.1988 and was paid steno-allowance; but the said allowance was stopped vide order dated 19.05.1990 with immediate effect, in violation to the clause 5.9 of Bi-partite Settlement. It has been alleged by the workman that he was transferred back to Etawah on 22.08.1990 and on his joining at Etawah his steno-allowance was again resumed by the management; but when again the workman requested for transfer to Lucknow, he was transferred on the condition of non-payment of steno allowance. The workman has alleged that he was given positing at Regional Office, Lucknow as Clerk/Typist just to deprive him of the steno-allowance and future promotion. It has been further alleged by the workman that the bank in year 1996, without following any due procedure for promotion to the post of Steno-Officer, promoted on Shri S. Durai Pandian to the post of Steno-Officer, who himself was recruited as Stenographer and joined the bank on 09.04.1985; however, after completion of promotion process of Mr. Pandian, the special allowance of workman had been restored on 24.11.1997. The workman has submitted that promotion of Mr. Pandian was challenged by one Mr. Fateh Singh, who was designated and not recruited a stenographer, before this Tribunal; and this Tribunal held him eligible for promotion as Steno- Officer. Accordingly, the workman has stated that since both the promoted candidates viz. Mr S. Durai Pandian and Fateh Singh is junior to him, therefore, he deserves to be promoted with consequential benefits and has prayed accordingly.

4. The management of the Central Bank of India has disputed the claim of the workman through its written statement; wherein it has submitted that the cause of action pertains to the year 1996; however, the matter under dispute has been raised with an inordinate delay of more than 20 years, hence, not maintainable; moreover, the similar cause of action has already been referred in I.D. No. 12/2016 before this Tribunal, therefore, the proceedings in present case is barred by the principles of res-judicata. The management has submitted that the transfer request of the workman had been accepted by the Bank for his transfer from Agra Regional Office to Regional Office, Lucknow vide letter dated 29.07.1988 with certain condition, which are binding upon him. The management of the Bank has further stated that while seeking his transfer for second time, back to Lucknow from Etawah, the workman himself foregone his steno allowance while working as clerk cum typist in Lucknow; accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman filed its rejoinder; wherein apart from reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim, introduced nothing new.

6. The parties filed documentary evidence. The workman examined himself and one Mr. Phateh Singh in support of his claim; whereas the management examined Shri Prabhat Kumar Yadav, Sr. Manager in support of their respective case. The parties cross-examined the witnesses of each other.

7. Perused entire evidence available on record and scanned entire evidence available on record in light of the rival pleadings.

8. The workman has argued that the he was initially appointed in the bank services on 08.04.1985 and was posted at Regional Office, Etawa as an additional stenographer under jurisdiction of Lucknow Zone; however, on transfer to Lucknow, at his own request, his steno allowance was stopped and subsequently he was transferred back to Etawah on 22.08.1990 and was allowed to join back Lucknow, on transfer at his own request. The workman has vehemently argued that while his posting at Lucknow he was not given steno allowance, just to deprive him of his legitimate promotion to the post of Steno Officer; and the Bank management illegally promoted one Mr. S. Durai Pandian as Steno Officer and subsequently one Mr. Fateh Singh as Steno Officer, at the directions of the Tribunal. He has relied on:

(i) 1983 (47) FLR 394 K. D. Gupta vs Union of Inia & others.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 427

(ii) Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1742 of 2010 between State of West Bengal &

anther vs Kamala Prasad & others decided on 16.02.2010.

(iii) Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2008 between Shakuntala vs State of Haryana

& others decided on 09.06.2010.

(iv) 1981 AIR 1915 Uma Charan vs State of Madhya Pradesh & another.

9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the management has argued that the workman who was posted in Regional Office, Etawah, sought transfer to Lucknow and on his transfer to Lucknow as per his own request vide letter dated 29.07.1988, he was not entitled for any officiating allowance to a post attracting special allowance for a period of 30 moths and promotion for a period of 3 years from the date of his reporting at Regional Office, Lucknow. The management has argued the having accepted the conditions mentioned in letter dated 29.07.1988, the workman joined at Lucknow Regional Office; and accordingly, cannot not claim benefits contrary to the terms of letter dated 29.07.1988. The authorized representative has vehemently argued that the claim of the workman is stale one, raised after a gap of 21 years; hence not maintainable; moreover, it is barred by the principle of res-judicata. He has relied upon:

(i) Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Kartar Singh vs Managing Director, HVPNL &

others in CWP No. 26962 of 2015 (O&M) decided on 04.04.2018.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused material available on record.

11. The workman has come up with a case that he had been transferred to Lucknow twice at his own request and the management in order to deprive him of his legitimate rights, deliberately exploited his conditions and did not pay him steno allowance in an illegal manner. He has also come with a case that one Mr. S. Durai Pandian and another Shri Phateh Singh who were prompted to the post of Steno Officer were junior to him and he is entitled for promotion.

12. In rebuttal, the management has contended that the workman had been initially been appointed in Etawah region and on his transfer to Lucknow region at his own request; and he himself agree to forego the steno allowance, therefore, he was transferred to Lucknow region depriving him steno allowance for 30 months and promotion for 3 years, therefore, he cannot claim the same at this highly belated state i.e. after lapse of more than 21 years.

13. Having perused pleading of the rival parties and evidence relied upon by them it is admitted case of the parties that the workman on recruitment as stenographer had been given initial posting at Etawah Region on 08.04.1985; however, he was transferred at his own request to Lucknow regional office vide letter dated 29.07.1988; wherein he was deprived of certain allowances/privileges. The letter dated 29.07.1988 is reproduced hereunder:

"RO/PRS/5/88/1359 Dated: 29.7.88

MEMO

We are pleased to inform Mr. Vibhakar Kushwaha, Hindi Steno, that his request for transfer to

Lucknow has been considered sympathetically by the Management.

Under instructions from our Zonal office, Agra we advise having transferred services of

Mr. Vibhakar Kushwaha, Hindi Steno to Regional office, Lucknow in the same capacity and on

emoluments as per rules.

It is made clear to Mr. Kushwaha that this transfer has been effected at this own request to suit his

own convenience, he will not be allowed any TA/DA or joining time. He will also not be eligible to

claim officiating allowance to a post attracting special allowance for a period of 30 months and

promotion for a period of 3 years from the date of his reporting at Regional Office, Lucknow.

He shall stand relieved from this office on 8.7.88 after the day's work with instructions to report

Regional Manager, Lucknow immediately for further instructions.

-sd-

Regional Manager"

It is the case of the management of the Bank that the workman could not be considered for promotion for the reasons that he was not drawing any steno allowance; accordingly, was treated in clerical cadre. Moreover, the management of the Bank denied the steno allowance on the basis of above quoted transfer order⁴²⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] and claims that the workman himself requested for transfer, which resulted into withdrawal of steno allowance; but from perusal of the above quoted transfer order, it is apparent on the face of record that there is no mention of foregoing the steno allowance by the workman.

Admittedly the workman had been recruited as Stenographer and he was entitled for special allowance attracted by the post of Stenographer; moreover, his cadre cannot be changed or treated to be changed by virtue of denial of any special allowance attracted by the post, as it was in violation of para 5.9 of IBPS, which is as follows:

31. A workman will be entitled to a special allowance only so long as he is in charge of such

work or the performance of such duties which attract such allowance. Whether a workman can be

asked to cease to do such work or discharge such duties and consequently cease to draw such

allowance, will depend upon the terms of employment. For instance, a workman who is employed

permanently as a Head Clerk or Stenographer cannot be deprived of his special allowance by asking

him to work as an ordinary clerk or asking him not to work as a Head Clerk or Stenographer. If,

however, a recipient of a special allowance wants to give up the work or duties which entitle him to

the special allowance, he shall if his request is granted, cease to draw the special allowance."

Here in the instant case, there was no such request from the workman to give up his special allowance while seeking his transfer; moreover, while seeking transfer the Award Staff Employees, where not required to give up their special allowance as per provisions of contained in para 2.1 of the circular dated 18.02.1999 regarding 'Transfer of Award Staff Employees at Their Request From One Station to Another', as follows:

2.1 Award Staff Employees recruited or appointed in the Bank's service in the Special

Allowance Carrying posts such as stenos/steno-cum-typist/steno-cum-clerks etc. in clerical cadre

and drivers, armed guards, watchmen, etc. in the sub-ordinate cadre, may seek transfer in the same

capacity without the requirement of foregoing the Special Allowance, to any Branches/Offices in

India and their transfer shall be considered subject to availability of suitable vacancy in such

Special Allowance carrying post at the requested place."

Schedule-II of 9th Bipartite Settlement, relied upon by the parties revel that certain posts, which are included in the clerical cadre, including Stenographer, carry special pay. This special pay/allowance is attributed to them by virtue of additional work allotted to them or due to dealing with some work of special nature, different from work allotted to other posts included in clerical cadre. Therefore, given special pay/allowance does not differentiate between posts in clerical cadre; but due to such special allowance, they could be put in sub cadre, within the clerical cadre; however, denial or non-drawl of this special allowance does not changes their category or sub-cadre, which was done in the instant case in hand as the workman had been treated as simple clerk instead of Stenographer, due to non-drawl of steno allowance. Hence, posting of a 'steno' as 'clerk' does not change his cadre.

Thus, from above quoted circular it is clear that the action of the management in depriving the

workman from special allowance while transferring him was arbitrary and contrary to the Rules; and the

workman was entitled for special allowance during his posting at Regional Office at Lucknow.

14. Now taking into account the claim of the workman regarding his eligibility for promotion as Steno Officer, it is admitted fact that the workman had been recruited in the bank services as Hindi Stenographer and he joined on 08.04.1985; whereas another Stenographer viz. S. Durai Pandian join the bank services on 09.04.1985 was given promotion as Bank Officer. In this regard the workman has relied upon decision of this Tribunal in Phateh Singh's case in reference No. L-12012/22/98/IR(B-II) dated 14.12.1998, which is admitted to the management; wherein this Tribunal held that Mr. S. Durai Pandian was no eligible for promotion as on the date when he exercised his option for promotion, he did not possess requisite length of qualifying service; moreover, this Tribunal held said Phateh Singh entitled for promotion instead of Mr. S. Durai Pandian. Hence, in the circumstances, it could be well presumed that had the workman been given chance to participate in the selection process, he would have superseded Mr. S. Durai Pandian, an ineligible candidate. Moreover, this Tribunal vide its award dated 18.12.2000 has held as under:

18. Thus, on the strength of the discussions made above, it can be safely concluded that the

management of the Central Bank of India did not act legally and justifiably, in not considering

Phateh Singh to the post of Steno Office. The management did not follow the terms of Promotion

Policy Rules, regulating selection to the post of Steno Officer. In the circumstances, Phateh Singh,

being the only eligible candidate with valid irrevocable option, was entitled to the said post w.e.f. the

date, the post of Steno Office was filled by Mr. D. Pandian an ineligible person. In effect, the post

has to be treated vacant, filled by the workman Phateh Singh entitling him to all the service and

pecuniary benefits."

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 429

15. The plea taken by the management that the case is being raised by the workman long delay; however, on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the present industrial dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act; and there is no scope of limitation in the Section 10 of the Act. Hence, upon reference of an industrial dispute by the appropriate Government, it is duty casted upon the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to answer the terms of reference. Admittedly the present case is not regarding denial of legitimate rights of the workman; and the workman had been kept on pursuing his matter with the management and it was only after their denial he approached the Conciliation officer for his legal remedy, therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case the objection raised by the management regarding delay in raising the present industrial dispute is not tenable in the eye of law. Moreover, the delay could not be used as tool to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights of proper adjudication of the case on its merits.

16. Therefore, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the management of Central Bank of India in depriving promotion to the workman to the post of Steno-officer is illegal and resultantly, the workman is entitled for promotion as Steno Officer from the date of vacancy on which S. Durai Pandian was appointed as Steno Officer i.e. He is also entitled for consequential notional benefits and back wages as well as post retiral benefits.

17. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

18. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

28th January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनिय, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 48/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/66/2008-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow 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 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/66/2008-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 48/2008

Ref. No. L-12011/66/2008-IR(B-II) dated 01.09.2008

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary Bank of Baroda Staff Association 15/222 A, Civil Lines Kanpur (UP) (Espousing cause of Shri Sushil Kumar Wadhwan)⁴³⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

Vs.

The Assistant General Manager Bank of Baroda 21A/25A, Banerjee Bhawan, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Civil Lines, Allahabad.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/66/2008-IR(B-II) dated 01.09.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the General Secretary, Bank of Baroda Staff Association, 15/222 A, Civil Lines, Kanpur (UP) and the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, 21A/25A, Banerjee Bhawan, Lal Bahadur , Shastri Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad for adjudication.

4. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF BARODA IN IMPOSING THE

PUNISHMENT OF 'DISMISSAL' FROM SERVICE 'ON SUSHIL KUMAR WADHAWAN, EC.

NO. 50421 VIDE ORDER DATED 18/08/2003 IS LEGAL AND AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF

THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?"

2. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Sushil Kumar Wadhawan, was working as Head Cashier, in the Binda branch of the Bank when he was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.05.1999; and subsequently, was issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 12.01.2001. Shri S. K. Pandey was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 19.04.2003 before the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the Inquiry Report vide letter dated 22.04.2003 and subsequently was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2003; however, he was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and after hearing the workman the final order for punishment dated 18.08.2003 was issued. The appeal of the workman was also rejected vide order dated 22.04.2004

3. It has been alleged by the workman that the prosecution did not prove the documents presented by the Presenting Officer. It has also been alleged by the workman that his representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing impugned order. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside and impugned order be quashed.

4. The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has defended its domestic proceedings with submission that the workman had been afforded all opportunity given under rules the principles of natural justice were fully complied with; hence, there is no anomaly with it; and accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry proceedings conducted by it may be upheld and the action of the Bank vide order dated 18.08.2003 be declared just, fair and legal without any benefit to the workman concerned.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

6. The parties filed documents in support of their respective case. Following preliminary issues were framed in the presence of the parties vide order dated 09.03.2010:

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry was fair and proper?

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

After framing of preliminary issues, the parties the parties were called upon to adduce their evidence on preliminary issues, which they foregone; and accordingly, date was fixed for arguments on preliminary issues. The workman did not turn for oral submissions; accordingly, following orders were passed, on preliminary issues, vide order dated 27.02.2020:

"Thus, from the facts & circumstances of the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of the

considered opinion that the disciplinary enquiry, against the workman, was conducted in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and the workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity to

defend himself; and also that the findings of the Inquiry Officer do not suffer with the vice of

perversity. As such, the issue No. 01 & 02 is decided in favour of the management. The parties are

called upon to forward their argument over the quantum of punishment u/s 11A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 431

7. When the workman or his authorizes representative did not turn up for oral submissions, the argument of the management was heard on the point of quantum of punishment under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Also, the parties were afforded opportunity to file their written submission.

8. Heard, authorized representative of the management and perused entire material available on record.

9. Now taking up the third issue, it is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

10. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for his alleged misconduct of embezzlement, gross negligence and acting in manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank; which had been found proved by the inquiry officer and accordingly, the workman had been punished with punishment of dismissal without notice.

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance

of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court

would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the

court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial

review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the

decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the

punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found

to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless

shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

⁴³² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

13. In the instant case the workman, received money from the accounts holders to deposit the same into their respective account but instead of depositing he misappropriate the same and further made number of acts of omission and commission, which were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

Needless to point out that the misappropriation of the Bank's money speaks ill of the honesty and integrity of the workman concerned. This is definitely an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which leads to loss of faith in the workman. In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:

"Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is

affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason

that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss

of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed."

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 Hon'ble Apex court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that:

"(i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position,

be commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in

service/establishment would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the employee, or would be

detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be

subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite

inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability

of the employee, must be alleged and proved."

In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others AIR 2005 SC 3272, repelled the contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence.

14. Thus, the Bank being a financial institution dealing with the public money, the employees of the Bank are required to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to day transaction/functioning. The act of dishonesty or fraud or misappropriation lowers down the reputation of Bank in public. The public lose their confidence in Bank, which affects Bank's business and finally the national economy.

15. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 433

16. In the instant case the charge of misappropriation of the Bank's money was found to be proved and principles of natural justice were properly observed while conducting the departmental inquiry; and also the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not found to be perverse; accordingly, the workman was awarded punishment of dismissal without notice, which cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh to the proved misconduct, at any stretch of imagination.

Therefore, in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case; and law cited hereinabove, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman by the Disciplinary Authority for proved gross misconduct of 'misappropriation'. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled for any relief.

17. Reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

18. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

21st January, 2020

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 31/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/237/2003-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/237/2003-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 31/2004

Ref. No. L-12011/237/2003-IR(B-II) dated: 17.02.2004

BETWEEN :

The Regional Secretary Central Bank of India Employees Union 538, Swaroop Nagar, Chabhai Bareilly (UP) (Espousing case of Sri Diwan Giri)

The Regional Manager Central Bank of India Regional Office, B-88, Civil Lines Bareilly (UP) 243001⁴³⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/237/2003-IR(B-II) dated: 17.02.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER HE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA IN

NOT GIVING PROMOTION TO SHRI DIWAN GIRI, CLERK W.E.F. 01.01.1990 IS JUST,

FAIR AND LEGAL? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. The case of the workman, Diwan Giri, in brief, is that he had been appointed in sub-ordinate cadre in the Bank on 01.01.1990 and had been declared successful in the test and interview, conducted for promotion to the post of Clerk. The workman has alleged that the Manager of Meergunj Branch, Sri R.K. Bansal filed a FIR against the workman for alleged manhandling with him and a case was registered bearing No. 1379/1994 u/s 323/504/332 of IPC. The workman has submitted that after trail he had been acquitted from charges by the competent court of law vide order dated 12.12.1994 and when he represented for his promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1990, the management, issued charge sheet dated 26.07.1996 in pursuance to show cause memo dated 23.06.1990 and after conducting a departmental inquiry; where principles of natural justice were not duly observed was punished with punishment of Censure. It has been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside and he be held entitled for promotion to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 01.01.1990 with consequential benefits.

4. The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has submitted that since the disciplinary action was pending against the workman as such the promotion could not be released; however, confirmation and judgment from the Court in Criminal Case is not a binding in the internal aspects of the bank. The management has submitted since his reply of the workman, to the memo dated 23.06.1990, was not found satisfactory therefor, departmental proceedings were initiated against the workman for alleged gross-misconduct of misbehavior and assaulting the Branch Manager and disorderly behavior in the bank premises; however, after inquiry, the charges were found to be partially proved, therefore, the workman had been punished with the punishment of Censure. The management has also submitted that the workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, inasmuch as the departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after thorough appreciation of the findings of the inquiry officer, the workman was imposed with the punishment of Censure. As regards acquittal of the workman in criminal case, the management has submitted that the same was not clean acquittal but after giving him benefit of doubt, therefore, it had no effect on the domestic inquiry. The management has submitted that the punishment order is well reasoned and speaking; therefore, the same is liable to be up held, without any relief to the workman concerned.

6. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. The parties have filed documents in support of its case. The workman filed his affidavit in support of pleadings; but management neither cross-examined him nor adduced its oral evidence. Since the alleged action of the management for non-grant of promotion to the workman was based on the outcome of the domestic inquiry, therefore, following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 23.12.2020:

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper; and

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges or not?

The oral submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties had been heard at length and documents relied upon by the parties had been perused.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 435

10. However, in rebuttal the management has come up with a case, that the workman who was indulged in disruptive activities at work place and not only used abusive language but also hurled his seniors causing utter indiscipline, was issued a show cause dated 23.06.1990; and subsequently, was issued a charge sheet dated 26.07.1996 to the workman and after conducting a detailed inquiry, wherein the principles of natural justice were thoroughly observed, the workman was found partially guilty for the alleged charges and resultantly, the workman was punished with Censer. It is also the case of the management that the FIR was also lodged against the workman for similar deed; wherein he was acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt; hence the acquittal was not clean. The management had argued that the management had right to proceed with the departmental inquiry even after acquittal of the workman in criminal proceedings as departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand in a different footing; hence the denial of promotion to the promotion due to pendency of departmental proceeding and later on due to punishment award is just and legal.

10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties, the issued framed vide order dated 23.12.2020 are taken up for consideration hereunder:

Issue No. 01:-

11. As regards first issue regarding fairness of the domestic inquiry, the workman's union has taken a stand that the workman's request for dropping the charges was not adhered to by the management of the Bank on the basis of his acquittal in the criminal case with same charges and secondly that the principles of natural justice was duly followed during the departmental proceedings. The workman did not turn up cross-examination in support of his affidavit; moreover, from perusal of the inquiry proceedings on record, it is evident that the workman had been supplied copy of charge sheet along with documents relied upon before the inquiry, he was given opportunity to be represented by defence representative; apart from cross-examining the prosecution witness and adducing his defence. During inquiry the workman was granted adjournment/time in absence of his defence representative; moreover, he also filed with written submission before the inquiry. Though the workman has pleaded that there was violation of principles of natural justice; but failed to substantiate the same through cogent evidence i.e. documentary or oral. On the contrary, from perusal of the inquiry proceedings, available on record, it is established that the domestic inquiry was fairly conducted by the management and the workman had been given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of the inquiry.

Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. vs Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. 2019 LLR 1181 has observed as under:

"9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to

conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two

proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and

have different objectives. Ajit Kumar Nag (Supra). In the disciplinary proceedings, the question in

whether the Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a

lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether

the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what

sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules

governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. State of

Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417."

Hence, from perusal of the above quoted law, it is crystal clear that the submissions of the workman's union that the management should not have proceeded with the departmental inquiry on his acquittal in the criminal proceedings is not acceptable; moreover, the departmental inquiry, conducted by the management was fair and proper. Accordingly, the issue No. 01 is decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 02:-

12. As regards, issue No. 2, it is apparent on the face of record that the workman participated in the departmental proceedings and had been afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; moreover, acquittal of the workman in the criminal case has no effect on the ongoing departmental action. Also, the workman's union has not suggested at any juncture that the findings of the inquiry officer was perverse or inconsistent with the evidence collected by him during the course of inquiry. Moreover, form perusal of the cross-examination of the prime witness before the inquiry, the complainant, Shri R. K. Bansal, Branch Manager with whom the workman misbehaved, stood by his compliant and also before the criminal trail he corroborated his complaint with his statement. Also, the inquiry officer on over consideration of the entire evidence available on record, submitted his findings before the Disciplinary Authority with conclusion the charges 'partially proved'; hence, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse and the second issue is also decided in favour of the management.

⁴³⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

Issue No. 03:-

13. Now taking up the third issue, It is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

14. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for his alleged misbehavior, assaulting the Manager and disorderly behavior in the bank premises; which has been found partially proved by the inquiry officer and accordingly, the workman had been punished with 'Censure'; and the workman had been deprived of promotion due to pending departmental inquiry.

15. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in

defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the

court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him

and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and

not the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment

only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless

shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 437

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal

would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

17. Moreover, the Banks being financial institution; where the hard earned money of the public at large is kept, and any disorderly atmosphere in the Bank premises may lead to loss to trust of the depositors on the Banking institution; which may ultimately lead to collapse of financial system of the country and the same is not permissible at all. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

18. In the instant case, the workman was punished with the punishment of 'Censure'; however, he was not grated promotion due to reason that the departmental inquiry was contemplated against him. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Western Coalfield Ltd. vs Santosh Kumar and others 2018 LLR 764 has observed that hurling of filthy abusive language at a senior officer justifies dismissal; whereas in the present case, the workman had been punished with 'Censure', the charges being partially proved; and was not grated promotion as the departmental inquiry was contemplated against him. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of the case in hand and considering the laws pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

19. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

28th January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 45/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/51/2012-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी⁴³⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow 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 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12012/51/2012-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 45/2013

Ref. No. L-12012/51/2012-IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2013

BETWEEN :

Sh. Mehboob ali, S/o Sh. M. Ayub R/o – 9, Gulzar Colony, Behind Nav Bharat Times Lucknow.

AND

1. Chair Man Cum Managing Director

Bank of Baroda, Kendriya Office Mumbai

2. Asstt. General Manager

Incharge of the Region Regional Office, IInd Floor, V-23, Vibuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12012/51/2012-IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"KYA PRABANDAK, BANK OF BARODA, LUCKNOW DWARA SHRI MAHBOOB ALI PUTRA

SHIR MO. AYYUB DAILY WAGER KO USKE SAATH KE SUM STAFF KO NAUKARI MEIN

RAKHNE KI TAARIKH SE USE NAUKARI NA DIYA JANA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI?

YADI NAHI TO KAAMGAAR KIS RAAHAT KO PANE KA HAKDAAR HAI?"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 439

any of the provision of the Section 25 G and 25 H of the Act, since there existed no employer employee relationship between the Bank and the workman concerned. Accordingly, the management of the Bank has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman has field its rejoinder statement; wherein apart from reiterating the submissions already made in the statement of claim, the workman has introduced nothing new.

6. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. The workman examined himself; whereas the management examined Shri Rajesh Kumar, Branch Manager in support of their pleadings. Parties afforded opportunity to cross-examine witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral as well as written submissions.

7. Heard the authorized representative of the management and perused entire material available on record.

8. The learned counsel for workman has submitted that the workman had been engaged by the Bank for two spells i.e. from 17.11.1986 to 13.02.1987 and from 15.03.1988 to 11.06.1988 for 89-89 days each; but he was not given appointment by the Bank in pursuance to his application dated 15.10.1991, which he preferred in response to the advertisement dated 24.09.1991, in spite of the fact that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The learned counsel has also contended that the workman worked with the management of the bank for 178 days only; hence, it not a case of violation of provisions of section 25 F of the Act; rather the claim of the workman for induction into the bank services is on the basis of the advertisement dated 24.09.1991 and retaining other juniors in the services of the bank, therefore, their case is regarding violation of provisions of section 25 G & 25 H of the Act. The learned counsel has also argued that the preliminary objection raised by the management is not maintainable firstly, there is no limitation provided under the Act for reference under Section 10 of the Act; and secondly that the cause of action raised after decline of the management for settlement of grievances vide their letter dated 23.03.2009 and thereafter, raised the matter before appropriate authority/RLC (C) under Act in the year 2011, which subsequently, referred to this Tribunal in the year 2013.

9. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the management has argued that the case of the workman is barred by the limitation as it has been raised after an in ordinate delay of 20 years. He has also contended that the workman was not found eligible for empanelment for the reasons that he did not fulfil the eligibility conditions as he was not engaged as temporary basis and did not possess requisite qualification i.e. VII pass, at the time of this first engagement; moreover and he was not registered with the employment Exchange during the period of his engagement in two different spells and further, that he could not pursue his education as regular student at the time of his engagement as daily wager with the bank. The learned counsel of the management of the bank has relied upon:

I. 2007 LAB I.C. 270 Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, Hon'ble Supreme Court.

II. 2006 LAB I.C. 3060 Manager (now Regional Director) R.B.I. v. Gopinath Sharma, Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

III. 2002 (94) FLR 98 M/s Steel Authority of India v. P.O., Labour Court, Bokaro & another, Hon'ble

Jharkhand High Court

IV. 2000 (87) FLR 97 Telecom District Manager & others v. A.A. Angali & others, Hon'ble Karnataka

High Court.

V. 2004 (103) FLR 933 Narendra Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Kanpur & another, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

VI. 2009 (123) FLR 700 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Anurag Sharma & others, Hon'ble Allahabad

High Court.

VII. 2010 LAB I.C. 2890 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & others, Hon'ble Supreme Court.

VIII. 2012 (132) FLR 785 General Manager (Operations) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Rajeev Sharma

& another, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

IX. 2001 (91) FLR 824 Pramod Kumar v. State of Bihar & others, Hon'ble Patna High Court.

X. 1997 LAB I.C. 2075 Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & others v. State of Bihar & others, Hon'ble Supreme

court.

XI. 2004 (101) FLR 867 Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Kanpur v. The Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur & another, Hon'ble Allahabad High

Court.

⁴⁴⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

XII. 2005 (104) FLR 65 Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, Moradabad v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Rampur & others, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

XIII. 2005 (104) FLR 893 Union Bank of India v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur & others, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contensions of the learned counsel of both the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on record in light thereto.

11. Before entering to the merits of the case, it is has to be looked into that the management of the Bank has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case due to inordinate delay of more than 20 years in raising the present dispute in terms of provisions contained in Section 2A (3) of the Act. In rebuttal, the workman has submitted that case has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government and this Tribunal is duty bound to answer the same on the terms of reference; moreover, the provisions of Section 2A (3) of the Act is not applicable to the present case. The Section 2A of the Act reads as under:

2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. – (1) Where

any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services 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 notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the

dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-

section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the

dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the

application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute,

and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to

such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retreatment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).

A bare perusal of the above quoted section revels that the limitation prescribed in the sub-section (3) of Section 2A is regarding filing of an application before the Labour Court or Tribunal with regard to the filing of an application directly before the Labour Court or Tribunal, after expiry of 45 days from the date it moved an application before the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 2A; and there is no bar on entertaining an industrial dispute duly referred by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act.

Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. & another 1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay of seven years has held that the Court can mould relief by refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back wages. Likewise, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2001 SCC (L&S) 105 Gurmail Singh vs. Principal, Govt. College of Education & others, has laid down that 'the Labour Court cannot dismiss the case of the workman merely on the ground of delay. If the order of dismissal is challenged belatedly, the dispute would still continue for adjudication, the only question would be to deprive back wages for the period of delay in raising such a dispute if on merits it is to succeed.' Further, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 1994 LLR 29 The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Chief Office, Lucknow vs. B.C. Verma & another; wherein the question for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was whether inaction or delay in raising industrial dispute by the workman can be condoned; Hon'ble High Court observed as under:

"In the present case, Section 10(1) may be read along with Section 10 (5). Both the subsections read

together lead to conclusion that 'at any time' the Reference can be made in the exercise of the

administrative power by the Central Government provided there exists an industrial dispute or the

same is apprehended. He use of expression "at any time' in both the sub-sections clearly indicates

that legislature never intended any limitation to be imposed for making reference."

In the present case, the workman has contended that the cause of action raised after decline of the management for settlement of grievances vide their letter dated 23.03.2009 and thereafter, he raised the matter before Cancellation Officer under Act in the year 2011; and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, he[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 441 forwarded its 'Failure of Conciliation Report' to the appropriate Government, which after considering the Failure of Conciliation Report, referred the present industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act. Hence, upon reference of an industrial dispute by the appropriate Government, it is duty casted upon the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to answer the terms of reference. Admittedly the present case is not regarding illegal termination of the workman; rather denial of empanelment of workman in pursuance to advertisement dated 24.09.1991, and the workman had been kept on pursuing his matter with the management and it was only after their denial he approached the Conciliation officer for his legal remedy, therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case the objection raised by the management regarding delay in raising the present industrial dispute is not tenable in the eye of law. Moreover, the delay could not be used as tool to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights of proper adjudication of the case on it merits.

12. With regard to the merits of the case, it is not disputed that the workman had been engaged by the opposite party bank in two different spells as daily wager i.e. from 17.11.1986 to 13.02.1987 and from 15.03.1988 to 11.06.1988 for 89 – 89 days each; and accordingly, the worked for total 178 days with the Bank between November, 1986 to June, 1988. There is no iota of evidence on record that the workman worked for 240 days in a year preceding June, 1988, therefore, the present case does not pertain to the violation of the provisions of section 25 F of the Act.

13. In nut shell, the management of the Bank come up with a scheme to make a panel of persons, for appointment in future vacancies, who had worked with the Bank for more than 90 days during period 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1990 vide advertisement dated 24.09.1991; and the workman applied in pursuance thereof; and the management denied the claim of the workman. Hence, having regard to the facts of the case and respective claim of the parties, the rival stands of the parties have to be checked within the purview of the terms of the advertisement dated advertisement dated 24.09.1991, which is as follows:

बैक निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन भविष्य की रिक्तियों (अस्थायी/स्थायी) हेतु ऐसे व्यक्तियों के मामलों

पर विचार करने हेतु सूची तैयार करना चाहता है जिन्होंने १.१.१९८२ एवं ३१.१२.१९९० के बीच

भारत मैं इसकी शाखाओं/कार्यालओं में चपरासी के रूप में ९० या अधिक दिन अस्थायी रूप में कार्य

किया हो

(क) उम्मीदवारों को सातवीं कक्षा उत्तीर्ण होना चाहिए किन्तु आठवीं कक्षा के आगे अध्यन नहीं

किया होना चाहिए तथा अस्थाई चपरासी के रूप में पहली बार कार्य करने की तारीख को आयु

१८ वर्ष पूर्ण होनी चाहिए किन्तु २६ वर्ष पूर्ण नहीं होनी चाहिए

(ख) सूची में नाम शामिल करना तथा नियुक्ति देना/अजजा, शारीरिक विकलांग, भूतपूर्व सैनिक

आदि के आरक्षण एवं महानिदेशक रोजगार एवं प्रशिक्षण के समर्थन के अधीन होगा

जो उम्मीदवार उक्त शर्तें पूरी करते हैं वे अपना आवेदन पत्र विज्ञापन की तारीख के ३० दिनों के

भीतर उप महाप्रबंधक (कार्मिक), बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, केंद्रीय कार्यालय, ३, बालचंद हीराचंद मार्ग,

बैलार्ड पियर, बम्बई को निम्नलिखित प्रारूप में भेजें"

Moreover, in the proforma for application, the para which seeks education qualification, it is mentioned

as under:

३. शैक्षिक योग्यता:

(क) पहली बार अस्थायी चपरासी में रूप में कार्य शुरू करने की तारीख को

(ख) आवेदन की तारीख को

14. In the instant case in hand it has to be determined that whether the workman was eligible for empanelment or not, in terms of advertisement. In this connection, the management while denying empanelment to the workman has alleged that the advertisement required temporary worker whereas the applicant was not in temporary capacity. In this regard from perusal of the working certificate, filed by the workman, paper No. 3/5 and 3/6, it is evident that the workman was engaged as daily wager for 89 days during period 17.11.1986 to 13.02.1987 and 15.03.1988 to 11.06.1988 respectively, which can be well taken in temporary status.

Further, the management has contended that the workman was not class VII pass when he was inducted by the Bank for first time; but from perusal of the advertisement dated 24.09.1991 there was no specific cut off date provided for⁴⁴² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] ascertaining the qualification of applicant; resultantly, in absence of any specific date for consideration of eligibility, it could be taken the date of advertisement and from perusal of the Transfer Certificate submitted by the workman, paper No. 3/9, it is clear that the workman had attained an age of approximately 18 ½ years and had requisite educational qualification, as the required educational qualification in the advertisement dated 24.09.1991 was that "उम्मीदवारों को सातवीं कक्षा उत्तीर्ण होना

चाहिए किन्तु आठवीं कक्षा के आगे अध्यन नहीं किया होना चाहिए '' and the workman was class VIII pass. It is evident from Transfer Certificate, paper No. 3/9, that the workman passed class VIII on 19.05.1990 and there is no evidence with regard to fact that he had acquired higher education qualification i.e. class IX pass, on the date of his application i.e. 15.10.1991 in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.09.1991. Hence, in light of the facts narrated hereinabove, it could be well inferred that the workman fulfilled all essential conditions required vide advertisement dated 24.09.1991, as he had worked for more than 90 days during period 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1990 as temporary/daily wager peon; had attained an age more than 18 years on his date of first engagement with the bank; and possessed requisite educational qualification on the date of advertisement. The rest of the requirements relied upon by the management were not essential in nature and were only desirable.

Moreover, case of the workman in para 09 of the statement of claim is that the management has given appointment to other workmen who were junior to the workman in violation to the provisions contained in section 25G & 25H of the Act. the Section 25G & 25H of the Act reads as under:

25 G. Procedure for retrenchment. -Were any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this

behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed

in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

25 H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. – Where any workmen are retrenched, and the

employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer

themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-

employment shall have preference over other persons."

The contention of the workman vide para 09 of his statement of claim that the management appointed other juniors, ignoring his candidature, is not specifically denied by the management, which amounts to violation of Section 25G & 25H of the Act. Also, the case laws relied upon by the management in support of its case are distinguishable in light of facts of the present case and respective facts of the case laws referred; hence not applicable in the present case.

15. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in not appointing the workman with other sub staff, is unjustified and illegal; and accordingly, the workman is entitled for appointment as sub staff from the date other juniors were given appointment with all consequential services benefits; however he shall not be entitled for back wages for delay in raising present industrial dispute, in light of pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, discussed in preceding para.

16. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

17. Award as above.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW.

11th February, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 21/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/41/2006-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 443

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/41/2006-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 21/2006

Ref. No. L-12011/41/2006-IR(B-II) dated: 07.08.2006

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary Syndicate Bank Employees' Union U.P. State Committee, 91, Halwasia Market (3rd Floor) Hazratganj, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucnow – 226001. (Espousing case of Sri Om Veer Singh)

The Asstt General Manager Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, IR Cell University Road, Bhawanipuram Meerut (UP) – 250004

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/41/2006-IR(B-II) dated: 07.08.2006 & its subsequent corrigendum dated 21.09.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF SYNDICATE BANK IN IMPOSING

PUNISHMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.2003 UPON SHRI OM VEER SINGH, CASHIER IS

LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?"

3. It is It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Om Veer Singh was working as Clerk at Mawana Branch, when he was issued a charge sheet dated 17.07.2002 for gross misconduct of indecent behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Shri Prem Raj was appointed Inquiry Officer, who submitted his inquiry report dated 23.10.2003. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued show cause, which was replied by the workman; and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed punishment order dated 27.12.2003; which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.03.2004, rejecting appeal of the workman.

4. It has been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that the inquiry officer did not examine material witness, which caused prejudice to his case. The workman has also alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not afford him proper opportunity to defend himself before the inquiry and also did not summon the material witness before the inquiry, therefore, the inquiry being defective is liable to be set aside with consequential benefits.

5. The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has submitted that the workman had been involved in misconduct of indecent behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank; resultantly, was issued a charge sheet dated 17.07.2002. The management has also submitted that the was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, inasmuch as the departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after thorough appreciation of the findings of the inquiry officer, the workman was imposed with the punishment of reduction of his basic pay by one stage for one year for each of two charges separately, which⁴⁴⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Rules. The management has submitted that the punishment order dated 27.12.2003 is well reasoned and speaking; therefore, the same is liable to be up held, without any relief to the workman concerned.

6. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. Following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 01.11.2019:

(i) Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted as per law.

Moreover, at subsequent stage of the case, two additional issues were also framed vide order dated 23.12.32020 as under:

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges or not?

The parties have filed documents in support of their case. The workman did not turn up either to get cross-examined or to cross-examine the management witness. The workman or his representative was not turning up for more than a year, therefore, oral submissions of the learned counsel of the management had been heard at length and documents relied upon by the parties had been perused, keeping in view long pendency of the case since 2006.

8. Heard, learned counsel of the management and scanned entire material available on record, including pleading of the respective parties, evidence relied upon by them.

9. It had been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that the inquiry officer did not summon material witness, which caused prejudiced to his case. The workman has also alleged that the Appellate Authority also rejected his appeal in utter violation of provisions of provisions of the Bipartite Settlement in an illegal manner and has prayed that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage for one year be declared illegal and unjustified and the same may be set aside with consequential benefits.

10. However, in rebuttal the management has come up with a case, that the workman who was charge sheeted for misconduct of indecent behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank; and after conducting a detailed inquiry, wherein the principles of natural justice was observed, the workman was found guilty for the alleged charges and resultantly, the workman was punished with reduction of his basic pay by one stage for one year for each of two charges separately.

11. Having given gone through the pleadings & evidence adduced by the rival parties, thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of management, the issued framed vide order dated 01.11.2019 and 23.12.2020 are taken up for consideration hereunder:

Issue No. 01:-

12. As regards first issue regarding fairness of the domestic inquiry, from perusal of the inquiry proceedings on record, it is evident that the workman had been supplied copy of charge sheet along with documents relied upon before the inquiry, he was given opportunity to be represented by defence representative; apart from cross-examining the prosecution witness and adducing his defence. During inquiry the workman was granted adjournment/time in absence of his defence representative; moreover, he also filed with written submission before the inquiry. Though the workman has pleaded that there was violation of principles of natural justice; but failed to substantiate the same through cogent evidence i.e. documentary or oral. On the contrary, from perusal of the inquiry proceedings, available on record, it is established that the domestic inquiry was fairly conducted by the management and the workman had been given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of the inquiry.

Therefore, in view of the discussions, made hereinabove, it is held that the departmental inquiry, conducted by the management, was fair and proper. Accordingly, the issue No. 01 is decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 02:-

13. As regards, issue No. 2, it is apparent on the face of record that the workman participated in the departmental proceedings and had been afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; moreover, acquittal of the workman in the criminal case has no effect on the ongoing departmental action. Also, the workman's union could not prove at any juncture that the findings of the inquiry officer was perverse or[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 445 inconsistent with the evidence collected by him during the course of inquiry. From perusal of the inquiry report it is evident that the inquiry report was based on oral evidence of MW-1 & MW-2, which remained unrebutted; moreover, it is apparent on the face of record that the evidence brought before the inquiry officer had been properly analyzed; and thereafter, the inquiry officer arrived at the conclusion. Thus, inquiry officer on over all consideration of the entire evidence available on record, submitted his findings before the Disciplinary Authority with conclusion the charges found proved; hence, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse and the second issue is also decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 03:-

14. Now taking up the third issue, it is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

15. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for his alleged misconduct of indecent behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank; which has been found proved by the inquiry officer and accordingly, the workman had been punished with 'reduction of his basic pay by one stage for one year for each of two charges separately'.

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in

defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the

court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him

and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not

the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the

punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found

to be proved."

⁴⁴⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to

the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

18. Moreover, the Banks being financial institution; where the hard earned money of the public at large is kept, and any disorderly atmosphere in the Bank premises may lead to loss to trust of the depositors on the Banking institution; which may ultimately lead to collapse of financial system of the country and the same is not permissible at all. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."

19. In the instant case, the workman was punished with the punishment of 'reduction of his basic pay by one stage for one year for each of two charges separately'. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Western Coalfield Ltd. vs Santosh Kumar and others 2018 LLR 764 has observed that hurling of filthy abusive language at a senior officer justifies dismissal; whereas in the present case, the workman had been punished with reduction of his basic pay by one stage for one year for each of two charges separately, on the account of charges being proved. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of the case in hand and considering the laws pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

20. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW.

22nd January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 24/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/8/2005-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 447

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2021

S.O. 162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/8/2005-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 24/2005

Ref. No. L-12011/8/2005-IR(B-II) dated: 17.06.2005

BETWEEN :

The Secretary Syndicate Bank Empls. Union U.P. State Committee 91, Halwasia Market Lucnow – 226001. (Espousing case of Sri Pawan Kumar)

The Asstt General Manager Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, IR Cell University Road, Bhawanipuram Meerut (UP) – 250004

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/8/2005-IR(B-II) dated: 17.06.2005 & its subsequent corrigendum dated 21.08.2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF SY. BANK IN IMPOSING THE

PUNISHMENT ON SH. PAWAN KR., CLERK VIDE ORDER DATED 17.9.03 IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. It is It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Pawan Kumar was working as Clerk at Lakhimpur Kheri Branch, when he was issued a charge sheet dated 25.07.2002 for gross misconduct of riotous & disorderly behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Shri Prem Raj was appointed Inquiry Officer, who submitted his inquiry report dated 08.03.2003. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued show cause, which was replied by the workman; and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed punishment order dated 17.09.2003; which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.11.2003, rejecting appeal of the workman.

4. It has been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that the inquiry officer held the ex-parte inquiry on 23.12.2002 in spite of information of illness of workman to him, which caused prejudice to his case. The workman has also alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not afford him proper opportunity to defend himself before the inquiry, therefore, the inquiry being defective is liable to be set aside with consequential benefits.

5. The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has submitted that the workman had been involved in misbehaving with the Manager and disorderly behavior in the bank premises; resultantly, was issued a charge sheet dated 25.07.2002 for gross misconduct of riotous & disorderly behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The management has also submitted that the was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, inasmuch as the departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after⁴⁴⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] thorough appreciation of the findings of the inquiry officer, the workman was imposed with the punishment of reduction of his basic pay by two stages for each of two charges separately, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Rules. The management has submitted that the punishment order dated 17.09.2003 is well reasoned and speaking; therefore, the same is liable to be up held, without any relief to the workman concerned.

6. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. Following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 01.11.2019:

(i) Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted as per law.

Moreover, at subsequent stage of the case, two additional issues were also framed vide order dated 23.12.32020 as under:

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges or not?

The parties have filed documents in support of their case. The workman's union examined workman;

whereas the management examined inquiry officer, Shri Prem Raj, in support of their respective pleadings. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. The workman or his representative was not turning up for more than a year, therefore, oral submissions of the learned counsel of the management had been heard at length and documents relied upon by the parties had been perused, keeping in view long pendency of the case since 2005.

8. Heard, learned counsel of the management and scanned entire material available on record, including pleading of the respective parties, evidence relied upon by them documentary as well oral.

9. It had been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that the inquiry officer conducted ex-parte inquiry, denying him adjournment on his illness, which caused prejudiced to his case. The workman has also alleged that the Appellate Authority also rejected his appeal in utter violation of provisions of provisions of the Bipartite Settlement in an illegal manner and has prayed that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages be declared illegal and unjustified and the same may be set aside with consequential benefits.

10. However, in rebuttal the management has come up with a case, that the workman who was charge sheeted for riotous & disorderly behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank; and after conducting a detailed inquiry, wherein the principles of natural justice was observed, the workman was found guilty for the alleged charges and resultantly, the workman was punished with reduction of his basic pay by two stages for each of two charges separately.

Issue No. 01:-

apart from cross-examining the prosecution witness and adducing his defence. During inquiry the workman was granted adjournment/time in absence of his defence representative; moreover, he also filed with written submission before the inquiry. Though the workman has pleaded that there was violation of principles of natural justice; but failed to substantiate the same through cogent evidence i.e. documentary or oral. On the contrary, from perusal of the inquiry proceedings, available on record, it is established that the domestic inquiry was fairly conducted by the management and the workman had been given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of the inquiry.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 449

Issue No. 02:-

13. As regards, issue No. 2, it is apparent on the face of record that the workman participated in the departmental proceedings and had been afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; moreover, acquittal of the workman in the criminal case has no effect on the ongoing departmental action. Also, the workman's union could not prove at any juncture that the findings of the inquiry officer was perverse or inconsistent with the evidence collected by him during the course of inquiry. Moreover, from perusal of the inquiry report it is evident that all the documents i.e. MEX-02 to MEX-21 were proved by the MW-1; moreover, it is apparent on the face of record that the evidence brought before the inquiry officer had been properly analyzed and thereafter, the inquiry officer arrived at the conclusion. Thus, inquiry officer on over all consideration of the entire evidence available on record, submitted his findings before the Disciplinary Authority with conclusion the charges found proved; hence, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse and the second issue is also decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 03:-

15. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for his alleged riotous & disorderly behavior on the premises of the bank and doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank; which has been found proved by the inquiry officer and accordingly, the workman had been punished with 'reduction of his basic pay by two stages for each of two charges separately'.

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in

defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the

court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him

and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not

the decision.

⁴⁵⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the

punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found

to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to

the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the

evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the

material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on

evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be

grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not

interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are

based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see

whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the

material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be

arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."

19. In the instant case, the workman was punished with the punishment of 'reduction of his basic pay by two stages for each of two charges separately'. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Western Coalfield Ltd. vs Santosh Kumar and others 2018 LLR 764 has observed that hurling of filthy abusive language at a senior officer justifies dismissal; whereas in the present case, the workman had been punished with reduction of his basic pay by two stages for each of two charges separately, on the account of charges being proved. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of the case in hand and considering the laws pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

20. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

22nd January, 2021.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 451

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 02/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/88/2007-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2021

S.O. 163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.02.2021.

[No. L-41012/88/2007-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 02/2004

Ref. No. L-41012/88/2007-IR(B-I) dated: 08.10.2007

BETWEEN

Mandal Sanghatan Mantri Uttar Railway Karmachari Union 283/63 KH (B), Ghari Kanora, Prewati Nagar Post: Manak Nagar Lucknow – 6 (Espousing cause of Shri Shiv Kumar)

AND

Senior Personnel Officer Northern Railway Loco Shop, Chaar Bagh Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/88/2007-IR(B-I) dated: 08.10.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication; and the same has been adjudicated by this Tribunal vide award dated 03.07.2014 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 24.09.2015; however, the award was recalled on request of the management.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW

OVER NON PAYMENT OF PCO ALLOWANCES TO SHRI SHIV KUMAR, TKT. NO. IS-08

FROM 25/06/1998 TO 17/04/2001 LIKE OTHER WORKMEN, IS JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO

WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED?"

3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the workman, Shiv Kumar, was appointed as skilled fitter on 05.07.77. It is alleged that the workman was made to join in the inspection shop on the basis of suitability vide office order dated 23.10.97 without PCO allowance w.e.f. 25.06.98; whereas the other employees were given PCO allowance from the date of resumption of the charge. It is stated that the management has granted him PCO allowance, on making various representations, w.e.f. 18.04.2001. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the workman be granted PCO allowance from 25.06.98 to 17.04.2001.

⁴⁵² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

4. The management has disputed the claim of the workman's union and filed its written statement; wherein it has stated that the workman was appointed as skilled fitter on the sanctioned post of Speedometer in the Cadre of year 1991-92 without PCO allowance and was posted in Diesel Shop and at the time of his posting in Diesel Shop, the Cadre of year 1996-97 was zero. It is submitted that a policy settlement was regarding PCO allowance; wherein it was decided that on the basis of Cadre of year 1991-92, the suitability test of the working employees be done and according to the Cadre of year 1996-97, they may be appointed in Inspection Shop and paid PCO allowance. Rest employees shall remain posted on their place of posting without PCO allowance and they will be promoted in the Shop floor. The workman after screening was posted in inspection shop without PCO allowance. It is submitted that at the time of his posting in PCO, it was decided in consultation with both the recognized unions that staff in PCO would be made on the basis of Cadre strength of 91-92 but PCO allowance would be applicable on the basis of Cadre strength sanctioned in the year 1996-97 and in Cadre of 96- 97 there was no sanctioned posts of Fitter Electrical Grade I as PCO allowance; accordingly, PCO allowance could not be granted to the workman for the want of post but in other cases there was sanctioned post even in the Cadre of 96-97 as such they were sanctioned PCO allowance. Therefore, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected being devoid of merit.

6. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder whereby it has stated nothing new apart from reiterating his averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. The workman's union has filed photo copy of documents in support of its claim; whereas the management has filed none. The workman has examined himself whereas the management has not forwarded any evidence, in spite of ample opportunities being forward to it, which led to presumption that the management is not interested to lead evidence hence its opportunity to lead evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments. The management again did not turn for arguments and the authorized representative argued his case; resultantly, the reference was answered in the favour of workman vide award dated 03.07.2014; and on being notified by the Central Government, the copy of award was forwarded to the parties. Thereafter, the management moved an application to recall the award dated 03.07.20014; and after hearing the parties the award dated 03.07.2014 was recalled and present industrial dispute was restored on its original number vide order dated 20.12.2017 in Misc. Case No. 04/2015 and the management was given an opportunity to lead evidence in support its case.

8. The management filed its evidence and 21.05.2018 was fixed for cross-examination of its witness; but the management failed to get its witness cross-examined; resulting into list of case ex-parte argument by the workman. The workman argued its case and file was reserved for award, being the case pertaining to the year 2007.

9. Heard representatives of the workman's union only and perused entire evidence on record and gone through respective pleadings of the parties.

10. The workman's union has contended that the management of railways deprived the workman of PCO allowance for which he was entitled as the other employees were getting. The management has pleaded that the PCO allowance was admissible on the basis of Cadre strength of 96-97 and since there was no post in 96-97, therefore the workman was not allowed PCO allowance on his joining on the post.

11. The workman union's case is that the workman is entitled for PCO allowance since his joining in the inspection shop at par with other similarly situated employees. The management has controverted the case with pleading that the PCO allowance was admissible on the basis of Cadre strength in Diesel Shop in 1996-97, which was zero. Also, in view of the settlement arrived at between the management and recognized unions, those who clear the suitability test according to Cadre of year 1996-97, may be appointed in inspection shop with PCO allowance. Also it was decided that the staff in PCO would be made on the basis of Cadre strength of 91-92 but PCO allowance would be applicable on the basis of Cadre strength sanctioned in the year 1996-97. Since, in the Cadre of 1996-97 there was no sanctioned post of Fitter Electrical Grade-I, as such the workman was not allowed PCO allowance for the want of post in the Cadre of 96-97. However, the other employees were given PCO allowance as their cases were covered under existing policy and availability of post. The workman was granted PCO allowance w.e.f. 18.04.2001 as a result of decision arrived at, in the meeting with the recognized unions and railway administration.

12. The workman in his cross-examination has admitted that he is of 96-97 batch. He could not recall name of any employee who were receiving PCO allowance. The management of the railways did not produce its witness for cross-examination in spite of number of dates were given to them; hence the evidence filed by them cannot be taken into account.

13. The management has disputed the claim of the workman's union with pleading that the PCO allowance was admissible on the basis of Cadre strength of 96-97 and since there was no post in 96-97, therefore, the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 453 workman was not granted PCO allowance; but the management did not prove its pleadings through evidence. On the contrary the workman has proved its pleadings by the way of evidence and he was duly cross-examined by the authorized representative of the management. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & others (2006) 3 SCC 276 the statement of the witness, having not been controverted would be deemed to be admitted.

14. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law cited hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the management of Northern Railway in non-payment of PCO allowance to the workman for the period 25.06.1998 to 17.04.2001 was not justified. Accordingly, the workman concerned is entitled for payment of PCO allowance for the period 25.06.1998 to 17.04.2001.

15. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

16. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW.

11th February, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 176/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/123/2001-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2021

S.O. 164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 176/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.02.2021.

[No. L-41012/123/2001-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 176/2001

Ref. No. L-41012/123/2001-IR(B-I) dated 26.11.2001

BETWEEN :

Shri Syed Aley Ahmed S/o Tajamul Hussain H. No. 84/65, Nai Sarak Nr. Kareem Chakki, Kanpur (UP) – 208001

Vs.

The Divl. Railway Manager, ADJ Northern Railway, Allahabad (UP) – 211006

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/123/2001-IR(B-I) dated 26.11.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Syed Aley Ahmed S/o Tajamul Hussain, H. No. 84/65, Nai Sarak, Nr. Kareem Chakki, Kanpur (UP) and the Divl. Railway Manager, ADJ, Northern Railway, Allahabad (UP) for adjudication.

⁴⁵⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

1. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY,

ALLAHABAD IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF SHRI

S.A. AHMED, EX-ELECTRIC SHUNTER (LOCO) W.E.F. 24.1.1996 IS JUSTIFIED? IF NOT,

WHAT RELIEF THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED?"

2. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, S.A. Ahmed, was working as Electric Shunter in Northern Railway and was posted in Lucknow when issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 16.02.1995, inviting his defence reply; and accordingly, the workman made his representation dated 29.03.1995. Shri A.H. Khan, SLI, Kanpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 20.11.1995 before the disciplinary authority, who furnished a copy of the same to the charge sheeted employee for representation; accordingly, the charged official represented vide dated 28.11.1995. The Disciplinary Authority punished the workman with punishment of removal from service vide order dated 24.01.1996; however, on appeal the same was reduced to compulsory retirement from services w.e.f. 24.01.1996 vide appellate order dated 23.10.1996.

3. It has been alleged by the workman that he had been punished, contrary to the evidence on record. It has also been alleged by the workman that his representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing impugned order and the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are based on flimsy grounds. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside and impugned order, punishing him with compulsory retirement be quashed.

4. The management of the Railway in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has defended its domestic proceedings with submission that the workman had been afforded all opportunity given under rules the principles of natural justice were fully complied with; hence, there is no anomaly with it; and accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry proceedings conducted by it may be upheld and the action of the Railway vide order dated 23.10.1996 be declared just, fair and legal without any benefit to the workman concerned.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

6. The parties filed documents in support of their respective case. Following preliminary issues were framed in the presence of the parties vide order dated 27.11.2002:

1. क्या श्रमिक के विरुद्ध विभागीय जाँच त्रुटिपूर्ण है अथवा नहीं?

2. क्या जाँच अधिकारी की आख्या दुराग्रहपूर्ण (perverse) है?

After framing of preliminary issues, the parties the parties were called upon to adduce their evidence on preliminary issues. The parties adduced documentary and oral evidence in support of their case and after hearing the parties, following orders were passed, on preliminary issues, vide order dated 30.06.2015:

"After having heard both the parties at length and perusal of the record, it is inferred that the

departmental enquiry does not suffer from any illegality, and it is neither perverse as well.

Principles of natural justice and all the relevant rules have been followed by the concerned enquiry

authority.

Therefore, preliminary issues dated 27.11.2002 are decided in favour of the management

accordingly. Fix 30.07.2015 for arguments on quantum of punishment"

7. After deciding preliminary issues the case was listed for arguments on quantum of punishment; and when the workman or his authorizes representative did not turn up for oral submissions, the argument of the management was heard on the point of quantum of punishment under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Also, the parties were afforded opportunity to file their written submission.

8. Heard, authorized representative of the management and perused entire material available on record.

9. It is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

10. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for misconduct of gross negligence in observing safety rules, which caused accident; whereby a passenger train collided with another engine. The charges were[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 455 found proved and was awarded punishment of removal from services; however, on appeal, the Appellate Authority, taking a lenient view had reduced the punishment of removal from service, imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, to compulsory retirement with full retirement benefits under age limit. However, the workman union has pleaded before this Tribunal that the punishment order is illegal being based on no evidence.

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imporopriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in

defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the

court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him

and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not

the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds

the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to

the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

⁴⁵⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

13. The workman who was punished with the punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority for proved misconduct of violation of safety rules, had been compulsory retired with full retirement benefits under age limit, by the Appellate Authority, on appeal, taking a lenient view. Moreover, the railways being a public transport system has to work with utmost devotion to its passengers and safety of passengers and their property is supreme; and any deviation from safety rules or safety measures shall amount not only lack in service to the passengers; but also shall put the life of passengers their property as well as public property at high risk; which is not permissible at all. Any lack in safety not only causes unwarranted accidents; but also invites loss of public faith in the services of Railways. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

14. In the instant case, the charge of violation of safety rules had been found to be proved; and Appellant Authority rationally reduced the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement with full retirement benefits under age limit; moreover, this Tribunal has upheld the domestic inquiry conducted by the Railways and found no infirmity with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, under the facts and the circumstances case and considering the laws pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman by the Appellate Authority for proved gross misconduct of 'violation of safety rules', invoking power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

15. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

16. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW 22nd January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 170/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/56/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/56/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 457

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference (CGITA) No. - 170/2019

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Proprietor,

M/s. Hardik Construction,

M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opp. Medical Complex,

Sola Road, Naranpura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054 …First Parties

V/s

The National General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Soceity, Harni Varsia Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390022 …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/56/2019-IR (B-I) dated 16.12.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s. Hardik Constructions, Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Shailesh Babubhai Vaghela, Part time sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just and proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Shailesh Babubhai Vaghela, Part time sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other direction are necessary in the matter?"

1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 136/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/35/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव⁴⁵⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-41011/35/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference: (CGITA) No. 136/2019

1. The General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, MUMBAI-400020.

2. The Chief Works Manager, Western Railway, Engineering Workshop, D Cabin, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380019.

3. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer, Western Railway, Divisional Office, Asarwa, Nr. Chamunda Bridge, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-382345. …First Parties

V/s

The Jt. Secretary, Indian Railway Labour Federation, 28-B, Narayan Park, B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380005. …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/35/2019-IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Railway Administration to change disciplinary authority for Electrical Staff under General Manager's Circular dated 11.2.2016 is legal, fair & justified? If yes, then what relief the union/ Electrical Staff is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 459

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 130/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/31/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 130/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-41011/31/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference: (CGITA) No. 130/2019

1) The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate, Head Quarter, MUMBAI-400020.

2) The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar, Vadodara(Gujarat)-390004.

3) The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380016. …First Parties

V/s

The Secretary, Indian Railway Labour Federation, 28-B, Narayan Park, B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

…Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No.L-41011/31/2019-IR(B-I) dated 09.10.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

⁴⁶⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Railway Administration not considering the request of Shri Harun Abrahim, Pipe Filter to alter the date of Birth from 25.01.1957 to 10.10.1962 on the basis of Railway Board Circular dated 19.11.1990 is legal, fair and justified? If Not, what relief Shri Harun Abrahim is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 14th October 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 137/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/32/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 137/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-41011/32/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference: (CGITA) No. 137/2019

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 461

V/s

The Jt. Secretary, Indian Railway Labour Federation, 28-B, Narayan Park, B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380005. …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/32/2019-IR(B-I) dated 21.10.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Union to grant ACP/MACP to Shri Kishan Chandra Pandey against the Chief Project Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad and the Chief Works Manager, Rail Wagon Repair shop, Western Railway, Kota (Rajasthan) is legal, fair and justified? If yeas, what relief, Shri Kishan Chandra Pandey is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 4th November 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file their statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 173/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/60/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 173/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/60/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

⁴⁶² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference (CGITA) No. 173/2019

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Proprietor,

M/s. Hardik Construction, M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opp. Medical Complex, Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054 …First Parties

V/s

The National General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Soceity, Harni Varsia Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390022 …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/60/2019-IR (B-I) dated 13.12.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 13th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 463

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 171/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/57/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 171/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/57/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference (CGITA) No. 171/2019

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Proprietor, M/s. Hardik Construction, M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opp. Medical Complex, Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054 …First Parties

V/s

The National General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Soceity, Harni Varsia Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390022 …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/57/2019-IR (B-I) dated 16.12.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions, Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Akshay Bipinbhai Chouhan, Part time sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just and proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Akshay Bipinbhai Chouhan, Part time sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other direction are necessary in the matter?"⁴⁶⁴ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] 1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 174/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/61/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/61/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference (CGITA) No. 174/2019

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Proprietor, M/s. Hardik Construction, M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opp. Medical Complex, Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054 …First Parties

V/s

The National General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Soceity, Harni Varsia Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390022 …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 465

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/61/2019-IR (B-I) dated 16.12.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Office

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 172/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.02.2021 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/59/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.02.2021.

[No. L-12011/59/2019-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 11th February, 2021

Reference (CGITA) No. 172/2019

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th Floor, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001⁴⁶⁶ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] 2. The Proprietor,

M/s. Hardik Construction, M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opp. Medical Complex, Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054 …First Parties

V/s

The National General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Soceity, Harni Varsia Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390022 …Second Party

Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/59/2019-IR (B-I) dated 13.12.2019 for adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 13th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file her statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.

2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering "no dispute" between the parties.

4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 173.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय

सरकार परमाणु ऊर्जा अन्वेषण और अनुसंधान विभाग, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, जयपुर (राज) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

नियोजकों और श्री छगन लाल धानका, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 27/2011) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 03.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/2/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी.के .हिमांशु, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 467

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2021

S.O. 173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2011) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur (raj) and Shri chhagan Lal Dhanka ,Worker which was received by the Central Government on 03.02.2021.

[No. L-14012/2/2009 IR-(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी

पीठासीन अधिकारी

सी.जी.आई.टी. प्रकरण सं. 27/2011 ReferenceNo.L-14012/2/2009-IR(DU) Dated:13.7.2011

श्री छगन लाल धानका पुत्र श्री गुलाब चन्द धानका निवासी ग्राम श्योपुर, धानकों का मुहल्ला प्रताप नगर, सांगानेर, जयपुर।

1. श्रम एवं नियोजन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 13.07.2011 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जावेगा) की धारा 10 (1) (डी) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियो के अनुसरण में उपर्युक्त पांॅंचों प्रार्थीगण के संम्बध में निम्नांकित (समेकित रूप में) विवाद न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस अधिकरण को संदर्भित किये गये :-

3. प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नियोजक-कर्मकार के संबंध थे। प्रार्थीगण की सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व धारा 25 (एफ) अधिनियम के अनुसार नोटिस/नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीगण को नहीं किया गया। प्रार्थीगण से जो कार्य करवाया जा रहा था वह स्थाई प्रकृति का था व आज भी अन्य श्रमिकाें से करवाया जा रहा है। प्रार्थीगण ने 240 दिन से अधिक दिनों तक लगातार कार्य किया है। अप्रार्थी ने श्रमिकों की वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई न ही कोई घरेलू जॉंच की- तथा अनुचित श्रम व्यवहार किया। इस प्रकार धारा 25, (एफ)/ (जी)/ (एच) अधिनियम व नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानो का उल्लंघन किया है। प्रार्थीगण सेवा मुक्ति के पश्चात से बेरोजगार हैं। अतः दिनांक 30.04.2008 को की गई प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैद्य घोषित करते हुए प्रार्थीगण को विगत वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावे।

⁴⁶⁸ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)]

787

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 469

6. प्रिंसीपल डूंगर कॉंलेज बीकानेर बनाम ओमप्रकाश 1999 लेब. आई. सी. 97 (राजस्थान)

7. बी. डी. ओ. प्रागपुर बनाम योगिंन्दर कुमार 2008 (118) एफ. एल. आर. 460 (हि. प्रदेश)

3. स्टेट ऑंफ गुजरात बनाम प्रतम सिंह नरसिंह परमार (2001) 9 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज 713।

...प्रार्थीगण

5. अनुतोष?

उभयपक्ष के तर्काें साक्ष्य एवं विधि पर विचार के उपरांन्त प्रत्येक विचारणीय बिन्दु पर विनिश्चय इस प्रकार हैः

13.

14. इस सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. का प्रतिपरीक्षा में किया गया यह कथन महत्वपूर्ण है कि नमूनों के परीक्षण से यह पता चलता है कि पदार्थ यूरेनियम है अथवा नहीं? यदि यूरेनियम होता है तो उसका उपयोग परमाणु संयंत्र में विद्युत उत्पादन में प्रयोग किया जाता है। इस प्रकार उत्पादित विद्युत उपभोक्ताओं प्रयोग में आती है। इस समस्त प्रक्रिया में मानव एवं मशीन का प्रयोग होता है। इस कथन से यह उपधारणा सरलता से की जा सकती है कि उत्पादित विद्युत के उपभोक्ताओं को विक्रय से प्रतिफल स्वरूप धनराशि प्राप्त होती ही है। अधिनियम की धारा 2 (j) के अन्र्तगत "उद्योग" से नियोजकों का कोई कारबार, व्यवसाय, उपक्रम, विनिर्माण या आजीविका अभिप्रेत हैं। प्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत निर्णय बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कतिपय महत्वपूर्ण दिशा निर्देश प्रतिपादित किये है-तदुनुसार जहॉं कार्यकलापो के संचालन हेतु तंत्रात्मक व्यवस्था जो नियोजक व⁴⁷⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] कर्मकारों के सहकार से संगठित हो, जिसमें सीधा व सारवान तत्व व्यवसायिक हो, जो मानव उपयोग या सेवार्थ उत्पादन व उसके वितरण से संबंधित हो- ऐसा उपक्रम "उद्योग" होता है।

16. प्रार्थी ने यह तथ्य भलीभॉति प्रमाणित किया है कि विपक्षी/अप्रार्थी यद्यपि परमाणु उर्जा विभाग के अधीन परमाणु खनिज अन्वेषण व अनुसंधान का कार्य करता है- किंतु अप्रार्थी द्वारा संपादित कार्यकलाप जैसा कि विपक्षी के साक्षी विनोद कुमार सी. के. द्वारा वर्णित हैं- विपक्षी को "उद्योग" की परिभाषा के अंतर्गत लाने का आधार प्रकट होते हैैं। नमूनों हेतु लिये गये खनिज पदार्थो का परीक्षण व तदुपरांत उनका विद्युत के व्यवसायिक उत्पादन में प्रयोग, निश्चित रूप से "उद्योग"में संचालित प्रक्रिया मानी जा सकती है विपक्षी संस्थान परमाणु उर्जा विभाग का अंग है जो परमाणु विद्युत का उत्पादन भी करता है।

18.

20. विपक्षी ने सशपथ कथन करते हुए वांछित प्रलेखों के संबंध में यह कहा हैः

3. बैंक स्टैटमेंट प्रस्तुत कर दिये है।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 471

29. आर. एम. येलाती बनाम असि. एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर के निर्णय में मान. उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि 240 दिन सतत सेवा करने के तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने का प्राथमिक सिद्विभार वादी/ प्रार्थी पर ही है- यह दायित्व वादी द्वारा स्वीकार्य साक्ष्य (मौखिक व प्रलेखीय) प्रस्तुत करके उन्मोचित किया जाता है। दैनिक वेतन भोगी⁴⁷² THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY ²⁷, ²⁰²¹/PHALGUNA ⁸, ¹⁹⁴² [PART II—SEC. ³(ii)] श्रमिक यदि नियोजक से उपस्थिति व वेतन भुगतान का अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन करें- और नियोजक प्रस्तुत न करे- तो नियोजक के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा करने का विनिश्चय प्रत्येक मामले के तथ्यों पर निर्भर होगा। हस्तगत प्रकरणों की उपर्युक्त परिस्थितियों के प्रकाश में विपक्षी के विरूद्व प्रतिकूल उपधारणा किये जाने का कोई आधार विद्यमान नहीं है। तथा यह निर्णयज विधि प्रार्थी के पक्ष में सहायक नहीं है।

37.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 27, 2021/फाल्गुन 8, 1942 473

38.

पंचाट आज दिनांक 29 दिसम्बर 2020 को लिखा व हस्ताक्षरित किया गया।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा व अन्य 1978 ए. आई. आर. 548 ↩
बैंक स्टैटमेंट प्रस्तुत कर दिये है। ↩
कार्य आवंटन रजिस्टर- प्रार्थीगण के नियमित आधार पर नियुक्त न होने तथा प्रार्थीगण को कोई विशिष्ट कार्य न दिये जाने के कारण यह रजिस्टर संधारित नहीं किये गये- प्रार्थीगण की सेवा, निविदा प्रस्तुत करने के आधार पर ली गई- इसलिए प्रस्तुत नहीं हुए है। ↩
उपर्युक्त पॉंचों विवाद इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त होने पर उभयपक्ष को आहूत करते हुए- प्रार्थीगण को निर्देश दिया गया कि वे अपने दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करें। तदुपरांत प्रार्थीगण की ओर से दिनांक 04.10.2011 को दावे के अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किये गये। प्रार्थीगण के कथन संक्षेप में इस प्रकार वर्णित हैं। प्रार्थीगण को 05.07.2005 से 10.01.2006 के मध्य विभिन्न तिथियों पर चतुर्थ श्रेणी (हेल्पर तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियुक्त किया गया। प्रार्थीगण पत्थर के नमूनों की पिसाई, छनाई, घिसाई व अन्य कार्यालयी कार्य अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियाें के दिशा निर्देश पर करते थे। अप्रार्थी संस्थान उद्योग की परिभाषा में आता हैं। प्रार्थीगण को अप्रार्थी ने दिनांक 30.04.2008 को अवैध रूप से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया। ↩
प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नियोजक-कर्मकार के संबंध थे। प्रार्थीगण की सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व धारा 25 (एफ) अधिनियम के अनुसार नोटिस/नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीगण को नहीं किया गया। प्रार्थीगण से जो कार्य करवाया जा रहा था वह स्थाई प्रकृति का था व आज भी अन्य श्रमिकाें से करवाया जा रहा है। प्रार्थीगण ने 240 दिन से अधिक दिनों तक लगातार कार्य किया है। अप्रार्थी ने श्रमिकों की वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई न ही कोई घरेलू जॉंच की- तथा अनुचित श्रम व्यवहार किया। इस प्रकार धारा 25, (एफ)/ (जी)/ (एच) अधिनियम व नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानो का उल्लंघन किया है। प्रार्थीगण सेवा मुक्ति के पश्चात से बेरोजगार हैं। अतः दिनांक 30.04.2008 को की गई प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैद्य घोषित करते हुए प्रार्थीगण को विगत वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावे। ↩
अप्रार्थी/विपक्षी ने दिनांक 04.07.2012 को पॉंचो प्रकरणों में वादोत्तर प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कहा हैं कि प्रार्थीगण को किसी पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई, बल्कि आवश्यक कार्य करने के लिए आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में अंशकालीन ↩
बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा व अन्य 1978 ए. आई. आर. 548 ↩
किशन सिंह बनाम एक्जिक्टिव इंजी. हरियाणा स्टेट एग्री. मार्केटिंग बोर्ड ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, (सप्ली.) ↩
डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीकू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़़ा ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, 1236 ↩
उपर्युक्त पॉंचों विवाद इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त होने पर उभयपक्ष को आहूत करते हुए- प्रार्थीगण को निर्देश दिया गया कि वे अपने दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करें। तदुपरांत प्रार्थीगण की ओर से दिनांक 04.10.2011 को दावे के अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किये गये। प्रार्थीगण के कथन संक्षेप में इस प्रकार वर्णित हैं। प्रार्थीगण को 05.07.2005 से 10.01.2006 के मध्य विभिन्न तिथियों पर चतुर्थ श्रेणी (हेल्पर तकनीकी सहायक) के पद पर अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियुक्त किया गया। प्रार्थीगण पत्थर के नमूनों की पिसाई, छनाई, घिसाई व अन्य कार्यालयी कार्य अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियाें के दिशा निर्देश पर करते थे। अप्रार्थी संस्थान उद्योग की परिभाषा में आता हैं। प्रार्थीगण को अप्रार्थी ने दिनांक 30.04.2008 को अवैध रूप से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया। ↩
प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नियोजक-कर्मकार के संबंध थे। प्रार्थीगण की सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व धारा 25 (एफ) अधिनियम के अनुसार नोटिस/नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीगण को नहीं किया गया। प्रार्थीगण से जो कार्य करवाया जा रहा था वह स्थाई प्रकृति का था व आज भी अन्य श्रमिकाें से करवाया जा रहा है। प्रार्थीगण ने 240 दिन से अधिक दिनों तक लगातार कार्य किया है। अप्रार्थी ने श्रमिकों की वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई न ही कोई घरेलू जॉंच की- तथा अनुचित श्रम व्यवहार किया। इस प्रकार धारा 25, (एफ)/ (जी)/ (एच) अधिनियम व नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानो का उल्लंघन किया है। प्रार्थीगण सेवा मुक्ति के पश्चात से बेरोजगार हैं। अतः दिनांक 30.04.2008 को की गई प्रार्थीगण की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैद्य घोषित करते हुए प्रार्थीगण को विगत वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावे। ↩
By order No. L-12012/145/2004-IR(B-II) dated 29.09.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sh. Budhiram Prasad S/o Late Sh. Lolark Nath, Mo. Rajapura, Aurai Road, Bhadohi, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, B-20/44A-7, Varanasi Zone, Plaza Complex, Bhelupura, Varanasi (UP)for adjudication. ↩
It had been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that there was not disciplinary action pending against him against the dated of judgment of criminal court dated 13.12.1994 and when he pressed for promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1990, he was illegally served upon a charge sheet dated 26.07.1996 was served upon him, ignoring his acquittal from Criminal Court on same charges and after conducting a defective domestic inquiry, he was not given promotion firstly, on the grounds that an inquiry is pending against him and subsequently, on the basis of punishment awarded to him. The workman has also alleged that the Disciplinary Authority conducted inquiry in violation to provisions contained in Para No. 19.11, Chapter XIX of Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 in an illegal manner. ↩
The case of the workman, in brief, is that he had been engaged as Peon by the Bank and worked for total 178 days in two spells of 89 days each i.e. from 17.11.1986 to 13.02.1987 and from 15.03.1988 to 11.06.1988. The workman has submitted that he submitted an application, in response to an advertisement dated 24.09.1991, within prescribed period, which provide that those who have worked for more nan 90 days with the Bank during period from 01.01.1982 to 21.12.1990 may apply against future vacancies of sub staff cadre in the Bank. The workman has submitted that subsequently, the bank vide letter dated 13.09.1994, sought certain documents from him, which he furnished to the Bank in reply. The workman has alleged that although he was eligible for appointment even then the bank did not appoint him; rather it appointed other juniors in violation to the provisions of Section 25 G and 25 H of the Act. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that he be held entitled for appointment in the Bank services. ↩
The management of the Bank has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it has submitted that the workman’s claim was not maintainable; firstly, he was not engaged in temporary capacity; secondly he was not passed class VII when he claims to have been engaged as daily wager for first time; thirdly, he was not registered with the Employment Exchange during period he claims to have worked as daily wager; thirdly, from perusal of his transfer certificate the date of admission of the workman is 87-89 as regular student of the session staring in 1987 and remained in the school during the session ending May, 1990 on being promoted and left the school on 30.06.1990, then how he could a regular student during his second spell of engagement as Daily Wager. Moreover, the Bank has submitted that there was no violation of ↩
The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 4th November 2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the dispute to file their statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown. ↩
The Chief Project Manager, Western Railway, Station Building, 2nd Floor, Kalupur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001. ↩
The Chief Works Manager, Western Railway, Kota Factory, Kota, Rajasthan-324005. …First Parties ↩
बैंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम आर. राजप्पा व अन्य 1978 ए. आई. आर. 548 ↩
किशन सिंह बनाम एक्जिक्टिव इंजी. हरियाणा स्टेट एग्री. मार्केटिंग बोर्ड ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, (सप्ली.) ↩
डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीकू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़़ा ए. आई. आर. 2010 सु. कोर्ट, 1236 ↩