3343 GI/2021

(1033)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 23]

नई दिल् ली, िून 27—िुलाई 3, 2021 िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 6—आषाढ़ 12, 1943

No. 23]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 27—JULY 3, 2021, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 6 –ASHADHA 12, 1943

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 25 िून, 2021

का.आ. 375.—को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिजन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें

इसके ृश्चात् उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन िारी, िो भारत के रािृत्र, भाग

II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 18 माचज, 2021 में प्रकाजित, भारत सरकार के को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना

सं्‍ ांक का.आ. 1244(अ), तारी 17 माचज, 2021 के प्रकािन ृर, उक्त अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत

भूजम (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात् उक्त भूजम किा ग ा िज) और भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार, उक्त अजिजन म

की िारा 10 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुक्त िोकर, आत् ंजतक प ृ से केन्री सरकार में जनजित

िो गए े ;

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16072021-228326

CG-DL-W-16072021-228326

1034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कक सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लललमटेड, राांची, झारखांड

(लिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कांपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे लनबांधनों और शतों का, लिन्द्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस

लनलमत्त अलधरोलपत करना उलचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के ललए रिामांद है;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अलधलनयम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शलक्तयों का प्रयोग

करते हुए, यह लनदेश देती है कक इस प्रकार लनलहत उक्त भूलम का माप 3.229 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 7.980 एकड़

(लगभग) उक्त भूलम में या उस पर के सभी अलधकार तारीख 18 माचच, 2021 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार लनलहत

बने रहने के बिाए, लनम्नलललखत लनबांधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए, सरकारी कांपनी में लनलहत हो िाएांगे,

अर्ाचत्:—

(1) सरकारी कांपनी, उक्त अलधलनयम के उपबांधों के अधीन और अन्द्य सुसांगत लिलधयों के अधीन यर्ा अिधाररत

सभी प्रलतकर, ब्याि, नुकसालनयों, इत्याकद और िैसी ही मदों की बाबत् सभी सांदाय करेगी ;

(2) सरकारी कांपनी द्वारा शतच (1) के अधीन, सांदेय रकमों का अिधारण करने के प्रयोिनों के ललए उक्त अलधलनयम

की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अलधकरण का गठन ककया िाएगा तर्ा ऐसे ककसी अलधकरण और उक्त

अलधकरण की सहायता करने के ललए लनयुक्त व्यलक्तयों के सांबांध में उपगत सभी व्यय, उक्त सरकारी कांपनी

द्वारा िहन ककए िाएांगे और इसी प्रकार लनलहत उक्त भूलम में या उस पर के अलधकारों के ललए या उनके सांबांध

में अपील, आकद सभी लिलधक कायचिालहयों की बाबत उपगत, सभी व्यय भी सरकारी कांपनी द्वारा िहन ककए

िाएांगे;

(3) सरकारी कांपनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधाररयों की ऐसे ककसी अन्द्य व्यय के सांबांध में क्षलतपूर्तच करेगी िो

इस प्रकार लनलहत उक्त भूलम में या उस पर के अलधकारों के बारे में केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधाररयों द्वारा

या उनके लिरुद्ध ककन्द्हीं कायचिालहयों के सांबांध में आिश्यक हो;

(4) सरकारी कांपनी के पास उक्त भूलम और उक्त भूलम में इस प्रकार लनलहत अलधकारों को केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूिच

अनुमोदन के लबना, ककसी अन्द्य व्यलक्त को अांतररत करने की शलक्त नहीं होगी; और

(5) सरकारी कांपनी, ऐसे लनदेशों और शतों का पालन करेगी, िो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा, िब कभी आिश्यक हो,

उक्त भूलम के लिलशष्ट क्षेत्रों के ललए कदये िाएां या अलधरोलपत ककए िाएां।

[फा. सं. 43015/01/2020-एलए एण् ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2021

S.O. 375.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry

of Coal, number S.O. 1244(E), dated the 17th March, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 18th March, 2021, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said

Act), the land and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification

(hereinafter referred to as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi,

Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and

conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1035

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby directs that the said land measuring 3.229 hectares (approximately) or 7.980 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with effect from 18th March, 2021,

instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the Government company, subject to the

following terms and conditions, namely:—

(1)

The Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages etc. and

the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant law;

(2)

A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said

Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like

appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by

the Government Company;

(3)

The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4)

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said land, so vested,

to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by

the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/01/2020-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 25 िून, 2021

का.आ. 376.—केन्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता िज दक, इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णजत ृररक्षेत्र की

भूजम में से को ला अजभप्राप्त दकए िाने की संभावना िज ;

अत:, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णिंत क्षेत्र में अंतर्वजष्ट ब् ोंरे रे ांक सं्‍ ा सी- I(ई)/ III/िेिेिे/0421-970, तारी

23 अप्रजल, 2021, का जनरीक्षण, वेस्ट्टनज कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, (रािस्ट्व जवभाग), कोल इस्ट्टेट, जसजवल लाईन्स,

नागृुर - 440 001 (मिाराष्ट्र) के का ाजल में ा मु्‍ मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग), केन्री ान ोिना और

जडिाइन संस्ट् ान, गोंडवाना ृॅलेस, कांके रोड, रांची - 834 001 के का ाजल में ा को ला ननं त्रक, 1 काउंजसल

िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 के का ाजल में ा जिला कलेक्टर, जिला चंरृुर (मिाराष्ट्र) के का ाजल में

दक ा िा सकता िज ;

अत: अब केन्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिजन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20)

(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात् उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग

करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णजत भूजम से को ले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती िज ;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णजत भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई व्यजक्त, —

(i)

सम्पूणच भूलम या उसके ककसी भाग या उक्त भूलम में या उसके ऊपर ककसी अलधकार के अिचन पर आक्षेप कर

सकेगा; या

(ii)

उक्त अजिसूचना की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (3) के अिीन की ग ी दकसी का जवािी से हुई ा िोने वाली

संभाजवत दकसी क्षजत के जलए अजिजन म की िारा 6 के अिीन प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा ; ा

1036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

उक्त अजिजन म की िारा (13) की उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन ृूवेक्षण अनुज्ञजप्त ों के प्रभाविीन िोने के संबंि में

ा उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (4) के अिीन नन ृट्टे प्रभाविीन िोने के जलए प्रजतकर का

िावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक्त अजिन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ंड (i) से ंड (iv) में जवजनर्िजष्ट

मिों की बाबत उृगत व्य को उृिर्िजत करने के जलए ृूवोक्त भूजम से संबंजित सभी मानजचत्रों, चाटों और

अन् िस्ट्तावेिों को ृररित्त कर सकेगा।

इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से नब्बे दिन के भीतर, क्षेत्री मिाप्रबंिक, वेस्ट्टनज

कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, बल्लारृुर क्षेत्र, ा मु्‍ प्रबंिक / जवभागाध् क्ष, वेस्ट्टनज कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, भूजम और

रािस्ट्व जवभाग, कोल ईस्ट्टेट, जसजवल लाईन्स, नागृुर - 440 001 (मिाराष्ट्र) को भेि सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

सास्ट्ती एक्सृॅन्िन ओृनकास्ट्ट माईन (फेि - II)

बल्लारृुर क्षेत्र

जिला चंरृुर (मिाराष्ट्र)

(रे ांक सं्‍ ा सी- I (ई)/ III/िेिेिे/0421-970, तारी 23 अप्रजल, 2021)

भाग - 1

सभी अलधकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कजल

सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल क्षेत्रफल

रटप् ृणीं

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

गोवरी

रािुरा

चंरृुर 52.662

0.19

0.00

52.852

भाग

कुल :–

52.662

0.19

0.00

52.852

भाग – 2

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कजल

सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल क्षेत्रफल

रटप् ृणीं

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

गोवरी

रािुरा

चंरृुर 31.438

0.14

0.00

31.578

भाग

मा रा

रािुरा

चंरृुर 125.23

6.25

0.00

131.48

भाग

भडांगृुर

रािुरा

चंरृुर

4.29

0.00

4.29

भाग

कुल :–

160.958

6.39

0.00

167.348

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1037

भाग – 3

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कजल

सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल क्षेत्रफल रटप् ृणीं

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

सास्ट् ती

रािुरा

चंरृुर

0.00

0.63

0.00

0.63

भाग

कुल :-

0.00

0.63

0.00

0.63

भाग – 4

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कजल

सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल क्षेत्रफल रटप् ृणीं

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

सास्ट् ती

रािुरा

चंरृुर

0.00

6.33

0.00

6.33

भाग

कुल :-

0.00

6.33

0.00

6.33

कुल क्षेत्र (भाग – 1 + भाग – 2 + भाग – 3 + भाग – 4 = 227.16 िेक्टर (लगभग)

या 561.31 एकड़ (लगभग)

भाग 1

(1)

ग्राम गोवरी के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक :

348/भाग / अ - 348/ भाग/ ब - 348/ भाग/ क, 349/1- 349/2- 349/3, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355,

356, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364/1- 364/1/ अ - 364/2- 364/3, 365/1- 365/2- 365/3,

366/1- 366/2, 369/1/ अ - 369/1/ ब - 369/1/ क - 369/1/ ड - 369/2, 370/1- 370/2- 370/3- 370/4/अ-

370/5/ अ, 371/1, 372, 373/2, 373/1, 378, 464/अ - 464/ब, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475/1-

475/2,

सरकारी भूलम: 371/2, 373/2.

भाग 2

(1)

ग्राम गोवरी के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक:

344/1- 344/2, 345/1- 345/2/ अ - 345/2/ब, 346, 347/1- 347/2- 347/3, 348/ भाग/ अ - 348/ भाग/ब -

348/भाग/ क, 349/1- 349/2- 349/3, 350, 365/1- 365/2- 365/3, 366/1, 366/2, 367/1- 367/2-

367/3, 368, 369/1/ अ - 369/1/ ब - 369/1/ क - 369/1/ ड - 369/2, 370/1- 370/2- 370/3- 370/4/अ -

370/5/अ , 373/1, 378, 379/1- 379/2.

सरकारी भूलम: 370/4/ब - 370/5/ब.

1038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) ग्राम मा रा के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक :

2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19/1- 19/2, 20/1अ - 20/1ब - 20/2/अ - 20/2/ब, 21, 22/1-

22/2, 23/1- 23/2, 24/1- 24/2, 28, 29/1- 29/2, 30/1- 30/2, 31, 32, 33, 34/1/ अ /1- 34/1/अ /2-

34/1/ब - 34/2, 35, 36/1- 36/2, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41/1- 41/2, 42, 43, 44/1- 44/2, 45/1- 45/2, 46/1-

46/2, 47/1- 47/2- 47/3, 48, 49, 50/1- 50/2- 50/3- 50/4- 50/5, 51, 52, 55/1- 55/2, 56, 57, 58,

59, 61/1- 61/2, 62/1- 62/2, 63, 64, 65, 66/1- 66/2, 67, 68, 69, 70/1- 70/2, 71, 81, 82, नाला,

सड़क.

(3) ग्राम भडांगृुर के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक :

171/1- 171/2- 171/3, 172/1- 172/2.

भाग 3

(1) ग्राम सास्ट्ती के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक :

सरकारी भूलम.

भाग 4

(1) ग्राम सास्ट्ती के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक:

सरकारी भूलम.

सीमा िणचन

भाग – 1

क – ख :

रे ा ग्राम गोवरी में प्लाट सं्‍ ा 475 के ृास जबन्िु ‘क’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती ुली िान

के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 470 के

ृास जबन्िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज।

ख – ग :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 352, 351 और 348 (भाग) के उत्तर सीमा

से (सास्ट्ती ुली िान के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम की िजक्षण सीमा से लगकर) गुिरती िज

और जबन्िु 'ग' ृर जमलती िज ।

ग - घ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ग’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती रेल्वे साइनडंग के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम के

ृजश्चम सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 348, 349, 350, 365 और 366 में से

िोकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु 'घ' ृर जमलती िज ।

घ - ड. :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘घ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती रेल्वे साइनडंग के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम के

ृजश्चम सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 369, 370 (भाग) और 378 (भाग) मे से

िोकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु 'ड.’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ड.- च :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 378 की ृजश्चम सीमा को लगकर गुिरती िज

और जबन्िु 'च’ ृर जमलती िज ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1039

च – छ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘च’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 371 और 373 के िजक्षण सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘छ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

छ – ि :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘छ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 373, 372, 361, 359, 464 के बाह्य सीमा

से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ि’ ग्राम गोवरी ृर जमलती िज ।

ि – झ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 464, 469, 470 (भाग), 470 (भाग), 471,

472, 473 और 474 के बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘झ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

झ - ञ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘झ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 474, 475 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती

िज और जबन्िु ‘ञ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ञ - क :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ञ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 475 के बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और

प्लाट सं्‍ ा 475 के ृास के जबन्िु ‘क’ ृर समाप्त िोती िज ।

भाग – 2

ट – ठ :

रे ा ग्राम गोवरी में जबन्िु ‘ट’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृूवज दििा में सास्ट्ती ुली िान के जलए ृूवज

में अजिग्रजित भूजम की िजक्षण सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम गोवरी और मा रा के

सजममजलत सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ठ – ड :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती ुली िान के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम के

िजक्षण-ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और कच्ची सड़क को ृार कर ग्राम भडांगृुर और मा रा

की सजममजलत सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ड’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ड – ढ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ड’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती ुली िान के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम की सीमा

त ा ग्राम भडांगृुर में प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 171 और 172 के ृजश्चमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और

जबन्िु ‘ढ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ढ – ण :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 172 की उत्तरी सीमा त ा सास्ट्ती ुली िान

के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम की उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम भडांगृुर और

मा रा की सजममजलत सीमा रे ा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ण’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ण – त :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ण’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 172, 171 (भाग) के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और ग्राम भडांगृुर और मा रा की सजममजलत सीमा रे ा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘त’ ृर

जमलती िज ।

त – र् :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘त’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 55 के उत्तरी और ृूवी सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज त ा ग्राम मा रा में जबन्िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

र् – द :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 57, 58 और 59 के उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और ग्राम िोृताला और ग्राम मा रा की सजममजलत सीमा रे ा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ि’

ृर जमलती िज ।

द – ध :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोती िज एवं प्लाट सं्‍ ा 59 के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज त ा ग्राम

िोृताला एवं ग्राम मा रा की सजममजलत सीमा रे ा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज।

1040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ध – न :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 59, 61, 62, 63 (भाग), 71 के बाह्य सीमा

से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘न’ ृर जमलती िज।

न – प :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘न’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 71, 69, 81, 82 और ृािचारी मागज के

बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ृ’ ृर जमलती िज।

प – फ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ृ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृािचारी मागज को ृार कर प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 28, 29 (भाग),

24 (भाग), 23 की बाह्य से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘फ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

फ – ब :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘फ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 23, 22 (भाग) के िजक्षण सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ब’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ब – भ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ब’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 17 के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और

जबन्िु ‘भ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

भ – म :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘भ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 12, 13, 9 और 6 के उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘म’ ृर जमलती िज ।

म- य :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘म’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 6 (भाग), 4 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज, दफर ृािचारी मागज को ृार कर ग्राम मा रा के नाले के दकनारे ृर जबन्िु ‘ ’ ृर

जमलती िज ।

य – क1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और मा रा नाला के सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘क1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

क1 – ख1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘क1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृािचारी मागज को ृार करती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 2, 3

और 10 की िजक्षण सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ 1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ख1 – ग1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ 1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ा 11 (भाग) के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज

और जबन्िु ‘ग1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ग1– घ1-ड.1 : रे ा जबन्िु ‘ग1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 11, 12 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज

और जबन्िु ‘घ1’ से िोकर जबन्िु ‘ड.1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ड.1 – च1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ड.1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 15 और 16 के बाह्य सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और ग्राम मा रा और गोवरी की सजममजलत सीमा रे ा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘च1’ ृर

जमलती िज ।

च1 – छ1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘च1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ग्राम गोवरी और मा रा की सजममजलत सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘छ1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

छ1 – ि1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘छ1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृजश्चम दििा में प्लाट सं्‍ ा 370 में से गुिरती िज दफर

प्लाट सं्‍ ा 368 के िजक्षण सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम गोवरी में जबन्िु ‘ि1’ ग्राम

गोवरी ृर जमलती िज ।

ि1 – झ1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और िजक्षण दििा में प्लाट सं्‍ ा 370 (भाग) में से गुिरती िज

दफर सड़क को ृार कर प्लाट सं्‍ ा 379 के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘झ1’ ृर

जमलती िज ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1041

झ1 - ञ 1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘झ1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 379 और 378 (भाग) के िजक्षण सीमा से

लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ञ1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ञ1 – ट1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ञ1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती रेल्वे साइनडंग के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम के

ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम गोवरी में जबन्िु ‘ट1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ट1 – ट :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ट1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और सास्ट्ती रेल्वे साइनडंग के जलए ृूवज में अजिग्रजित भूजम के

ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ट’ ृर जमलती िज ।

भाग - 3

ठ1-ड1-ढ1-ण1: रे ा ग्राम सास्ट्ती में नाले के समीृ जबन्िु ‘ 1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और नाले से लगकर जबन्िु ‘ड1’,

‘ढ1’, ‘ण1’ से िोकर जबन्िु ‘ 1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

भाग – 4

त1-र्1-द1:

रे ा ग्राम सास्ट्ती में प्लाट सं्‍ ा 305 के समीृ नाले के ृट ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘त1’ से आरंभ िोती

िज और उत्तर-ृजश्चम दििा में नाले से लगकर गुिरती िज, दफर जबन्िु ‘ 1’ से िोकर प्लाट सं्‍ ा

208 के समीृ नाले के तट ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

द1 – ध1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृूवज दििा में नाला ृार कर जबन्िु ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ध1-न1-प1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृूवज दििा में नाले के तट को लगकर गुिरती िज दफर

तट ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘न1’ से िोकर जबन्िु ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

प1 – त1 :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ृ1’ से आरंभ िोती िज और नाला ृार कर आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘त1’ ृर समाप्त िोती िज ।

[फा. सं. 43015/03/2021-एलए एण् ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2021

S.O. 376.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the

land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And Whereas, the plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/JJJ/0421-970, dated the 23 April, 2021, of the area

described in the said Schedule can be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields limited (Revenue

Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur– 440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General

Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road,

Ranchi – 834 001 or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or at the

office of the District Collector, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing

Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for all

rights the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in

the said Schedule;

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules may, —

(i)

object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or

(ii)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by

any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the thereof ; or

1042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to

have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the

expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13

of the said Act,

to the office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Ballarpur Area, Post Sasti, Tahsil

Rajura, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or Chief Manager/Head of Department (Land and Revenue), Western

Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra)

within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Sasti Expansion Opencast Mine (Phase – II)

Ballarpur Area

District Chandrapur (Maharashtra)

[ Plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/JJJ/0421-970, dated the 23^rd April, 2021 ]

Part – 1

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

Number

Tahsil

District

Description of land

Total

(in

hectares)

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Gowari

Rajura

Chandrapur

52.662

0.19

0.00

52.852

Part

Total :

52.662

0.19

0.00

52.852

Part - 2

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

Number

Tahsil

District

Description of land

Total

( in

hectares)

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Gowari

Rajura

Chandrapur

31.438

0.14

0.00

31.578

Part

Mathra

Rajura

Chandrapur

125.23

6.25

0.00

131.48

Part

Bhadang-

pur

Rajura

Chandrapur

4.29

0.00

4.29

Part

Total :

160.958

6.39

0.00

167.348

Part – 3

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

Number

Tahsil

District

Description of land

Total

( in

hectares)

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Sasti

Rajura

Chandrapur

0.00

0.63

0.00

0.63

Part

Total :

0.00

0.63

0.00

0.63

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1043

Part – 4

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

Number

Tahsil

District

Description of land

Total

( in

hectares)

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Sasti

Rajura

Chandrapur

0.00

6.33

0.00

6.33

Part

Total :

0.00

6.33

0.00

6.33

Total area (Part 1 + Part 2 + Part 3 + Part 4) = 227.16 hectares (approximately)

or 561.31 acres (approximately)

Part - 1

(1) Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Gowari :

348/Part/A- 348/Part/B- 348/Part/C, 349/1- 349/2- 349/3, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 361,

362, 363, 364/1- 364/1/A- 364/2- 364/3, 365/1- 365/2- 365/3, 366/1-366/2, 369/1/A- 369/1/B- 369/1/C-

369/1/D- 369/2, 370/1- 370/2- 370/3- 370/4/A- 370/5/A, 371/1, 372, 373/2, 373/1, 378, 464/A- 464/B, 469, 470,

471, 472, 473, 474, 475/1- 475/2,

Govt. Land : 371/2, 373/2.

Part - 2

(1) Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Gowari :

344/1- 344/2, 345/1- 345/2/A- 345/2/B, 346, 347/1- 347/2- 347/3, 348/Part/A- 348/Part/B- 348/Part/C, 349/1-

349/2- 349/3, 350, 365/1- 365/2- 365/3, 366/1, 366/2, 367/1- 367/2- 367/3, 368, 369/1/A- 369/1/B- 369/1/C-

369/1/D- 369/2, 370/1- 370/2- 370/3- 370/4/A- 370/5/A, 373/1, 378, 379/1- 379/2.

Govt land: 370/4/B- 370/5/B.

(2) Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Mathara :

2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19/1- 19/2, 20/1A- 20/1B- 20/2/A- 20/2/B, 21, 22/1- 22/2, 23/1- 23/2,

24/1- 24/2, 28, 29/1- 29/2, 30/1- 30/2, 31, 32, 33, 34/1/A/1- 34/1/A/2- 34/1/B- 34/2, 35, 36/1- 36/2, 37, 38, 39,

40, 41/1- 41/2, 42, 43, 44/1- 44/2, 45/1- 45/2, 46/1- 46/2, 47/1- 47/2- 47/3, 48, 49, 50/1- 50/2- 50/3- 50/4- 50/5,

51, 52, 55/1- 55/2, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61/1- 61/2, 62/1- 62/2, 63, 64, 65, 66/1- 66/2, 67, 68, 69, 70/1- 70/2, 71, 81,

82, Raod, Nallah

(3) Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Bhadangpur :

171/1- 171/2- 171/3, 172/1- 172/2.

Part - 3

(1) Plot number within notification boundary in village Sasti :

Govt land.

Part - 4

(1) Plot number within notification boundary in village Sasti :

Govt land.

Boundary description:

Part – 1

A – B :

Line starts from Point ‘A’ near Plot Number 475 of village Gowari and passes along the outer

boundary of land already acquired for Sasti Opencast Mine and meets at Point ‘B’ near Plot

Number 470.

1044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

B – C :

Line starts from Point ‘B’ then passes along the North boundary of Plot Numbers 352, 351

(Part) of 348 (South boundary of already acquired land for Sasti Opencast Mine) and meets at

Point ‘C’.

C – D :

Line starts from Point ‘C’ and passes along West boundary of land already acquired for Sasti

Railway Siding then passes through Plot Numbers 348, 349, 350, 365 & 366 and meets at

Point ‘D’.

D – E :

Line starts from Point ‘D’ and passes along West boundary of already acquired land for Sasti

Railway Siding, then passes through Plot Numbers 369, 370 (Part), 378 (Part) and meets at

Point ‘E’.

E – F :

Line starts from Point ‘E’ and passes along the West boundary of Plot Number 378 and meets

at Point ‘F’.

F – G :

Line starts from Point ‘F’ and passes along the South boundary of Plot Numbers 371 and 373

and meets at Point ‘G’.

G – H :

Line starts from Point ‘G’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 373, 372, 361,

359 and 464 and meets at Point ‘H’.

H – I :

Line starts from Point ‘H’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 464, 469, Part

of 470, 470 (Part), 471, 472, 473 and 474 and meets at Point ‘I’.

I – J :

Line starts from Point ‘I’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 474 , 475 and

meets at Point ‘J’.

J – A :

Line starts from Point ‘J’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Number 475 and end at

starting Point ‘A’ near Plot Number 475 of village Gowari.

Part – 2

K – L :

Line starts from Point ‘K’ in village Gowari and passes in East direction along the South

boundary of land already acquired for Sasti Opencast Mine and meets at Point ‘L’ of common

village boundary of Gowari and Mathara.

L – M :

Line starts from Point ‘L’ and passes along South-East boundary of land already acquired for

Sasti Opencast Mine, then crosses the Kuccha Road and meets at Point ‘M’ on common

village boundary of Mathara and Bhadangpur.

M – N :

Line starts from Point ‘M’ and passes along East boundary of land already acquired for Sasti

Opencast Mine and West boundary of Plot Numbers 171 and 172 in village Bhadangpur and

meets at Point ‘N’.

N – O :

Line starts from Point ‘N’ and passes along the North boundary of land already acquired for

Sasti Opencast Mine and North boundary of Plot Number 172 and meets at Point ‘O’ of

common village boundary of Mathara and Bhadangpur.

O – P :

Line starts from Point ‘O’ and passes along the East boundary of Plot Numbers 172 and 171

Part of Bhadangpur village and meets at Point ‘P’ of common village boundary of Mathara

and Bhadangpur.

P – Q :

Line starts from Point ‘P’ and passes along the North-East boundary of Plot Number 55 and

meets at Point ‘Q’ in village Mathara.

Q – R :

Line starts from Point ‘Q’ and passes along the North boundary of Plot Numbers 57, 58 and 59

and meets at Point ‘R’ on common village boundary of Mathara and Dhuptala.

R – S :

Line starts from Point ‘R’ and passes along the East boundary of Plot Number 59 and meets at

Point ‘S’ of common village boundary of Mathara and Dhuptala.

S – T :

Line starts from Point ‘S’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 59, 61, 62, 63

(Part), 71 and meets at Point ‘T’ in village Mathara.

T – U :

Line starts from Point ‘T’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 71, 69, 81 and

82, passes along the East boundary of Kaccha Road and meets at Point ‘U’.

U – V :

Line starts from Point ‘U’, crosses the Kaccha Road and passes along the South boundary of

Plot Numbers 28, 29 (Part), 24 (Part), 23 and meets at Point ‘V’.

V – W :

Line starts from Point ‘V’ and passes along South boundary of Plot Numbers 23 & 22 (Part)

and meets at Point ‘W’.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1045

W – X :

Line starts from Point ‘W’ and passes along the East boundary of Plot Number 17 and meets at

Point ‘X’.

X – Y :

Line starts from Point ‘X’ and passes along the North boundary of Plot Numbers 12, 13, 9 and

6 and meets at Point ‘Y’.

Y – Z :

Line starts from Point ‘Y’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 6, 4, cross the

Kaccha Road and meets at Point ‘Z’ on bank of the Nallah in village Mathara.

Z – A1 :

Line starts from Point ‘Z’ and meets at Point ‘A1’ on the bank of Nallah in village Mathara.

A1 – B1 :

Line starts from Point ‘A1’ crosses the Kaccha Road then passes along the South boundary of

Plot Numbers 2, 3 and 10 and meets at Point ‘B1’.

B1 – C1 :

Line starts from Point ‘B1’ and passes along East boundary of Plot Number 11 (Part) and

meets at Point ‘C1’.

C1-D1-E1 :

Line starts from Point ‘C1’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 11 and 12

then passes through Point ‘D1’ and meets at Point ‘E1’.

E1 – F1 :

Line starts from Point ‘E1’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 15 and 16

and meets at Point ‘F1’ of common village boundary of Gowari & Mathara.

F1 – G1 :

Line starts from Point ‘F1’ and passes along the common village boundary and meets at Point

‘G1’ of common village boundary of Gowari & Mathara.

G1 – H1 :

Line starts from Point ‘G1’ and passes through Plot Number 370 in West direction, passes

along South boundary of Plot Number 368 and meets at Point ‘H1’ in village Gowari.

H1 – I1 :

Line starts from Point ‘H1’ and passes in South direction through Plot Number 370, cross the

road and passes along East boundary of Plot Number 379 and meets at Point ‘I1’.

I1 – J1 :

Line starts from Point ‘I1’, passes along the South boundary of Plot Number 379 and Plot

Number 378 (Part) and meets at Point ‘J1’.

J1 – K1 :

Line starts from Point ‘J1’ and passes along the East boundary of land already acquired for

Sasti Railway Siding and meets at Point ‘K1’.

K1 – K :

Line starts from Point ‘K1’ and passes along the East boundary of land already acquired for

Sasti Railway Siding and end at starting Point ‘K’ in village Gowari.

Part – 3

L1-M1-N1-

O1-L1 :

Line starts from Point ‘L1’ near Nallah in village Sasti, passes through Points

‘M1’- ‘N1’- ‘O1’ and meets at Point ‘L1’.

Part – 4

P1-Q1-R1 :

Line starts from Point ‘P1’ near Plot Number 305 on the bank of Nallah, passes in North-West

direction along the bank of Nallah, passes through Point‘Q1’ and meets at Point ‘R1’ near Plot

Number 208 on the bank of Nallah.

R1 – S1 :

Line starts from Point ‘R1’ passes in East direction crosses the Nallah and meets at Point ‘S1’.

S1-T1-U1 :

Line starts from Point ‘S1’ passes in South-East direction along the bank of Nallah, passes

through Point ‘T1’ and meets at Point ‘U1’.

U1 – P1 :

Line starts from Point ‘U1’ crosses the Nallah and ends at starting Point ‘P1’.

[F. No. 43015/03/2021-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

1046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम और रोिगार मांत्रालय

नई दिल्ली,11 िून, 2021

का.आ. 377.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार अवर सजचव (प्रिासन III), कषजष मंत्राल , जवभाग। ए.एच. डे री और मत्स्ट् ृालन, कषजष भवन,

नई दिल्ली, जनिेिक, क्षेत्री स्ट्टेिन चारा उत्ृािन एवं प्रििजन, ृीओ-टेक्सटाइल जमल्स, जिसार- (िरर ाणा) के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ृवन कुमार, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -II, चंडीगढ़ के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 53/2015) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.05.2021 को प्राप्त

हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल-42012/196/2015- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2021

S.O. 377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

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

relation to The Under Secretary(Admn.III), Ministry of Agriculture, Deptt. Of A.H. Dairying & Fishries, Krishi

Bhawan, New Delhi; The Director, Regional Station Forage Production & Demonstration, PO-Textile Mills,

Hissar- (Haryana) and Shri Pawan Kumar, Worker which was received along with soft copy office award by the

Central Government on 17.05.2021.

[No. L-42012/196/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 53/2015

Registered on:-18.01.2016

Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Late Sh. Daya Kishan Verma, C/o Sh. Darshan Singh,

Labour Pleader & AR, H.No.339-P, Sector 16 & 17, Hissar-125001.

…Workman

Versus

Under Secretary (Admn.III), Ministry of Agriculture,

Deptt. of A.H. Dairying & Fishries, Room No. 417 Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

Director, Regional Station Forage Production & Demonstration,

PO-Textile Mills, Hissar-125002 (Haryana).

…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-5.4.2021

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/196/2015-IR(DU) Dated 15.12.2015, under clause

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

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

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1047

“Whether the action of the management of Director Regional Station for Forage Production &

Demonstration, Hisar-125002(HR) in not considering the request for appointment on

compensation ground of the claimant/workman Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Late Sh. Daya Kishan

Verma, Hisar in place of his deceased father is legal & justified? If not, what relief the claimant

is entitled to and from which date?”

Both the parties were put to notice and claimant/workman Pawan Kumar filed statement of claim, with

the averment, that his father Sh. Daya Kishan Verma was employed as Filter Pump Driver on permanent basis

who died on12.12.2007 due to an accident, leaving the family in die-harness. Due to acute financial crisis,

mother of the claimant/workman Smt. Angoori Devi moved an application for his appointment on the basis of

compassionate grounds but nothing is done by the respondent/management after the lapse of more than 6 years.

Claimant/workman forced for sending demand notice under the ID Act, 1947 to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Karnal on 25.05.2011. In spite of the specific direction by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

to the respondent/management, it did not submit any satisfactory answer with respect to 5% quota of vacancy.

Contrary to this, respondent/management appointed its near and dear, discriminating the claim of the

claimant/workman. It is further alleged that due to non-cooperation and adamant approach of the

respondent/management, Assistant Labour Commissioner Karnal closed the conciliation proceeding on

19.10.2015 and sent its report to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, resulting the present

reference by the Central Government. It is therefore prayed that respondent/management be directed to appoint

the claimant/workman on compassionate grounds in place of his facther and other benefits available within the

Law.

Respondent/management has filed its reply, alleging therein that the statement of claim is not

maintainable either in law or on facts of circumstances of the case. This Hon’ble Labour Court has got no

jurisdiction to try and entertain the present statement of claim. No cause of action has accrued to the workman

to approach this Hon’ble Labour Court as he is not affected by ay order of the respondent/management. The

respondent/management is not an ‘Industry’ and is not engaged in commercial production of anything for profit

rather it is a Scheme being operated and 100% funded by Central Government for the welfare of the targeted

beneficiary group of dairy farmers and the State Government. The employees of Central Government are

exclusively governed by the rules framed by the Central Government, mainly DoPT and also by other

departments like D/o Expenditure, M/o Health, M/o Housing etc. and by no other rules whatsoever. The

Director in-charge, Regional Station for Forage Production & Demonstration Hisar is not competent to consider

the case of compassionate appointment as it requires consideration and decision in the department as per DoPT,

Govt. of India’s Rules on the subject. After the death of Sh. Daya Kishan Verma, father of claimant/workman

on 12.12.2007 all the eligible monetary benefits were paid to the family of the deceased. The family is

managing even for more than five years after the death of Sh. Daya Kishan Verma and it cannot be stated to be

in a penurious condition needing immediate succor. The DoPT’s guidelines vide OM No.14014/19/2002-

Estt(D) dated 5.5.2003 clearly states that the maximum time a person’s name can be kept under consideration

for will be three years and after that, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant,

his case will be finally closed and will not be considered again. After considering all the aspect by BBO if it is

found that the case of applicant fulfills the indigence criteria, the case is considered by the competent authority.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any order in favour of the answering

respondent and against the claimant/workman in the interest of justice.

Claimant/workman Pawan Kumar has filed its rejoinder, alleging therein that respondent/management

is an ‘Industry’ in the light of the judgment of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa

1978(36) FLR 266, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further alleged that respondent/management

has not replied about the steps taken for considering the appointment of the claimant/workman denying the facts

alleged in Para 3 to 9 of written statement with respect to DoPT. Claimant/workman further alleged that

respondent/management has appointed so many persons on the basis of the approach and recommendation of

the concerned-authority. It is further alleged that going though the appointments of the persons after 19.08.2009

on compassionate grounds it is clear that respondent has not submitted the details of the employed persons and

condition prevailing about their appointments. The remaining facts alleged in the replication are same as alleged

in the claim petition as such, it does not required to be repeated again.

In support of his case, the workman Pawan Kumar appeared in the witness box and has submitted his

affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A which is in the line of the facts alleged in the claim petition and has been

cross-examined by the learned counsel of management Sh. V.K. Arya. Claimant/workman Pawan Kumar while

proving his affidavit Ex.WW1/A has alleged that they are 6 brothers and sisters and all of them are married. He

has further stated that he himself married in the year 2008 and his family has already received all the monetary

benefits after the death of his father. This witness has stated that he has not registered his name with

Employment Exchange and living with her mother in ancestral house. The claimant/workman has further stated

that there are only one kanal possessed by his family.

1048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management has examined Sh. Prem Pal Singh, Director Regional Fooder Station, Hissar, who has

filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/14 as part of his

statement and cross-examined by the AR of claimant/workman. This witness has admitted the date of death of

the claimant’s father Daya Kishan Verma on 12.12.2007 and application submitted by the mother of the

claimant/workman on 3.8.2009 for appointment on compassionate grounds. As per Prem Pal Singh, appointing

authority is a Ministry of Agriculture instead of Director, Hissar. He has further stated that no reply has been

given by the Ministry to the mother of claimant/workman Pawan Kumar with respect to his appointment on

compassionate ground as per his knowledge. This witness has denied any appointment by the Ministry in the

respondent/management at Hisar. According to this witness, appointment relates with the direction given by the

CAT Cuttack Bench as well as CAT Chandigarh. According to this witness Regional Fodder Station is not an

industry under the ID Act.

Witness Prem Pal Singh of the respondent/management has further submitted his additional affidavit

Ex.MW1/B and has been cross-examined by the AR of workman Darshan Singh. This witness has accepted that

4 persons have been selected by the respondent/management after his earlier cross-examination i.e. 26.10.2018

as per procedure but nothing is mentioned in the documents attached with the additional affidavit regarding the

procedure, selection, name of their fathers, date of death and date of application of selected candidates.

According to this witness, there is no specific provision for selection of such workmen on compassionate

ground. This witness has expressed his inability to inform the number of persons who have been appointed from

25.05.2011 upto 2019. This witness has accepted that 4 persons have been selected by the Committee out of 88

persons along with consideration of the workman who is being not selected.

I have heard Sh. Dardhan Singh, AR for the claimant/workman and Sh. V.K. Arya, Ld. Counsel for

management and have gone through the records carefully as well as written submissions made by both the

parties.

Before entering into the merit of the case, it will be pertinent to mention those facts which are either

admitted by the parties or proved by the documentary evidence beyond any doubt. The facts relating to the date

of joining of the claimant’s father Daya Krishan Verma, date of his death, date of submission of the application

by mother of the claimant/workman on 3.8.2009 and non-selection of the claimant/workman after consideration

by the Committee on 28.01.20109 out of 88 applicants. It is also not disputed that last meeting of the Committee

took place on 28.01.2019 out of which 12 persons are selected on priority basis out of 88 persons on the basis of

criteria made by the Committee. Thus, it is admitted facts that the application of the claimant/workman

submitted on 3.8.2009 is finally considered on 28.01.2019 i.e. after more than 10 years.

Learned AR of the claimant/workman contended that the aforesaid meeting of Committee for

consideration of the 88 candidates eligible for consideration on compassionate grounds is conducted to save the

skin of Ministry after the conclusion of the evidence of this case. Learned AR further argued that object of the

Scheme of the compassionate ground has been overlooked by the Ministry just to avoid the claim of the

claimant/workman for posting in compassionate ground. According to the AR of the claimant/workman

application of the claimant/workman should have been decided within the span of one year in pursuance of the

Department of Personal and Training O.M No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated October 9, 1998 or it should have been

considered by the subsequent O.M. No.14014/19/2002-Estt(D) dated 5.5.2003, in which three years time has

been prescribed for the Ministry for consideration of the compassionate appointment. Thus, consideration of

claimant’s application after the laps of more than 10 years by respondents is unjust and illegal.

10.

Learned counsel of the management Sh. V.K. Arya contended that delay is not intentional instead

there were no vacancy in relevant period for consideration of the compassionate appointment by the Committee

because it is subject to the availability of a clear vacancy within the prescribed 5% quota. Learned counsel

further argued that the time limit of three years has been withdrawn by virtue of the O.M. No.14014/19/2002-

Estt(D) dated 5.5.2003 and subsequent time limit came to an end by virtue of O.M. No.14014/3/2011-Estt(D)

dated 26.07.2012 in which it is prescribed that any application for compassionate appointment is to be

considered without any time limit and it is taken on merit on each case. Thus, according to the learned counsel

of the management, time limit for consideration of the application of the respective candidates has been

withdrawn by the O.M. No.14014/3/2011-Estt(D) dated 26.07.2012 and in pursuance of the availability of 5%

quota of vacancy, the appointment of claimant/workman is considered by the Committee along with other

candidates but unfortunately he could not be selected due to the norms settled by the Committee. Learned

counsel further argued that it is not only the claimant/workman but more than 70 persons could not be selected

on merit hence, it is wrong to say that selection was neither impartial nor within the reasonable time as such,

claimant/workman is not entitled for any relief as is prayed through this claim petition.

11.

The core issue for consideration in the light of the reference is legality and justification of non-

consideration of claimant/workman Pawan Kumar for such a long time. Undisputedly, the application of the

claimant/workman is considered after the lapse of more than 10 years i.e. 28.01.2019 and he could not be

selected by virtue of the norms prescribed by the Committee.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1049

12.

Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family

member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a

vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for

appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria and the selection is made of the

most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these

schemes there is a need to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the

family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a selection

committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of

earmarked vacancies. Obviously, therefore there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an

application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of

consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right,

the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force

earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. Further where the earlier scheme is abolished and

the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in

terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession

and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its

policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.

13.

In fact, compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the object of

providing succor to employees’ family to imply over sudden financial crisis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while

considering the series of judgment has came to the conclusion that concept of compassionate appointment is

recognized as an exception to the general rule governing employment in public servant garb out in the interest

of justice. The scheme/policy provided for such appointment could be binding on both employer and employee.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of Bhawani Parshad Vs. Union of India & Oths.,

2011(4) SCC page 209, has held that while considering the claim of compassionate appointment certain factors

are to be bear in mind and observe in Para 2 of the judgment as follow:-

(i)

Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the

Government or a pubic authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the

governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate

appointment dehors the scheme.

(ii)

An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has

to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on

account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. Therefore,

compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse

irrespective of the financial condition or the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time

of this death or incapacity as the case may be.

(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the

deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives,

and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.

In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and principles laid down therein, it is

clear that the employer is within its power to laid down a policy for compassionate employment. It

has to strictly adhere to such policy though, compassionate appointment in a exception to general

rule, power to the Government or Public Authority to frame policy to offer the compassionate

appointment expected by the Court in the interest of justice.

14.

Next question which arises for consideration is with respect to the considering of the employment of

the claimant/workman in pursuance of the policy and time frame mentioned in O.M No.14014/6/94-Estt(D)

dated October 9, 1998 and O.M. No.14014/23/99-Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999. As per above mentioned

OM, the application of the claimant/workman has to be considered within one year time limit and in case of

non-availability of prescribed 5% quota it has to be extended for one year for such deserving candidates if

Committee finds it in its scrutiny. The maximum time a persons name can be kept for consideration of

compassionate appointment is prescribed three years subject to the condition of the prescribed Committee as

reviewed and certified the penuries condition of the applicant at the end of the first and second year. This OM

further states that after three years if compassionate appointment is not possible to offer to the applicant its case

will be finally closed and will not be considered again. Thus, in pursuance of the O.M No.14014/6/94-Estt(D)

dated October 9, 1998 and O.M. No.14014/23/99-Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999, the claim of the

claimant/workman has to be considered firstly within one year and subsequently within three years but there is

nothing on record to prove that application of the claimant/workman has been considered or scrutinized for

extension of one, two or three years by the Committee finding it to be deserving. It is also relevant that if the

case of the claimant/workman was not considerable or deserving then it should be rejected after the lapse of

1050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

three years as per the above mentioned O.M No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated October 9, 1998 and O.M.

No.14014/23/99-Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999 and information has to be given to the claimant/workman.

Learned counsel of the respondent/management contended that the application of the claimant/workman could

not be considered within the span of three years from the date of submission as is prescribed in the OM dated

10.09.1998 and 03.12.1999 in absence of availability of 5% quota prescribed for the purpose. Learned counsel

of the respondent/management while placing reliance in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar,

2010, SC page 86, has contended that the application of the claimant/workman is considered in the Scheme and

Rules which was prevalent at the time of the consideration of the application and not the Scheme that was in

force earlier when the application was made. Thus, there is no any illegality or any irregularity in considering

the claim of the claimant/workman in pursuance of the Scheme and Rules. According to the learned counsel of

the respondent/management, none of the applicants under the Scheme has vested right the Scheme i.e. in force

at the time of the consideration is taken into account and claimant/workman could not be selected on criteria

fixed by the Committee itself.

15.

Learned AR of the claimant/workman contended that the argument advanced by the learned counsel

for the respondent/management is not relevant in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Hob’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Bhawani Parshad(supra) in which similar question has considered before the Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that application for compassionate appointment has to be preferred

without any undue delay and has to be considered within the period of reasonable time as per Rules and Scheme

applicable at relevant time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that in case an application is made by

the dependant belatedly or is considered after inordinate delay, basic requirements of meeting the minimum

crisis becomes redundant. Thus, it may be observed that the selection of the claimant/workman is not

considered within the stipulated period in pursuance of the O.M No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated October 9, 1998

and O.M. No.14014/23/99-Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999 within the span of one, two or three years instead it

is considered after 10 years that to on the basis of Rules and Scheme formulated by the Committee at that time.

Thus, it may be observed that action of the respondent/management in not considering the request of the

claimant/workman on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father within stipulated time is illegal and

unjust. This view find support from the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Cout in the

case of Krishna Kumari Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2012(2) RSJ page 473.

16.

There is another aspect to consider the case, which fortifies above conclusion of this Tribunal. The

documents filed by the claimant, received through Right to Information Act reveals that numbers of person

appointed by the Zonal Director or Senior Administrative of per serving under the Ministry. Sh. Amiya Kumar,

Sumant Kumar, B.C. Sudhish, B.B. Srijeet, Sudhish Kumar Sakumaron, Miss Mamta Singh Rana, Giresh

Mohan, Deepak Chandra, Srimati Jhualata Jena are appointed on basis of compassionate ground between 2009

to 2017. Learned counsel of management contended that their appointment is done in pursuance of the order of

Labour Court or Central administrative Tribunal but except Srimati Jena all the above mentioned appointment is

done without any order of any competent Court. This, it is evidence that management of version of non-

availability of vacancy has no force. I am of the view that application of the claimant Pawan Kumar is dealt in

biased manner and conduct of the officials of concerned Ministry is highly deplorable in given circumstances.

17.

Next question which remains for consideration is whether this Tribunal is competent to give relief

claimed by the applicant/workman in his claim petition. Learned counsel of the respondent/management

contended that this Tribunal has got no power to give direction for appointment to the claimant/workman on

compassionate grounds and it can merely direct consideration of claim of such an appointment in the light of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha

Ramchandra Ambekar & Ors. JT 1994(2) SC 183 and in Himachal Road Transport Vs. Shri Dinesh Kumar,

1996, SCC(4) Page 560. Learned counsel further contended that the case of the claimant/workman has been

already considered by the authorized Committee of the Ministry vide its Order dated 28.01.2019 and he could

not be selected in the terms and conditions stipulated for the selection of 88 candidates. Learned counsel of the

respondent/management while placing reliance in the case of Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2006 dated 5.4.2011

Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam, @ Kumaravalu, contended that application of the

claimant/workman has become out of consideration as an appointment made after many years after the death of

the employee or due to the financial resources available could be directly confrontation with Article 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India and hence quit bad and illegal.

18.

Going through the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above and case law relied by the

learned AR of the workman namely Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Others(supra), this Tribunal is of

the considered opinion that this is a case in which consideration after inordinate delay by respondents basic

requirement of meeting the immediate crisis has become redundant and consideration of application after

number of years could be beyond principle accepted by the Aped Court in so many decision. In such

circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the exception of the general rule made as envisaged by Article 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the above mentioned circumstances an case laws of Hon’ble Supreme

Court, it is not possible to pass a order for appointment of claimant Pawan Kumar on compassionate ground or

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1051

for reconsideration in spite of the facts that non-consideration of the application of claimant for such long time

is illegal and unjustifiable. Hence, award is answered accordingly.

19.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17

of the ID Act, 1947.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 11 िून, 2021

का.आ. 378.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार प्रभारी अजिकारी, बीर िनतूरी, सजन् फामज, अंबाला (िरर ाणा) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्री भिन नसंि ृुत्र बंत नसंि ृुत्र श्री आर.के. नसंि ृरमार, मिासजचव, ृंिाब। इंटक २११-एल, बरारी ृीओ प्रताृ

नगर, नंगल बांि, जिला- प ृनगर, (ृीबी) के माध् म से कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2,चंडीगढ़ के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 23/2014) को िजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.05.2021 को

प्राप्त हुआ ा

[सं. एल-14012/20/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2021

S.O. 378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

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

relation to The Officer Incharge, Bir Dhanturi, Military Farm, Ambala (Haryana) and Shri Bhajan Singh S/o

Bant Singh C/o Shri R.K. Singh Parmar, General Secretary, Pb. INTUC 211-L, Brari PO Partap Nagar, Nangal

Dam, Distt. Rupnagar (PB), Worker which was received along with soft copy office award by the Central

Government on 12.05.2021.

[No. L-14012/20/2014-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 23/2014

Registered On:-12.09.2014

Shri Bhajan Singh S/o Bant Singh C/o Shri R. K.Singh Parmar, General Secretary,

Pb. INTUC 211-L, Brari PO Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Distt. Rupnagar (PB)

…Petitioner

Versus

The Officer Incharge, Bir Dhanturi, Military Farm, Ambala (Haryana).

…Respondent

AWARD

Passed On:-05.04.2021

Central Government vide Notification No.L-14012/20/2014-IR(DU) Dated 29.08.2014, under clause

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

called the Act), has referred the following Industrial Dispute related to the Bir Dhanturi, Military Farm,

Ambala (Haryana) for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

1052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of officer incharge, Bir Dhanturi Military Farm.

Ambala (Haryana) in terminating the service of Shri. Bhajan Singh W.E.F. 11.06.2013 is valid

just and legal? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

In brief, the facts are that the workman/petitioner was served the Military Farm w.e.f. 01.05.1991 till

19.03.1999, as an unskilled Mazdoor and was illegally retrenched and the settlement was reached between the

parties before the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Chandigarh on 25.08.2010. Moreover, in the terms

of said settlement, workman/petitioner was appointed afresh w.e.f. 01.11.2010 and had been working

continuously till 10.06.2013 A.N. Furthermore, it is stated in the claim statement that when he went to attend

the duty as usual on 11.06.2013 at the residence of Mr. Ravi Jain, the then Manager, he abused the workman in

filthy language and was severely beaten up by Manager which caused injuries on the body of workman. The

purpose for abusing and beating is best known to the said Manager who asked workman not to attend the duty

from today and onwards. Thereafter, it is alleged that workman lodged a complaint against the said Manager in

the Police Station. Prior to the illegal termination workman made several requests to allow him to join duty but

he was not allowed to join duty and was told that his service is not required. It is stated that before the illegal

termination of workman, there was no complaint against his work and conduct however, his services suddenly

terminated by the said Manager even after no fault of him. It is alleged in the claim statement that no

chargesheet, enquiry and show cause notice was served upon him which is against the provisions of natural

justice. It is stated that the junior to the workman had been retained in service i.e. Shri. Ram Lal S/o Bhahru and

so many others. Workman rendered more than 240 days of continuous service in each completed years of

service. It is further alleged that neither a notice of one month was given to the workman nor he was paid

wages for one month in lieu thereof which renders his termination illegal, void and bad in law under Section

25/F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated that the action of the management in terminating the

service of workman is an unfair labour practice. It is further alleged, that workman is in the search of the job

from the date of his illegal termination but is still unemployed. It is therefore, prayed that the

retrenchment/termination of the workman are required to be quashed and set-aside and the workmen may kindly

be ordered to be re-engaged in service with full back wages.

Management has filed its written statement denying the contents of claim petition. It is alleged that

reference is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Tribunal as the workman is not covered under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated that the workman was neither engaged against the regular post nor was he

engaged for any regular work. Moreover, he was engaged purely on daily rate basis as the instructions of the

Army Headquarters Letter No.A/88043/Q/MF-2 dated 31.07.2007. it is further stated that the, respondent-

Military Farm is involved in sovereign functions in as much as the main function of Military Farm is to

produce, process milk and milk products under hygienic and safe condition and deliver these to the Armed

Forces in the same condition. Furthermore, it is alleged that Military Farms is one of the oldest functional

Corps of the Indian Army. Military Diary Farms own their birth to peculiar conditions and logistic needs of

British Army in India after 1880 A.D. Furthermore, the role of Military Farm is safe delivery of dairy products

to Consumer-Officers, troops and their families located in plains as well as on hills. Since independence,

Respondent-Military Farm have given good account of their service during hostilities and met the mild fodder

needs of fighting forces in most of the operational areas. It is stated that the Military Farm Bir Dhanturi, was a

separate entity till its merger with the Military Farm Ambala on 31.3.2005. Management has stated that in the

year, 1999, the workman has been given all the compensations along with other workers, working with the

Military Farm Bir Dhanturi as the Govt. Of India stopped the engagement of the casual workers in their

establishment. The workman received a sum of Rs.12068/- as the retrenchment compensation. Moreover, the

workman was engaged on 1.11.2010, at the Bir Dhanturi, Section of the Military Farm Ambala Cantt. Purely

on daily basis, in terms of letter of the of the Army HQ (Annexure R-1) and kept working till 11.6.2013 and

thereafter the workman never turned up for the work, as such no cause of action arose in favour of the

workman to file the present demand notice. The workman was paid the retrenchment compensation before his

retrenchment in the year 1999, vide Annexure R-2. Moreover, it is stated that the workman was never appointed

on regular basis, was engaged purely on daily basis, the question of illegal termination does not arise.

Furthermore, it is stated that the management never violated any provision of Industrial Act, 1947 and workman

was never terminated by the management.

In support of his case, workman Bhajan Singh has examined himself and filed his affidavit as

Ex.WW1/A, reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition. He has been cross-examined by the learned

counsel of management Sh. Arun Batra. He has stated that appointment letter was not issued to him by the

management and he was assigned the work of cultivation, watering and washing in the farm of

respondent/management. This witness has denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel of the

management that he left the job on his own. This witness has further stated that management used to issue

salary through cheques payable to his bank account. It is pertinent to mention that learned counsel of

management has not asked any question with respect to the dispute between Manager of the Farm Mr. Ravi

Jain, resulting the dispute between the parties. It is also relevant to mention that Mr. Ravi Jain has not been

examined by the management for the reasons best known to it.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1053

On the other hand, respondent-management has examined Col. Parveen, Officer Incharge, Military

Farm, Ambala, who has proved his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A along with documents attached with the written

statement as Annexure R-1 and R-2. During the course of cross-examination, this witness has accepted that

workman was employed as daily wager and he left the job without any information as such, his conduct does

not come within the purview of misconduct. He has further stated that workman left the job on his own on

11.06.2013 and management has not issued any show cause notice, or letter to the workman to join his work.

According to this witness, neither any show cause notice was issued to the workman nor any retrenchment

compensation was given to the workman because he had left his job on his own. This witness has also admitted

that respondent-Military Farm has been finally closed after 2013.

I have heard the learned AR of the workman Sh. R.K. Parmar and learned counsel of the management

Sh. Arun Batra and perused the file carefully.

Before entering into the real controversy between the parties, it will be relevant to mention those facts

which are admitted between the parties. It is not disputed that workman was employed from 01.05.1991 to

19.03.1999 as unskilled majdoor and after his earlier retrenchment, a settlement was raised between the parties

before Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 25.08.2010. It is also not disputed that in terms of the

settlement, workman was appointed afresh on 01.11.2010 and worked continuously till 10.06.2013. There is no

dispute between the parties that workman was neither given any show cause notice nor any enquiry is

conducted against him as well as he was not paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of alleged

retrenchment/termination. Thus, it is clear from the evidence on record as well as admitted facts that workman

was in the employment of the management from 01.11.2010 to 10.06.2013.

The first contention raised by the learned counsel of the management is that the claimant does not

come within the purview of “workman” as defined under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

because he was employed as daily wager. In this connection, reference can be made to the decision of Devinder

Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court

while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has

observed as follows:-

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

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

relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of

the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part

time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of

Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person

employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or

contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman.”

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

temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for

the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as

provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. Thus, nature of appointment or source of appointment is not

relevant to be a “workman” within the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Second contention of the learned counsel of the management relates with the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal. According to the learned counsel of the management, this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to decide

the reference because management is a sovereign body working under the Government of India. According to

the learned counsel, the jurisdiction lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh. I find no force

in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager & others.

Vs. Keshab Deb.(Civil Appeal No.3324 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9494 of 2004-decided on

6/5/2008 where a driver/casual labour on daily wage basis, serving in the Directorate of Telecommunicaitons at

Dimapur, had filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati by the workman,

challenging the order of his termination by his employer and the Gauhati Bench of CAT had passed an order,

holding the termination order to be illegal. Before the Apex Court, the department/employer had raised the

contention as regards jurisdiction of the CAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that an employee who

claims himself to be a workman, will have a right of election in the matter of choice of forum either before

Industrial Tribunal or before Central Administrative Tribunal, observed in para 14 as under:-

“In a case of the present nature where inter alia a employee maintains a writ petition not only on

the ground of violation of equality clause enshrines under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

but also on the ground of violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he has an

option to choose his own forum. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 does not bar

the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It saves the jurisdiction of the Industrial

1054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tribunal. An employee who claims himself to be a workman, therefore, will have a right of

election in the matter of choice of forum......”

Vital question which arises for consideration is whether management does not come within the

definition of “Industry” as is argued by the learned counsel of the management. It the worthwhile to mention

here that the definition of ‘industry’ as provided under Section 2(J) of the Act, is in two parts. In its first part it

means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers. This part of definition determines

an industry by reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities. These activities are specified

by five words and they determine when an industry is and what the cognate expression ‘industrial’ is intended

to convey. The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something

more in what the term primarily denotes. This part gives extended connotation. If the activity can be described

as an industry with reference to the occupation of the employers, the ambit of the industry, under the force of

the second part, takes in the different kinds of activity of the employees mentioned in the second part. But, the

second part alone cannot define ‘industry’. An industry is not to be found in every case of employment or

service. By the inclusive part of the definition the labour force employed in an industry is made an integral part

of the industry for purposes of industrial disputes although industry is ordinarily something which employers

create or undertake. Before the work engaged in by an employer can be described against industry, it must bear

the definite character of ‘trade’ or ‘business’ or ‘manufacture’ or ‘calling’ or must be capable of being described

as an undertaking resulting in material goods or material services. Where an activity is to be considered as an

industry, it must not be casual but must be distinctly systematic and the wok for which workmen are employed

must be productive and the workmen must be following an employment, calling or industrial avocation. The

word ‘industry’ must take its colour from the definition and that it discloses that a workman is to be regarded as

one employed in an industry if he is following one of the vocations mentioned in conjunction with his

employers engaged in the vocation mentioned in relation to the employers.”

10.

Learned AR of the workman has submitted that services of the workman has been terminated with oral

order by the Manager of the Farm Mr. Ravi Jain and he was not allowed to render his service from 11.06.2013

as is alleged in the claim petition and affidavit of workman filed as evidence. Contrary to this, learned counsel

of the management Sh. Arun Batra contended that it is not a case of retrenchment/termination instead workman

Bhajan Singh had left the job at his own and did not turn up again without any reason. Thus, the fundamental

point regarding the dispute relates to the abandonment of service by the workman or retrenchment/termination

by the officials of the respondent-management. Learned AR of workman has drawn my attention towards the

judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Fateh Chand Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

arising out of WP/Writ Petition No.758/2007, decided on 16.01.2017, and contended that nothing is brought on

record by the management to prove that workman has left the job at his own. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

the case of Fateh Chand(supra) has held in Para 8 as follows:-

“It is also settled legal position that abandonment of service is different from absenteeism.

Abandonment of service is the voluntarily relinquishment of one’s services with the intention not the

resume the same. It is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each

case and mere absenteeism for a continuous period does not mean that the employee has

abandonment cannot be attributed to the employee without there being sufficient evidence. On the

failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the employee and if he refuses to report,

then an enquiry is required to be ordered against him and accordingly action taken. In the absence

of anything placed on record by the petitioner management; no presumption against the respondent

can be drawn. No enquiry in this case was set up by the petitioner management and even no letter

was sent by the management to the respondent workman calling upon him to resume his duty.”

11.

It is also no more res integra that even in a case of unauthorised absenteeism or to prove abandonment

of service on the part of the worker, the management must place on record necessary material to prove that

enough efforts were made by it to call upon the workman to return back on his duty and the workman has

shown his clear reluctance for the same. Here it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of Scooters India Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Yaqub, 2001(1) SCC61 where the workman when reported

for duty was not allowed to join and according to the standing orders automatically terminated, the Court held

that it was not a case of absenteeism but retrenchment.

12.

No doubt, either party has not adduced any cogent evidence in respect of the contention raised in the

claim petition as well as written statement. The workman has not produced any evidence to substantiate that he

was not allowed to discharge the duties in the Farm of respondent-management. At the same time, respondent-

management has not issued any notice in writing asked the workman to report for duty, if he remained

unauthorised absent or absent himself from duty as contended by the learned counsel of management. In fact,

there is no correspondence between the workman and management in respect of service condition of the

workman. Learned AR of the workman has placed reliance in the case of Kali Ram Vs. Presiding Officer and

Anr. Decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No.8898/1994(OM) dated

30.11.2015, 2017 LLR 95, in which it is held tht notice by the management is an inordinate part for clearing that

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1055

the workman has absented himself without any reason. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of

Fateh Chand(supra) has held that management has to prove on record sufficient material to show that employee

has abandoned the services and abaodonment cannot be attributed to the employee without there is sufficient

evidence. As per the Hon’ble High Court, in such a situation, the contention of the respondent-management that

the workman has abandon the services is not acceptable because of non-issuance of show cause notice to join

the service back to the workman. As per Hon’ble High Courts, management is under legal obligation to issue a

show cause notice regarding joining of service to the workman. It is an admitted fact that management has not

issued any show cause notice or any letter whatsoever for whereabouts of the workman as well as his joining in

service. As per settled position, it is a matter of record to be drawn on the basis of circumstances of each case.

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that nothing is expected in the given circumstances from the

workman to prove that he has been restrained by the management as oral order of the concerned officer of the

management. Contrary to this, management can prove his version by issuing a notice to the workman or making

enquiry about his absent who was employed after one round of litigation before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal. To my mind, it is not the workman who has left the job of his own rather he was not

allowed to work by the officials of the management on the basis of evidence on record.

13.

Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of

payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that

workman was continuously in the employment of the management from 01.11.2010 to 10.06.2013 on regular

basis. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the workman by the management. It is relevant to

mention that nothing is brought on record that workman was employed after his termination from service. The

Apex Court in case of “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junion Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as

(2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:-

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

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

wages is the normal rule.

ii)

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

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

authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed

on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead

and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and

was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This

is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on

the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a

positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was

employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was

gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”

16. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others v. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10.05.2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of

illegal termination and reinstatement held as under:-

“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross

violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of

victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified

in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise

power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the

Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the

entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay

the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal

termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman

and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving

him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages.”

A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-

2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment

of one month’s salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of

the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-

“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned

Award, dated 29^th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the

services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement

1056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in

violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service

with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as

disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age,

and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of

any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties

as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with

the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the

benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in

service forthwith.

Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of

his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent

of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”

17.

Having regard to the legal position as stated above and admitted facts that Bir Dhanturi Militry Farm,

Ambala(Haryana) has been finally closed as such, reinstatement of the workman is not possible. Yet, in another

latest judgment i.e. District Development Officer Vs. Kanti Lal 2018 LLR 225 while considering the question

of reinstatement along with back wages of a daily wager, who have put two and a half years of service, the

Hon’ble Apex Court granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.50 lac in lieu of reinstatement. It is pertinent to

mention that workman has worked for two and half year of service in this case also so, a compensation of

Rs.2.50 lacs will be appropriate to meet the end of justice. Award is passed accordingly.

18.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17

of the ID Act, 1947.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 11 िून, 2021

का.आ. 379.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मु्‍ का जकारी अजिकारी छावनी बोडज, कसौली-173204, जिला-सोलन (जिमाचल प्रिेि) के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री जविाल कुमार ृुत्र संत राम, मकान नं. 02, छावनी। लाइन, ड्रम बार, कसौली, जिला-

सोलन (एचृी), िेसी भारद्वाि, अध् क्ष, एचृी-एआईटी ूसी, मु्‍ ाल के माध् म से। सप्रून सोलन (जि. प्र.) के

माध् म से कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम

न् ा ाल -ll,चंडीगढ़ के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 32/2015) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती

िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.05.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल-13012/04/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2021

S.O. 379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court –ll , Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Chief Executive Officer Cantonment Board, Kasauli-173204, District-Solan(HP) and Shri Vishal

Kumar S/o Sant Ram, House No. 02, Cantt. Line, Drum Bar, Kasauli, Distt- Solan (HP), through J.C. Bhardwaj,

President, HP-AITUC, H.Q. Saproon, Solan (H.P.) Worker which was received along with soft copy office

award by the Central Government on 17.05.2021.

[No. L-13012/04/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1057

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 32/2015

Registered on:- 2.9.2015

Vishal Kumar S/o Sant Ram, House No.02, Cantt. Line,

Drum Bar, Kasauli, Distt. Solan (HP), through J.C. Bhardwaj,

President, HP-AITUC, H.Q. Saproon Solan (H.P.).

…Workman

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer Cantonment Board,

Kasauli-173204, District-Solan (HP).

…Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed on:-09.04.2021

Central Government vide Notification No. L-13012/04/2015-IR(DU) Dated 12.08.2015, under clause

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

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

“Whether the action of termination of services of Sh. Vishal Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Ram w.e.f.

9.3.2015 by the management of Cantonment Board, Kasauli is legal just and valid? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

Both the parties were put to notice and claimant/workman Vishal Kumar filed statement of claim, with

the averment, that he was appointed as Safai-wala on 7.7.2014 and was drawing Rs.4900/- per month+Rs.1300/-

grade pay+other allowances and remained continue till his illegal removal from the service on 9.3.2015 without

any cogent reasons and justifications. The workman successfully and satisfactorily worked during the probation

period and was deemed to have been confirmed on the completion of six months of service on the said post. The

respondent/management terminated the services of the workman without complying with the provisions of

Section 25-F of Act 14 of 1947. The workman was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty

with all his devotion but suddenly his service was terminated on 9.3.2015 without any cogent reasons and

justifications and that too against the rule of law as the order of imposition of penalty suffers with serious

infirmity as the head of the institution deposed as witness in the preliminary enquiry in support of the charges

against the workman. The workman has already retained the status of permanent employee in this Cantonment

Board as he has rendered more than 240 days of service with the Cantonment Board and cannot be thrown out

of institution in the manner and method adopted by respondent-management. The respondent-management has

employed a new person against the prescribed norms, under Section 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act and had

employed new hands. The respondent-management has committed gross palpable illegality and has engaged

themselves in arbitrary action while terminating the service of workman on 9.3.2015. The termination is

discriminatory and in violation of fundamental rights and right to equality in the matter of employment under

Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Neither charge sheet nor any enquiry was held against the workman

as such, the workman comes under the definition of retrenchment and further under Section 2(OO) of ID Act

which has been resorted without compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act as no one month notice was served

nor wages were paid in lieu of that and further no compensation was paid to the workman as per the provision

of Section 25-F of the ID Act. It is therefore, prayed that impugned order of termination of the workman from

service on 9.3.2015 and award reinstatement to the workman with full back wages, seniority and other

consequential service benefits throughout with costs.

Respondent/management has filed its written statement, admitting the fact that the workman was

appointed as Safaiwala on 7.7.2014 at the pay of Rs.4900/- + Rs.1300/- GP vide letter No.CBK/ESTT./8(9)-310

dated 7.7.2014 on a probation period of six months as required under Rule 6 of Cantonment Board Servant Rule

1937. The appointing authority may extend the period of probation by further period not exceeding one year for

reason to be recorded in writing. It is denied that the workman was deemed to have been confirmed. During the

probation period the conduct of the workman with his superior staff also remained unsatisfactory and reports

regarding gross misconduct were received from Sh. Mahesh Kumar Safaiwala and Sh. Ashok Kumar Safaiwala

in the office against the workman on 31.01.2015. As per Clause 3(II) of the appointment letter, it has explicitly

been mentioned that during the period of probation services will be terminated by one month’s notice by Chief

Executive Officer on one side and the workman on other side or by depositing with the board one month’s pay

plus allowances in lieu thereof, except in case of misconduct of any discretion or unsatisfactory work, the

1058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services will be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason hence, his termination was

absolutely correct as he was not liable further to continue in the present post. It is denied that workman was

discharging his duties with sincerity ad honestly with all his devotion. The lapse committed but the workman

points to the carelessness and casual attitude of the worker and such behavior is not expected from the

probationer. The termination of the workman is as per law under the provisions of Cantonment Fund Servant

Rules, 1937. It is therefore, prayed that the statement of claim of the workman may kindly be dismissed in the

interest of justice.

The workman Vishal Kumar has filed its replication, stating the facts that respondent has not written

any justification or cogent reason for exceeding the period of probation for one year of workman neither

recorded anything against him. It is emphatically denied that any enquiry was held by the sanitary inspector

against the workman and that any opportunity had been given at the relevant time. It is submitted that workman

never committed any negligence and dereliction of duties at any time and stage as alleged by the management.

However, no enquiry was held to prove the negligence at work by the workman. The remaining facts are same

as alleged in the claim statement hence, need not to be repeated again.

In order to prove his case, workman Vishal Kumar has submitted his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A along

with documents letter of appointment Ex.WW1/1, Letter of termination Ex.WW1/2, request application

Ex.WW1/3 and letter Ex.WW1/4 and copy of notice issued to the workman by the Chief Executive Officer,

Kasauli Ex.WW1/5 has been proved by the workman. The facts alleged in the affidavit is in the line of the claim

petition. This witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of the management Sh. Vijay Attri. He

has accepted that termination took place during the probation period after issuing a show cause notice by the

management. He has further stated that neither any enquiry was conducted by the Sanitary Inspector nor

enquiry report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer. This witness has further stated that a letter was

issued to him for submission of service book before receiving the notice dated 8.1.2015.

Management of Cantonment Board has submitted affidavit of witness Heera Singh Rana Ex.MW1/A in

support of the facts alleged in the written statement. This witness has been cross-examined by the AR of

workman and during the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that he was appointed as enquiry officer

by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board and stated that charge-sheet along with the complaints

made by the co-worker Mahesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar were attached with the charge-sheet. This witness has

denied the suggestion made by the AR of the workman that he has not given workman an opportunity to defend

himself and produce evidence before him. This witness has clearly admitted that claimant/workman was

terminated because he disputed with the companions and copy of the enquiry report was not given to the

workman. Thus, the evidence adduced by this witness, it is clear that either charge-sheet nor the copy of the

complaint were given to the workman before the alleged enquiry or copy of the enquiry report is submitted to

him before the alleged termination by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board.

I have heard Sh. J.B. Bhardwaj AR of workman in the absence of management as well as his counsel

and perused the file, evidence and documents submitted by both the parties.

Learned AR of the workman contended that termination of the workman is done without complying

the provisions of the ID Act as well as terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. Learned AR

further contended that the enquiry alleged to be conducted was behind the back of the workman and he was not

given opportunity to defend himself or produce evidence to prove his innocence. Learned AR further contended

that the copy of the termination letter Ex.WW1/2 is ample proof in itself that termination is not simplicitor

instead it is stigmatic mentioning the misconduct of the workman as such, the termination order is passed not

only against the settled position of law but without giving reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend

himself. Learned AR further contended that if the workman is to seek employment elsewhere, any employer

will ask the workman to provide the copy of the termination letter dated 9.3.2015 and that the said letter contain

finality which arrived at before the departmental enquiry those findings will amount staking and will come in

the way of his career. Learned AR has placed reliance in the case of Dipti Prakash Benerjee Vs. S.N. Boss

National Centre for Basic Sciences Calcutta and Others, 1999 LLR 47 Supreme Court as well as in the case

of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar, 2008 LLR 428, Supreme Court, in respect of

his contention and alleged illegal termination by the Cantonment Board.

From the perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and evidence filed by both party, it is not disputed

that claimant/workman was appointed as Safaiwala in the establishment from 07.07.2014 and served till his

termination on 9.3.2015 and he has been terminated by the authority of the Cantonment Board, Kasauli vide

letter dated 09.03.2015. It is also undisputed that initially claimant/workman was appointed for 6 months but

subsequently his probation is extended for further 6 months due to unsatisfactory performance. The

appointment letter Ex.WW1/a denotes that in the case of termination, one month notice by Chief Executive

Officer has to be given or one month pay plus allowance in lieu thereof has to be given to the workman except

in the case of misconduct of any description or unsatisfactory work services will be terminated without any

notice and without assigning any reason in the light of the provision incorporated in Rule 8 of Cantonment Fund

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1059

Servant Rule, 1937. It appears that due to complaint by co-Safaiwala namely Mahesh Kumar and Ashok

Kumar, alleged enquiry is marked and on the basis of the enquiry report, workman/claimant Vishal Kumar has

been terminated without giving any notice or one month salary in lieu of notice in pursuance of the condition

mentioned in the appointment letter.

On the basis of the facts alleged in the claim petition as well as written statement, the first question

arises as in what circumstances the termination of probationer services can be said to be founded on misconduct

and any of the circumstances could it be said that the allegations were only the motive. Second question which

require for consideration relates as to what an order of termination of a probationer be expressed as a stigma.

Lastly can a stigma be referred back to in the order of termination.

10.

For critical analysis of the termination order attached as Ex.WW1/2, the following paragraphs of the

termination order is relevant which is as under:—

WHEREAS complaints from the senior employees were received in this office with regard to your

gross misconduct with your superior. AND WHEREAS an inquiry to inquire into the mater was

conducted in person on 12.2.2015 by the Sanitary Inspector in the office of Cantonment Board,

Kasauli, On perusal of all the records/facts & report of the S.I. placed before the undersigned, it is

revealed that your conduct with your superior staff is not satisfactory. Therefore, your work as well

as your conduct during the probation is not satisfactory.”

NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 of

Cantonment Fund Servant Rule, 1937 as well as following the terms of appointment letter para-3,

your services from the Cantonment Board, Kasauli is hereby terminated with immediate effect.”

11.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court in a long line of decisions has held that

where an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the

facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in

relation to an order of termination either is thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categories or classify

mostly orders of termination simpliciter falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation

for passing the order of termination simpliciter or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in

service.

12.

Learned counsel further contended that the alleged enquiry against the claimant/workman was held

behind the back of the employee and order of termination founded on misconduct is bad in Law and liable to be

set aside. The question which arises for consideration is whether alleged enquiry is conducted behind the back

of the claimant/workman or workman was given reasonable opportunity to defent himself is a question of fact.

It is pertinent to mention that the witness of management Heera Singh Rana has stated in his cross-examination

that he was appointed as enquiry officer by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board and he has

summoned the complainants Mahesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar. This witness has further stated that workman

was terminated because he quarreled with the companions. As per this witness, charge-sheet was not given to

the workman. Contrary to this, he has also summoned Mahesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar were attached with the

charge-sheet. It appears that from the cross-examination of the management witness Heera Singh Rana that the

aforesaid enquiry was in the form of preliminary enquiry and neither any charge-sheet was prepared nor

submitted to the workman before calling for his explanation with respect to the misconduct as is alleged by the

co-workers Mahesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar. The facts alleged in the written statement of the management of

Cantonment Board, Kasauli reveals that the workman has been cross-examined and he had been given

opportunity to cross-examine the complainants Mahesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar during the course of enquiry

proceedings and on the basis of the enquiry report action was taken by the competent-authority. There is

nothing in the form of preliminary proceeding conducted by the witness Heera Singh Rana with respect to

statement and cross-examination of the complainant Mahesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar as well as workman on

record. It is pertinent to mention that non-submission of the file of enquiry by the respondent-management

before the Tribunal is ample proof that management has not conducted any impartial enquiry and if it was

conducted in any way that was behind the back of the claimant/workman. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Bishan Lal Gupta Vs. State of Haryana(supra), has held that an ordinary enquiry by a show cause

might be sufficient for the purpose of deciding whether the probationer could be continued. But where the

finding regarding misconduct are arrived at without conducting a regular departmental enquiry, then the

termination order will be vitiated. Similarly, in the case of Dipti Prakash Benerjee Vs. S.N. Boss National

Centre for Basic Sciences Calcutta and Others(supra), relied by the learned AR of the claimant/workman the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the report of Committee is not sufficient and cannot be used for

terminating the probationer workman without a proper departmental enquiry. As per the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, if the termination order was based on the finding of the such enquiry is liable to be quashed because such

findings must in law will be arrived at only in the departmental enquiry. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar(supra), relied by the AR of the workman has held

in Para 12 that mere holding of a preliminary enquiry where explanation is called for from the employee if

1060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

followed by an innocuous order of discharge may not be held to be punitive in nature but not when it is founded

on a finding of misconduct. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the enquiry results in finding of misconduct, the

order of termination is based on that could be punitive and stigmatic.

13.

In this connection, learned AR of workman has placed reliance in the case of Dipti Prakash Benerjee

Vs. S.N. Boss National Centre for Basic Sciences Calcutta and Others(supra) as well as in the case of Nehru

Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar(supra), contended that the termination order reveals that

claimant/workman has been terminated due to his misconduct with superior staff as his conduct was not

satisfactory. As per the learned AR of workman, the aforesaid termination order is stigmatic in nature as such,

liable to be quashed because in the matter of the ‘stigma’, there is long line of judgments that the effect which

an order of termination may have on a person’s future prospects of employment is a matter of relevant

consideration. The learned counsel AR of workman has placed reliance in the cases of Samsher Singh Vs.

State of Punjab, 1974(2) SCC 831, Ray, CJ, and Bishan Lal Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 1978(36) FLR

429(SC). In the Seven Judge case in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab(supra), observed that if a simple order

of termination was passed, that would enable the officer to make good in other walks of life without a stigma. It

was also stated in Bishan Lal Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, that if the order contained a stigma, the termination

would be bad for the individual concerned must suffer a substantial loss of reputation which may affect his

future prospects.

14.

The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that if the termination order is

stigmatic then there should be a proper departmental enquiry. Undisputedly, for proper departmental enquiry

show cause notice, explanation, charge-sheet, documents pertaining to the allegations has to be submitted to the

erring employee and after taking explanation before recording the evidence of the witnesses of the management

and due opportunity to cross-examine by the erring employee as well as opportunity of the defence to the

claimant/workman are integral part of the departmental enquiry to find out the truth of the allegations

mentioned in the complaint. So far as the present case is concerned, there is nothing on record which could be

treated as departmental enquiry to prove the misconduct of the workman. Thus, the report of Heera Singh Rana,

on the basis of which termination order dated 9.3.2015 is passed mentioning the misconduct of workman with

superior staff is neither satisfactory nor reliable.

15.

Having gone through the documentary as well as evidence of witnesses on record coupled with legal

proposition discussed above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that impugned order of termination of

the probationer is stigmatic and liable to be quashed and he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages till the

date of reinstatement and continuity of service. Hence, management is directed to reinstate the workman in

service with back wages within 6 months from the date of publication of the award. Award is passed

accordingly.

16.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17

of the ID Act, 1947.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 11 िून, 2021

का.आ. 380.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार उृ अिीक्षण बागबानी िा ा, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, कुरुक्षेत्र (िरर ाणा ), उृ. अिीक्षण बागवानी,

भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, बागवानी, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एजलसो, कामगार के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -2,चंडीगढ़ के

ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 2/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.06.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल- 42025/07/2021- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1061

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2021

S.O. 380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

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

relation to The Deputy Superintending Horticulturist Horticulture Branch, Archaeological Survey of India,

District- Kurukshetra (Haryana); Dy. Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Horticulture, New Delhi and Shri Alyas, Worker which was received along with soft copy office award by the

Central Government on 01.06.2021

[No. L-42025/07/2021 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

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

ID No. 2/2014

Registered on:-16.04.2014

Alyas S/o Yasin, Village Bheron, PO Mattar,

Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour (Himachal Pradesh).

…Workman

Versus

Deputy Superintending Horticulturist Horticulture Branch,

Archaeological Survey of India, Shekh Chihli Tomb Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

Dy. Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Horticulture Division No.11, Safdarjung Tomb, New Delhi-110003

…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-04.05.2021

The workman Alyas has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for his reinstatement with full wages and continuity of service.

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition is that the claimant/workman was appointed as

Gardner(Mali) on 1.8.2009 after being selected on interview by respondent No. 1 on regular post and his

appointment was under the direction of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has complete administrative control

and superintendence over the respondent no.1 in terms of directions framing of policies and sanction wages of

workers at the site of respondent No.1. The job of the workman at Adi Badri Yamunanagar consisted of all

gardening work i.e. plantation, grass related work. The workman’s job was of regular sanctioned post and thus

the workman had entered in muster roll maintained by respondent no.1. The workman had worked as Gardner

for 3 years 09 months approximately regularly without break till 01.05.2013 when respondent no.1 asked him

not to come to workplace without serving any notice or giving salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment

compensation as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that

workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days without any break right from 1.5.2012 to 1.5.2013

and thus, he has completed more than 240 days before his alleged termination in utter violation of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Not only junior person to the workman was retained in service but many

fresh persons were employed after his illegal termination on 1.5.2013. It is therefore, prayed that the

respondent/management be directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of services in

the interest of justice.

Respondent/management filed its written statement, alleging therein that the workman was never

selected by any interview and no such appointment letter was issued to him. The workman was engaged on need

basis as casual worker and upon the availability of funds and the work may continue for a long time even then

the said post cannot be claimed as a regular post as the workman was employed only on need basis. The

respondent-organization maintenance work of different heritage sites is performed for which the fixed period of

continuity cannot be determined. The removal of temporary arrangements cannot be termed as retrenchment. It

is denied that there was no fixed pay to be given to daily wagers. The workman was not engaged as regular in

service and was not drawing any fix pay as mentioned but on the contrary the workman was engaged as a daily

wager and that too for an agriculture work which does not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes

Act and the provision of 240 days is not applicable in the case of workman. It is denied that the workman was

1062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

engaged a daily wager and hence, regular appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The workman was

engaged too for horticulture(agriculture) work which does not come under the definition of ‘Industry’ under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the claim petition filed by the

workman may kindly be dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances explained above.

In order to prove the facts alleged in the claim petition, workman has examined himself and proved his

affidavit as Ex.A1 as part of his statement. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that he was

appointed on 1.8.2009 without any interview or appointment letter. According to this witness, he was paid

Rs.2,000/- per month. This witness has denied the suggestion that he was engaged on need basis and was paid

for the days he worked. As per this witness, neither any termination letter was issued to him nor any

compensation is paid to him at the time of termination.

Management has submitted affidavit of Naresh Chand, Deputy Superintending Horticulturist in the

office of Archaeological Survey of India, but he did not turn up for cross-examination as such, affidavit

submitted by the management witness Naresh Chand, Deputy Superintending Horticulurist is legally irrelevant

and not admissible in evidence.

Heard the learned counsel of the workmen Sh. Shekhar Thakur in the absence management as well as

their counsel and perused the written argument filed by the workmen as well as written argument filed by the

management and perused the record and file carefully.

Before averting to the critical analysis of the facts as well as evidence on record, it is relevant to

mention those facts which are either admitted or proved between the parties. The engagement of workman as

Gardener(Mali) as on daily wager, payment of workman as per DC rate, alleged date of termination by the

respondent-management without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice or admitted facts. Thus, the

relationship of workman and management as employee and employer is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is

also pertinent to mention that there is no record that management has violated the provisions of Section 25-G

and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by retrenching the workman while retaining juniors or subsequent

appointment is made by the management as is alleged by the workman in his claim petition as well as affidavit.

In fact, nothing is submitted in the form of oral and documentary evidence to prove that he was disengaged in

spite of the fact that there were juniors to him or some other persons have been engaged in his place after his

alleged termination.

The main contention raised by the learned counsel of the management relates to the facts that claimant

Alyas is neither workman nor respondent/management is an “industry” as such, there exists no industrial

dispute. So question of compliance of Industrial Disputes Act does not arise at all.

The first question which arises for consideration is whether claimant/workman is not a workman by

virtue of the daily wager engaged on need basis as per argument of management. Even if he was appointed on

job basis for a particular time or subject to regular appointment to the Post of Gardner (Mali). To my mind, the

claimant is a workman within the definition of Section 2(S) of the Act. In this regard, reference can be made to

the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with

the definition of “workman” has observed as under :—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.

Learned counsel of the management in written argument has placed reliance in the case of Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36) FLR 266, in order to prove that respondent does

not fall within the definition of “Industry”. Contrary to this, learned counsel of the workmen contended that that

this argument raised by the management-counsel in written argument has no force in the light of the Judgment

of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa

1978(36)(supra) itself. The reference may be made to the judgment of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage

Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36) FLR 266, which dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression

“industry” as defined in Section 2(J) of the Act and held as under “-

“(a) Where a complex of activities some of which qualify for exemption, others not involves employees

on the total undertaking some of whom are not “workman” as in the University of Delhi case

(supra) or some departments are not productive of goods and services, if isolated, even then the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1063

predominant nature of the services and integrated nature of the departments as explained in the

Corporation of Nagpur (supra) will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be “industry”

although those who are not ‘workmen’ by definition may not benefit by the status.

(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood (alone) qualify for

exemption not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or

Statutory bodies.

(c ) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and

they are substantially severable, they can be considered to come within section 2(j).

(d)

Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions way well remove from the scope of

the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby.

(e) We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors’ case (supra), Gymkhana (supra), Delhi University

(supra), Dhanrajgiri Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio runs counter to the principles

enunciated above and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.”

Seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply(supra) has

laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is

where (a) systematic activity (b) organised by cooperation between employer and employee(the direct and

substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to

satisfy human wants and wishes prima facie is an “Industry” in that enterprise.

11.

Coming into the case in hand, it is undisputed that the work of the claimant/workman was of Gardner

and the basic objective of horticulture branch is to maintain and develop the garden in and around of National

Protective Monuments. The Tribunal can take cognizance of the fact that all the object of the preservation of

ancient monuments, temples etc. with the cooperation of workman and management is by selling tickets for

visitors and object of preservation of ancient monuments is the sole object of the respondent-management. Thus,

on the basis of the the work assigned to the workmen and their attendance rules and regulations governing the

services of the workmen, relations of employer and employee, sale of tickets for visitors and object of

preservation of ancient monuments, temples etc. with the cooperation of workmen and management is well

established by the evidence produced by either parties. Hence, this Tribunal of the considered opinion that

Archaeological Survey of India is a “Industry” as defined in Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Vs. Maan Singh, 2012(1), SCT page 641.

12.

The question which remains for consideration is whether retrenchment/termination of the workman

done by the management without complying the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Having gone through the facts and pleadings of both the parties as well as well as oral evidence, there is no

doubt that workman rendered his services with the management from the date of his engagement till the date of

alleged termination. The written statement submitted by the learned counsel of management denotes that he was

engaged on need basis as casual worker upon the availability of funds which may continue for a long time. As

per written argument, the said post cannot be claimed as regular post as the workman was employed only on

need basis hence, the continuity of work for so called longer duration does not entitled to the

claimanta/workman for regular post. Therefore, the removal of temporary arrangements cannot be termed as

retrenchment. The written arguments submitted by the learned counsel of the management reveals that this

defence is taken as workman is claiming his regularization in the respondent-management which is against the

issue referred in the reference itself. So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel of the management in

the case of Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No.3595-3612 of 1999,

decided on 10.04.2006, in respect of regularization is concerned, it has no relevance because neither reference

is made for regularization of the workmen nor workmen are claiming their regularization as such, discussion and

finding with respect to the regularization in the light of the Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi &

Ors.(supra), is beyond consideration and argument of learned counsel of management in written argument is

misconceived.

13.

It is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute about the preposition of law that onus to prove that

claimant/workman was in the employment of management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the

workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the management. Such evidence may be

in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that period to

show that he has worked with the respondent-management for 240 days or more in a calendar year. In this

regard, reference may be made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Batala Coop. Sugar Mills

Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries terminated

Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47. Learned counsel of the workman while

placing reliance in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari, AIR 2005 SC 2799,

argued that in spite of the order of this Tribunal, management has not submitted the attendance register as well

1064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as muster roll of December 2012 to 01.05.2013 but the muster roll and attendance register submitted by the

management is a proof that workman was rendering his services from the year 2009 to May 2013 regularly. As

per the argument of the learned counsel of the workman, management has not submitted the documents

pertaining to December 2012 to May 2013 so that calculation of 240 days cannot be proved but burden lies on

respondent-management to deny the facts that workman has not rendered his 240 days service in preceding year

before the date of termination. Learned counsel argued that in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai

Harjibhai Rabari(supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court has held on the basis of only three vouchers submitted by

the workman to the employee of the bank-management and rendering of 240 days service because bank has

neither rebutted the evidence nor produced any piece of evidence against the vouchers. Hon’ble Supreme Court

in this case observed that mere denial in the written statement of the claim of the workman is not sufficient

evidence. It is pertinent to note observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which runs as follows:—

“While there is no doubt in law that the burden of proof that a claimant was in the employment of a

management, primarily lies on the workman who claims to be a workman. The degree of such proof

so required, would vary from case to case. In the instant case, the workman has established the fact

which, of course, has not been denied by the bank, that he did work as a driver of the car belonging

to the bank during the relevant period which come to more than 240 days of work. He has produced

3 vouchers which showed that he had been paid certain sums of money towards his wages and the

said amount has been debited to the account of the bank. As against this, as found by the fora below,

no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the bank to rebut even this piece of evidence produced

by the workman. It remained contented by filing a written statement wherein it denied the claim of

the workman and took up a plea that the employment of such drivers was under a scheme by which

they are, in reality, the employee of the Executive concerned and not that of the bank; none was

examined to prove the scheme. No evidence was led to establish that the vouchers produced by the

workman were either not genuine or did not pertain to the wages paid to the workman. No

explanation by way of evidence was produced to show for what purpose the workman’s signatures

were taken in the Register maintained by the bank. In this factual background, the question of

workman further proving his case does not arise because there was no challenge at all to his

evidence by way of rebuttal by the bank.

……

For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-workman in this

case has established his claim as held by the tribunal and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere

with the impugned order.”

In this context, the facts alleged in the written statement of the management are relevant because no

where it is denied that workman has not rendered 240 days of service preceding the date of alleged termination

on 1.5.2013. This is a specific case of the workman that his service was terminated from 1.5.2013 but this fact is

not specifically denied by the respondent-management in its written statement. It is a settled position of law that

if there is no specific averment in the statement of defence with respect to the facts alleged in claim petition then

as per the settled law, what is not specifically denied is deemed to be admitted. When a fact asserted is not

specifically denied, no amount of evidence required to prove the facts which are not in issue. The reference may

be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Caparo Maruti Ltd. Vs.

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another, LPA No.793 of 2016(O&M), Civil Writ Petition No.59

of 2014, decided on 30.09.2019. Similarly, there is no evidence at all that claimant/workman was working for

any specific work and for specified period. It also reveals from record that workman was appointed by oral order

and he was told by the respondent/management not to come for duty. Thus, it cannot be treated as an

appointment for fixed term. Similarly, respondents/managements have also not produced any order regarding

any appointment of the workman for any specific working and for specified period. In the circumstances stated

above and the evidence on record, it is presumed that workman has rendered his services preceding from the

date of his termination till 01.05.2013 i.e. more than 240 days as required for the applicability of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14.

The question which remains for consideration is as to whether the provision of retrenchment or

termination is complied in letter and spirit. It is admitted fact that neither notice was served upon the workman

by the management nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman. It is also admitted fact that there

was no complaint regarding the service and conduct of the workman. Now the residual question is whether the

claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement with

continuity of service. It is proven on record that workman was continuously in the employment of the

management from his engagement till 1.5.2013 on regular basis. There is no show cause notice or memo issued

to the workman by the management. Moreover, the job of the workman was of perennial and regular nature.

Though, the workman has not pleaded anything about his post employment after retrenchment but he has

alleged in his affidavit that he is unemployed from the date of his termination. The management has not pleaded

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1065

and adduced any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed. Thus, nothing is brought on

record by the management that workman was employed somewhere after his termination.

15.

Learned counsel of the workman contended that in the given scenario, facts and evidences on record, it

is crystal clear that respondent/management has retrenched the workman with highhandedness without giving

notice or retrenchment compensation as such, he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and

entire back wages because he was forced to leave the job without any fault. Contrary to this, learned counsel of

the management contended that nothing has been stated in the claim petition as well as affidavit filed by the

workman with respect to his alleged post termination with respect to employment. Learned counsel of the

management contended that workman was earning as usual by virtue of daily wager after termination as such,

he is not entitled for any back wages. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of “Deepali Gundu

Surwase v. Kranti Junion Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 and M/s Caparo

Maruti Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal and another, LPA No.793/2016(O&M) in Civil Writ Petition

No.59/2014, dated 30.09.2019.

16.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra) has held as under:-

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

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and

back wages is the normal rule.

ii)

The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages the

adjudicating authority or Court may to take into consideration the nature of job and

misconduct if any found proved against the employee/workman the financial condition of

the employer and similar other factors.

iii)

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

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

adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed

or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back

wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the

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

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

that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a

positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to

prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus

lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully

employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”

17.

The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court while referring different judgments of Hon’ble Supreme

Court including Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra), and Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees

of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 as well as in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul

Vs. BSNL,(2014) 15 SCC 313, Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court,(1980) 4 SCC 443, has observed that there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding

relief of back wages along with all the relevant benefits. More or less, it can be address to the discussion of the

Tribunal with full back wages could be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish. The

circumstances insisting the departure at this stage, the Tribunal while exercises its consideration keeping in view

of the relevant circumstances but the discretion must be exercises judiciously must be cogent and convincing

and must be appear on the face on record. When it is within the discussion of the authority that something has to

be done according to the rules, reasons and justice is not according to law and not he humour it is not arbitrary,

vague but legal and regular.

18.

So far as the facts and evidence of the case is concerned, nothing has been stated in the claim petition

with respect to the post employment after alleged termination/ retrenchment period by the workman. Thus, the

facts in the claim petition lacks the basic requirement for providing back wages. No doubt, this Tribunal has got

power to mould a relief or cover it. The incidental relief for the consequences rendered by illegal retrenchment

of the workman. The affidavit submitted by the workman certainly reveals that he has not got any employment

anywhere and is completely unemployed. The management counsel has not cross-examined the workman-

witness namely PShaheed Ahmad at the time of cross-examination. Even suggestion is not made from workman

on this respect at the time of cross-examination. Thus, the facts alleged in affidavit of the workman in this

respect remains unrebutted. Nothing is answered by the management with respect to the post retiral employment

of the workman. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman is not entitled

for entire back wages instead 50% back wages along with reinstatement with continuity of service. Management

is directed to reinstate the workman within three months from the date of the notification of the award.

1066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17

of the ID Act, 1947.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 15 िून, 2021

का.आ. 381.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार अध् क्ष/जनिेिक,ृौिों के आनुवंजिक संसािन के राष्ट्री ब् ूरो,भारती कषजष अनुसंिान ृररषि, ृूसा कैंृ,

नई दिल्ली; प्रबंिक, ृौिों के आनुवंजिक संसािन के राष्ट्री ब् ूरो, क्षेत्री स्ट्टेिन, अकोला, (मिाराष्ट्र) के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती िोभा कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , नागृुर के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा CGIT/NGP/48/2014/15) को िजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज।

[सं. एल- 42012/131/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th June, 2021

S.O. 381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/48/2014/15) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Chairman/Director, National Bureau of Plants Genetic Resources, Indian Council

of Agriculture Research, Pusa Camp, New Delhi, and The Manager, National Bureau of Plants Genetic

Resources, Regional Station, Akola (Maharashtra); and Smt. Shobha, Worker.

[No. L-42012/131/2014-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/48/2014/15

Date: 12.02.2021

Party No.1:

(a)

The Chairman/Director,

National Bureau of Plants Genetic Resources,

Indian Council of Agriculture Research,

Pusa Camp, New Delhi – 12.

(b)

The Manager,

National Bureau of Plants Genetic Resources,

Regional Station,

AKOLA (MS) – 444104.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Smt. Shobha W/o Manikrao Dhore & 18 Others,

R/o Mothi Umari, Nehru Nagar,

AKOLA (MS) – 444104.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1067

AWARD

(Dated:-12.02.2021)

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

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

industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the Management of National Bureau of Plants Genetic

Resources and their workman, Smt. Shobha W/o Manikrao Dhore & 18 Others for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-42012/131/2014 IR (DU), Dated:- 11/11/2014 with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National Bureau of Plants Genetic Resources,

New Delhi/Akola in denying the claim of applicants for regularization of services Smt. Shobha

W/O Manikrao Dhore & 18 Others and to grant them all consequential benefits including paid

weekly off since 2005 till today are just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the said workmen are

entitled to?”

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

statement, in response to which, the workman Smt. Shobha W/o Manikrao Dhore & 18 Others, (“the workman”

in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of National Bureau of Plants Genetic Resources,

(“Party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

Petitioners/Workmen file statement of claim on behalf of Smt. Shobha W/o Manikrao Dhore & 18

Others, by asserting that all workmen were appointed by the officer In-charge after interview process conducted

by non-applicant; verifying their employment cards, as casual laborers of daily wages, at rate of minimum

wages fixed by government. And also asserted that “since last more than 29 years they are still working as

casual workers” And also asserted that other similar reference receive this Court from the ministry for

regularization of the workers carry reference no. 196/2000 and this tribunal decide this matter on 16.12.2002,

which was challenge before Hon’ble High Court by way or writ petition no. 3538 of 2003 which came to be

decided on 1.10.2013 wherein order of CGIT as regards regularization of services of workmen has been set

aside being in violation of section 10(4) of the Act, 1947 though illegal termination has been confirmed.

According to petitioner of party No. 2 “asserted that since year 1984-85 to 15.01.2000 till illegal

termination of applicants i.e. for period of more than 15 years all workmen worked continuously for more than

240 days each year as casual laborers for 8 hours per day. Even after their termination was held illegal and they

were taken back in service, after re-joining work they have been again performing same work and have been

working for more than 240 days each year for 8 hours per day”. “Also asserted that they were/are doing work of

agricultural for entire year---------------doing work of agricultural operation and also looking after cattle”.

They also asserted that “all the workers are also entitled to paid weekly off since 2005 as the non-

applicant has not paid weekly off since 2005 till date”. And also asserted that all the worker are also entitled to

provident fund, and also asserted that thus all the workmen are entitled to regularization of their services under

ICAR and also prayed that to settled the industrial dispute amicably and direct the non-applicants (Party No. 1)

to regularize services of all workmen.

6. (Party No. 1) filed reply by taking preliminary objection that Hon’ble High Court in writ petition

no.3583/2003. The said award has been set aside by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,

Nagpur, by Judgment dated 1.10.2013. So this reference is not mentionable because “Moreover they are not

entitled to continue as a labour due to over age. The applicants are not entitled for any minimum wages and

continue in work as they are not legally entitled as they are age barred and most of them are above 65 years

old”. They also denied that “they/workers had work continuously for more than 240 days each year for eight

hours per day till termination of in -------- is false”. It is also denied that petitioner/party no. 2, work continue in

service by the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court.

According to the management (Party No. 1), “the policy relating to engagement regularization of

casual workers was reviewed in the light of Supreme Court Judgment dated 17^th January 1986 in the case of

Surinder Singh and others –vs- Union of India reported in 1986 – LLN-522. And also asserted that “in terms of

Clause 4 (i) of the 1993 Scheme, Temporary status would be conferred on casual laborers who are in

employment on the date of issue of the said O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one

year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days and further in terms of

clause 4 (iv)-such casual laborers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the

permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for group ‘D’ posts.

Temporary status would only entitle them to benefits stated in clause 5 of the scheme. They also relied this

judgment of Full Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Umadevi-reported in

(2006) 4 Supreme Court cases at Page 1.

1068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

According to management (Party No.1), “no right can be founded on an employment on daily wages

claim that, such employee should be treated on par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in

employment, even assuming that the principle would be evoked for claiming wages for equal work. There is no

fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or contractual basis, to claim

that they have a right to be absorbed in service as regular employees”.

In this way (Party No.1) prayed that the reference filed by the applicant is rejected with exemplary cost.

Petitioners Party No.2 filed rejoinder asserting same fact as in statement of claim. They also asserted

that, “The Hon’ble High Court clearly shows that the Honorable High Court set aside the order as regard the

regularization only because the specific reference was not made by the Central Government to the Industrial

Court and the then counsel failed to incorporate the said aspect of regularization in the earlier reference” and

also asserted that “---------- Thus, as a result of the fresh conciliation proceeding initiated in year 2013 the fresh

reference has been made by the Central Government to this honorable tribunal specifically for regularization

therefore the preliminary objection raised by the management is not sustainable”.

10.

In their rejoinder (Party No. 2), also asserted that Umadevi case is concerned as it is referred every

now and then without looking into the facts of the present case it is submitted that even after that there has been

a judgment of Supreme Court in state of UP electricity Board versus Puran Chandra Pandey in which

Supreme Court held that Umadevi case should not be applied to each and every case mere technically but each

case should be decided on its own Merit and Facts. They also asserted that “a seven-judge Bench decision of

this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC. 597 has held that reasonableness and

non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of the Constitution. It follows that the government must act in a reasonable

and non-arbitrary manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be violated”. They asserted that the

present case needs to be decided on merit.

11.

Point of determination:-

(i)

Petitioners/Workmen entitled regularization.

(ii)

Whether petitioner entitled any relief.

(iii) Whether this reference is not maintainable.

Reasons for decision

12.

On Behalf of workmen it was argued that work perform by the petitioner is of regular nature and full

time nature i.e. work is available with the petitioner for hole year and petitioner have been working for more

than 29 Years so they pray that all the workmen are entitled to regularization of their services under ICAR. On

the pentrary management argued that “no right can be founded on an employment on daily wages claim that,

such employee should be treated on par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in

employment, even assuming that the principle would be evoked for claiming wages for equal work”, and also

argued that “the reference filed by the applicant is liable to be rejected” now, I want to see evidence part.

13.

On behalf of workmen Vilas S/o Vasantrao Damodhar, (W.W.1) was examining in support of their

statement claim. But in his cross-examination he admitted that “Applicants have not given any authority or

power of attorney to depose on behalf of them before the Tribunal. I have not filed any documents related to

their service and their age. Award dated 16.12.2002 passed in Reference No. CGIT/NGP/196/2000 was

challenged in writ petition no. 3538/2003. The said award has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court on

01.10.2013”.

14.

He also admitted that “I have not filed any document on record to show that, I have been working as a

casual labour since 1984-85. Gokaranabai, kamlabai janjal, kamlabai Olambe and Rampal Gujar are above 60

years of age. The management has not assured us to make permanent. Shri S.D. Sapkal is a labour contractor

and he is giving the salary. As there is no relationship of employer and employee with the management,

therefore there is no occasion for regularization of the service. ----------- It is true to say that, as I have been

deployed by the contractor, therefore, I am not entitled for weekly off and provident fund”. He also asserted that

(Para No. 23), “I have not filed any document on record of my working.

15.

On behalf of management they examining Shri. Dinesh Chand (MW-1), and Dr. Nilamani Dikshit

(MW-2) in support of their defence I want of mention some facts which come their cross-examination. Firstly I

deal Shri. Dinesh Chand (MW-1) in para no. 11 & 12 of the court statement he asserted some facts “15 laborers

were engaged on 08.12.2004 and 4 labourers were engaged on 14.04.2005. It is not true to say that, work done

by the contract labourers is available for all time and of same nature. ----------- The witness volunteers that, I

joined this post as a OIC on 30.06.2018. There is no contract labour contract from June, 2018 to till date. --------

-------- It is true to say that, agriculture work is available in our plant through out the year. The witness

volunteers that, some time it is not available”.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1069

16.

Dr. Nilamani Dikshit (MW-2), also admitted and asserted some facts in para no. 13 & 14 of their cross-

examination “I have produced the labour contractor license of Shri Sapkal ------------- The services of applicants

are taken through labour contractor. ------------- Attendance register are maintain by contractor and not by my

office. ----------- They are working with the contractor for more than 10 years”. On the contrary workmen w.w.1

vilas vasantrao Damodhar also admitted in para no. 22 of their court statement in following ways. --------“Shri

S.D. Sapkal is a labour contractor and he is giving the salary. As there is no relationship of employer and

employee with the management, therefore there is no occasion for regularization of the service”.

On the perusal of the above evidence it appears that present workmen are a contract labour. Their

service record is maintained by the contractor not by the management. It also appears that management evidence

(party no.1) evidence more reliable than petitioner evidence.

17.

Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Bombay Nagpur bench at Nagpur in writ petition no. 3583/2003.

Judgment dated 01.10.2013 mention C.G.I.T. order in following terms in para No. 11, “The action of the

management ------------- Shobha M. Dhore and 18 others w.e.f. 15.01.2000 is not legal and proper. -------------

The management is also directed to maintain proper record of the attendance of these workmen and the copy of

the record of attendance should also be provided to the workmen. ----------- The management should also take

step to absorb these 19 workmen as regular employees and regularize the services so they may get the benefit of

continuity in service and other benefits arising out of it”.

Hon’ble High Court past an order in such a way in ( para no 14) “The impugned judgment and order

dated 16.12.2002 passed by CGIT-cum-Labour Court as regards regularization of service of workmen, is set

aside being in violation of Section 10 (4) of the Industrial. --------- the employer is at liberty to make such

arrangement about regularization, if so advised, and the workmen are also at liberty to take such steps for

regularization of their services as are available in law”.

18.

Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Bombay Nagpur bench at Nagpur in writ petition no. 3583/2003.

Judgment dated 01.10.2013 mention on bases of Supreme Court in Physical Research laboratory V.K.G. Sharma

reported in 1997 IILLJ 625 SC. Observe that

(i)

“The research is not conducted for the benefit of anyone else and the object of research is to obtain

knowledge only for the benefit of Department of Space. In these peculiar facts, the Court held that

Physical Research Laboratory was not an industry”.

(ii)

“The research carried on by the respondents is for the benefit of agriculturists and not for the

purpose of only non-material gain of knowledge”.

(iii) “Duryodhan Hiraman Ingole & ors. vs. Indian Council Agriculture Research & anr. 2009 (4) Bom.

C.R. 107. I hold that the finding recorded by the CGIT-cum-labour-Court holding it to be an

Industry is legal, correct and proper”.

19.

Now I want to see the case law to which for both sides advocates mention in these laws in their

pleading:-

(i)

Secretary, Stare of Karnataka and others V/s Umadevi and 3 Others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme

Court cases at page 1, held that “No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages claim

that, such employee should be treated on par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made

permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle would be evoked for claiming wages

for equal work”.

(ii)

Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2001, Petitioner: U.P. State Electricity Board V/s Respondent: Pooran

Chandra Pandey & Others, ate of Judgment on 09/10/2007. ---------------- Precedent should be

followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but uou must cut the dead wood and trim off the

side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of

justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. --------------- In Case (supra) cannot be applied

mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make

Uma Devi’s case (supra) inapplicable to the facts of that case. ------------------ We have to read Uma

Devi’s case (supra) in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a

manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. The constitution is the supreme law of the

land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution. ---------------

We may further point out that a seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs.

Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597 has held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part

of Article 14 of the Constitution. -------------- Maneka Gandhi case (supra) is a decision of a seven-

Judge Bench, whereas Uma Devi case (supra) is a decision of a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It is

well settled that a smaller bench decision cannot override a larger bench decision of the Court. No

doubt, Maneka Gandhi case (supra) does not specifically deal with the question of regularization of

government employees, but the principle of reasonableness in executive action and the law which it

has laid down, in our opinion, is of general application. ---------------- Hence apart from

discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and

1070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of

regularization and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face”.

19.

On perusal the record it appears that reference no. 196/2000, is related to 18^th Workers in which

termination order dated 15-01-2020 is challenged. My predecessor observed that termination order 15.01.2020

is not legal and proper and unjustified. But this order is challenge before Hon’ble High Court but High Court set

aside only regularisation order so in my humble opinion this order stand today. Present reference relating to

regulation of above workers in which Hon’ble High Court observed that para no. 13 “At the same time, since the

workmen are in employment for over 30 years, It is for the employer to decide the issue of regularization for

which purpose, this Court is not in a position to issue directions or order nor the CGIT-cum labour court had any

such authority. However, it is for the workmen as well to avail of such a remedy for the part as is available in

law.

20.

On going our discussion with touch stone of above case law I come to conclusion that

petitioners/workmen fails to proof that they come some preview of central or state circular/standing order which

regard to their regularization of services. They also fails to proof that their job his permanent nature and their

work available for whole year. On going the evidence of both parties, It appears that they are contract labour.

Legal position is that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of regularization of the worker

i.e. Nothing it so that management party no. 1 breach any circular or standing order regarding regularization. It

is also observe that my predecessor decided that in C.G.I.T. case no. 196/2000 National Bureau of Plant Genetic

Resources Vs. Smt. Shobha Dhore & others observe that the termination order of the workmen w.e.f

15/01/2000 is not legal and proper and unjustified. It also appears that the management action is proper and

justified regarding regularization of the worker. So in my humble opinion Workmen/Party No.2 is not entitled to

any relief.

ORDER

“The action of the management of National Bureau of Plants Genetic Resources, New

Delhi/Akola in denying the claim of applicants for regularization of services Smt. Shobha W/O Manikrao

Dhore & 18 Others and to grant them all consequential benefits including paid weekly off since 2005 till

today are just fair & legal. Workmen/Party No. 2 is not entitled to any relief”.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 15 िून, 2021

का.आ. 382.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मंडल अजभ ंता िूरसंचार, डीईटी, ओएफसी, सीटीओ कंृाउंड, माल रोड़ कानृुर (उ. प्र.); जनिेिक,

बीएसएनएल, सवोि नगर, कानृुर (उ. प्र.); अध् क्ष और प्रबंि जनिेिक, बीएसएनएल, संचार भवन नई दिल्ली के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री वीरेि कुमार ृाण्डे , कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 100/2004) को िजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज।

[सं. एल-40012/43/2004-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th June, 2021

S.O. 382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Divisional Engineer Telecom, DET, OFC, CTO Compound, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P); The

Director, BSNL, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur (U.P); The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, Sanchar

Bhawan New Delhi and Shri Viresh Kumar Pandey, Worker.

[No. L-40012/43/2004-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1071

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

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

I.D. No. 100/2004

Ref. No. L-40012/43/2004-IR(DU) dated: 26.10.2004

BETWEEN :

Sh. Viresh Kumar Pandey

S/o Sh. Jaga Narayan Pandey

Mansukh Khera, Gangaghat

Unnao (UP)

VS.

1. The Divisional Engineer Telecom

DET, OFC, CTO Compound, Mall Road

Kanpur (U.P.)

2. The Director

BSNL

Sarvodaya Nagar

Kanpur (U.P.)

3. The Chairman and Managing Director

BSNL

Sanchar Bhawan

New Delhi – 110001

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/43/2004-IR(DU) dated: 26.10.2004 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. Viresh

Kumar Pandey, S/o Sh. Jaga Narayan Pandey, Mansukh Khera, Gangaghat, Unnao (UP) and the Divisional

Engineer Telecom, DET, OFC, CTO Compound, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.) & the Director, BSNL, Sarvodaya

Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) & the Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi for

adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow. This Tribunal vide its award dated 07.05.2015,

adjudicated the reference; which was notified by the Appropriate Government vide notification dated

20.05.2015, in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management of the BSNL,

preferred a Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 12225 of 2017 B.S.N.L. Thru Chairman & M.D. Sanchar Bhawan,

New Delhi & others vs. Viresh Kumar Pandey & others before Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow;

wherein the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2018, pleased to remand back the award dated

07.05.2015, with certain observation, to adjudicate the reference a fresh on the basis of evidence already

adduced and pass fresh reasoned and speaking order.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELECOM,

D.E.T. O.F.C. C.T.O. COMPOUND, KANPUR IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THEIR

WORKMAN SHRI VIRESH KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI JAGAT NARAYAN W.E.F. 5.7.1989 IS

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

The case of the workman, Viresh Kumar Pandey, in brief, is that he was engaged as casual labour

w.e.f. 17.02.1982 on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange after interview etc. and worked accordingly

upto 03.07.1989. It is submitted by the workman that he was sent to jail in wake of an FIR being lodged on

account of death of his wife on 04.07.2989. It is further stated that on grant of bail, the workman approached

the management for joining but they declined the same; moreover, he submitted an affidavit dated 27.0.9.1989

as per the demand of the Assistant Engineer. It is submitted by the workman that he raised an industrial dispute

before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur which was rejected for the want of jurisdiction and later approached

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which directed the management to consider the

representation of the workman. It is stated that the workman as per directions of the CAT, moved a

representation before management of BSNL, which rejected the same vide order dated 27.05.2003. On rejection

1072 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the representation, the workman again raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), which was in turn referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman has submitted that the

management in its written statement, in reply to his statement of claim, before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

has submitted that “the applicant was not taken on duty as he was arrested by the police on the charge of murder

of his wife and reminded in jail for more than 48 hours. The management further submitted that the applicant is

not entitled of the any relief till he is acquitted honourably by the Criminal Court”. The workman has further

submitted that in reply to his rejoinder statement before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, the management has

submitted that “He was not taken on duty due to the charge against him for the murder of his wife and

subsequent arrest by the police on 14.08.1989. Shri Viresh Kumar has not been removed from employment

under any industrial dispute, but he was not taken on duty for the reasons quoted above.” The workman has

submitted that he has been acquitted of the offence under which he was charged vide judgment and order dated

03.07.1995 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao. The workman has given details of his working

in each year of engagement; and has prayed that he be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages. He

has also prayed that he be held entitled for same position and designation as already given to his junior

workmen.

The management of the BSNL has filed its written statement, denying the claim of the workman;

wherein it was submitted that the workman was engaged as casual labourer purely on daily basis and he

continued to work up to 3^rd July, 1989 and thereafter he did not turn up for duty nor any intimation was given by

him to the department explaining his absence from duty. It is submitted by the management that the reason for

not turning up on duty on 4^th July, 1989 was that the applicant was absconded from police as he was involved in

a dowry death case of his wife and was later on arrested by the police. It is specifically pleaded by the

management that the contention of the workman that he was restrained from resuming his duties by the

Assistant Engineer, is false and baseless; and there was no question of given any assurance to the workman by

any of the officers of the department to engage him after his release on bail. The management has submitted

that the dispute pertaining to the alleged termination of service of the applicant has already been adjudicated

upon by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur vide its award notified on 04.02.1997, therefore, the workman

cannot agitate the same issued again before this Tribunal as the same is barred by the principle of resjudicata. It

is also contention of the management that the workman had not been absolved from the charges on merits but

was given benefit of doubt. It is stated that the workman was not covered by the Casual Labourers Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme 1989 as the said scheme was introduced on 01.10.1989 and it was

precondition that the official should have been in employment on 01.10.1989 and since the workman did not

attend his duty after 03.07.1989, therefore, the benefit of temporary status scheme could not have been given to

the workman. The management has submitted that the workman himself did not report for duty as he was

involved in a criminal case, therefore, after his acquittal in criminal case he could not have been re-engaged in

service as there was a complete ban on the engagement of fresh casual laburers and further he could not have

been given the benefit of the Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme 1989 as he was not in the

employment on he cut off date i.e. 01.10.1989. Accordingly, the management has submitted that the claim of

the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workman has field its rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating the averments already made in the

statement of claim he has denied that he was a contract labour and stressed that he was appointed as casual

worker by the management.

The workman has filed the photocopy of numerous documents in support of his claim; whereas the

management has filed none. The workman has examined himself and the management examined Shri Raj

Kumar Bhargava, Asstt. Engineer (Retd.) & Shri B.D. Vidhyarthi, JTO in support of their case. The parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments; and

after hearing the parties, the reference was answered vide award 07.5.2015; however on filing of Writ Petition

before Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow; Hon’ble High Court, while remanding back the

industrial dispute, to this Tribunal, vide order dated 27.08.2018 in Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 12225 of 2017

B.S.N.L. Thru Chairman & M.D. Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi & others vs. Viresh Kumar Pandey & others,

made certain observations, which reads as under:

“Learned counsel for respondent workman has tried to place reliance upon the finding given by the

Industrial Tribunal which states as per the stand taken in the written statement the departments’

case is that it would have permitted the respondent workman to join only after his acquittal. Such

pleadings cannot be made basis for any finding of fact on the issue as to whether actually the

respondent workman has ever approached the department. The pleading is only a legal sand of the

department. In absence of the specific finding with regard to the fact, as to whether the respondent

workman ever approached the petitioner department or not, the Industrial Tribunal was required to

give a finding of fact based upon the evidence adduced by the parties. In absence of such a finding

the award cannot stand and is set aside.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1073

Counsel for both the parties agree that the matter may be remanded back to the learned tribunal for its

reconsideration.

In view therefore, the matter is remanded back the tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal shall decide the

matter again on the basis of evidence already adduced and pas fresh reasoned and speaking order

within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it.”

Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties at length and perused entire evidence on record

in light thereto.

The workman has come up with a case that he was engaged as casual labour by the opposite party after

calling the names from the Employment Exchange. The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman was falsely implicated in a criminal case on death of his wife on 04.07.1989 and he

was sent to jail. When the workman was released on Bail he approached the management, which did not allow

him to join the duties. It is also contended by the workman that the management regularized other junior casual

labourers sparing him. He has relied upon:

(i)

2014 (15) SCC 313 Tapas Kumar Paul vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another.

(ii)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013 decided on 12.08.2013 in Deepali

Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & others.

(iii)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2015 in Jasmer

Singh vs. State of Haryana & another.

(iv)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2417-2418/2014 decided on 17.02.2014 Hari

Nandan Prasad & another vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI & another.

(v)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10957/2013 decided on 11.12.2013 B.S.N. vs

Bhurumal.

(vi)

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ – C No. 6108 of 2004 decided on 01.09.2015 in State

of U.P. Thru. Executive Engineer & another vs Raj Karan & another.

The authorized representative of the management has submitted that the workman had never been

terminated by the management rather he abandoned the services by himself due to criminal case instituted

against him. The management has also contended that the present industrial dispute is barred by the principle of

resjudicata and accordingly, the present reference is bad in the eye of law. He has also submitted that the

workman is not entitled for benefits of regularization scheme.

10.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the

documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties, in light of the order dated 27.08.2018 of the Hon’ble

High Court in Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 12225 of 2017 B.S.N.L. Thru Chairman & M.D. Sanchar Bhawan,

New Delhi & others vs. Viresh Kumar Pandey & others.

11.

The management has taken preliminary objection that the present industrial dispute is barred by the

principal of resjudicata as the same has already been decided by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The

workman has denied the same with contention that the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur rejected the claim for

the want of jurisdiction.

Having gone through the documentary evidence relied upon by the workman, it is evident that the

Central Government referred the industrial dispute regarding termination of the services of workman, Viresh

Kumar to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, which vide their award dated 20.01.1997 returned the above

reference unanswered with following observation without going into the merits of the case:

“3. It is unnecessary to given the detail of the case as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sub.

Divisl. Inspector Versus Vaikem V.T. Joseph Lab I.C. 1996 (105) (SC) has held that Telecom

Department is not an Industry. Hence this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Accordingly, the reference is returned unanswered.”

Thereafter, the workman approached the CAT, Allahabad for redressal of grievances, which too instead

of passing any order on merit, directed the respondent/management to consider the representation of the

workman; and on rejection of the representation of the workman by the management of BSNL, the workman

approached the conciliation officer of the appropriate government since by the time the Telecom Department

has been nominated as BSNL and declared an Industry. Thus, the issue/dispute that existed between the

workman and the management of BSNL had never been decided on merit; and accordingly, the present

industrial dispute is not barred by the principal of resjudicata as contended by the opposite party.

12.

Admittedly, the workman, Viresh Kumar had been engaged as a casual labour after observing due

formalities available under Rules by the management of BSNL on 17.02.82 and worked as such continuously till

1074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

03.07.89. On 04.07.89 the wife of workman, Viresh Kumar died due to burn injuries and he was taken into

police custody on institution of criminal case against him on alleged charges of dowry death of his wife. The

workman was sent to jail and later on was released on bail. The workman has come up with a case that on his

release on bail he approached the department but he was denied joining due to his involvement in criminal case.

Per contra, the management of the BSNL has taken a very clear cut stand that it the workman abandoned the

services w.e.f. 04.07.89 and never informed the department about his absence whatsoever. It is also the case of

the management that the management never terminated his services at any point of time; rather the workman

himself did not turn up to join the duties. The management witnesses during their evidence before this Tribunal

have stated that the workman did not turn up before the management to give his joining and also that he never

informed the management of his absence. In rebuttal, the workman has stated that after releasing from bail, he

approached the BSNL for joining but he was not allowed. However, he submitted an affidavit dated 27.09.1989

as per demand of the Assistant Engineer.

In rebuttal, the management of the BSNL, before this Tribunal has taken a specific stand that it was the

workman who abandoned the services and did not turn up to join the services. The workman has pleaded that

on release from jail, on bail, he approached the management for joining and submitted an affidavit dated

27.09.89 as per directions of Assistant Engineer; but even then, he was not allowed to join.

13.

Hon’ble High Court, in its order dated 27.08.2018, has endorsed submissions of the counsel of the

petitioner/BSNL that there is no specific finding of this Tribunal, as to whether the respondent workman ever

approached the petitioner department or not. In this regard the workman has pleaded that on grant of bail, the

workman met the Assistant Engineer, Coaxial Maintenance, CTO, Compound, Kanpur and stated the fact

relating to his false implication in a Criminal Case, consequent to accidental death of his wife. The workman

has also pleaded that he submitted an affidavit dated 27.09.1989 before the authorities; but he was not allowed

to resume duties. This pleading has been rebutted by the management; however, the workman has also pointed

out towards pleadings/stand taken by the management before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur.

It is noteworthy to mention here that the Central Government referred the industrial dispute regarding

termination of the services of workman, Viresh Kumar to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, which vide their

award dated 20.01.1997 in I.D. No. 80 of 1991 returned the above reference unanswered for the want of

jurisdiction. Thereafter, the workman approached the CAT, Allahabad for redressal of grievances, directed the

respondent/management to consider the representation of the workman; and on rejection of the representation of

the workman by the management of BSNL, the workman again approached the conciliation officer of the

appropriate government and since by the time the Telecom Department has been nominated as BSNL and

declared an Industry. Thus, the issue/dispute that existed between the workman and the management of BSNL

had been referred to this Tribunal, which is under adjudication in the present industrial dispute; and from perusal

of the reply/written statement, filed by the management, to the statement of claim, it comes out that the

workman on release on bail, presented himself before BSNL authorities; but he was not allowed to resume

duties. The relevant para 02 of the reply, filed before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in ID. No. 80 of 1991,

page No. 4/25, reads as under:

3. Applicant was not taken on duty as he was arrested by the police on the charge of murder of his

wife and remained in Jail for more than 48 hrs. The case was registered by the police under section

498/304B of IPC.”

Thus, from perusal of the above quoted para, it could be well inferred that the workman who was

arrested by the police for alleged involvement of a Criminal Case, when released on bail approached the

employer authorities; but the authorities did not take him on duty as he was arrested by the police and he

remained in Jail for more than 48 hrs. This goes to corroborate the pleadings of workman that he approached

the management of the BSNL for resumption of his duties; but it was the management which did not allow him

to join the duties due to institution of a Criminal Case against the workman. Though, before this Tribunal the

BSNL has taken a different stand; but the stand taken by the BSNL before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in

ID. No. 80 of 1991 amounts to estoppel; and the management is estopped to deviate from its pleadings.

There is no iota of evidence from the management as to what steps had been taken by the management,

on acquittal of the workman, particularly when the management took a stand before CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur vide para 6 of the reply, paper No. 4/25, that any relief regarding joining can only be provided to the

workman if he is acquitted in the criminal case instituted against him. Hence, when the workman was acquitted

vide judgment and order dated 03.07.95 then it was incumbent upon the management to call the workman to

join his duties.

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha and another vs. Hashib Pasha & others

2015 (144) FLR 1059 has observed that “termination for unauthorized absence for long period, without notice to

report on duty, is legal.” Therefore, the action of the management not calling he workman to join the duties on

his acquittal amounts to termination of his services without notice.”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1075

14.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, and law cited hereinabove, there is ample

evidence to record this finding that the workman who had been arrested in wake of a Criminal Case, on release

on bail, approached the management for resumption of his duties; but he was not allowed to resume his duties

due to pending Criminal Case against him and for want of acquittal from competent court of law, therefore, I am

of considered opinion that the workman who had been arrested for alleged involvement in wake of Criminal

Case, on release on bail, approached the authorities to resume his duties but the authorities did not permit him

due to pendency of the Criminal Case, amounts to retrenchment of the workman without any notice or notice

pay in lieu thereof.

15.

The authorized representative of the workman has submitted that the workman was entitled for

reinstatement and regularization under Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme

1989 as the cut of date of the scheme was 01.10.1989. It is the case of the workman that he remained in jail

from 14.08.89 to 14.09.89 and on release, on bail, he approached the BSNL on 15.09.89 he was not allowed to

join the duties. The workman was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges, thus, had he been allowed

joining on 15.09.89 he have been in service on the cutoff date i.e. 01.10.1989 and might have been regularized

like other juniors to the workman, therefore, he must be allowed full back wages.

16.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327:

(2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545: Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others

(2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309 has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of

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

reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240

days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been

found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.”

17.

In the light of principle laid down in aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper to direct

that the workman be reinstated in service. The ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to the

workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement in service. Therefore, having regard to these facts that the

workman has worked with the opposite parties for more than 07 years i.e. from 17.02.1982 to 03.07.1989, the

interest of justice would be subserved, if, management is directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation

only. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the

workman as compensation for termination of his services in violation of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said

amount shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the same shall

carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.

18.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

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

P. K. SRIVSTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 16 िून, 2021

का.आ. 383.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार जनिेिक, ओलंृस ृसजनल एलाइड सर्वजस प्रा. जलजमटेड, चंडीगढ़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्री संिीृ कुमार, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-

सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2, चंडीगढ़ के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 166/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,

प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.05.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल- 42025/07/2021-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

1076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2021

S.O. 383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -

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

relation to The Director, Olympus Personal Allied Service Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and Shri Sandeep Kumar,

Worker which was received along with soft copy office award by the Central Government on 17.05.2021.

[No. L-42025/07/2021-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 166/2019

Registered on:-22.11.2019

Sandeep Kumar, S/o Raj Kumar, R/o Village Sagga,

Tehsil Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal.

…Workman

Versus

Director, Olympus Personal Allied Service Pvt. Ltd.,

SCO 85, Level 2, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on:-01.04.2021

The workman Sandeep Kumar has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 with prayer that defendant/management be directed to reinstate him in service and pay

previous salary amounting Rs.4,24,500/- along with 24% interest.

Claimant Sandeep Kumar has stated in his claim petition that he was appointed by respondent-

company as Technician in his company (emp. Code. 240240) and he worked with the respondent as per the

guidance of officials of respondent very honestly till 19.8.2015. It is further alleged that one of official of

respondent-company Inderjit lodged a false case against him FIR No.722 dated 19.08.2015 under Section 380,

454 IPC with Police Station City Karnal and claimant faced a trial in the said case before the Court of

Ms. Shikha Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and later on claimant exonerate from the said case vide

judgment dated 18.07.2016. Moreover, it is significant to mention that respondent had terminated the service

of the claimant and withheld salary of Rs.4,24,500/- to claimant. Claimant requested the respondent to release

his balance salary amounting Rs.4,24,500/- which is due against respondent however, the respondent is

postponing the matter one excuse or other. Claimant also requested the respondent to join the job. However,

the officials of respondent did not allow him to join the service and started harassing the workman. It is further

stated that he (claimant) appealed the respondents to pay aforementioned amount to him again and again and

further allow to join the service without asking him to file any affidavit/undertaking, but the respondent till

now did not pay any heed on the request and keep on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other.

Claimant served a legal notice to the respondents on 23.1.2018 and a copy of which has been sent to the Labour

Authority but the respondent did not pay the aforementioned amount to him till today and no adequate reply

has been given to him. Moreover, claimant also filed a petition against the respondents before the Central

Labour Commissioner, Karnal but the same was returned by the learned Court vide order dated 29.10.2018

with the finding to file petition before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

The management has alleged in its written statement that claim statement needs to be rejected, solely

for the reason that, the same is not maintainable being barred by limitations having been raised well after expiry

of three years, after the date from which non-employment has been alleged. It is alleged that the effect of

amendment is that any workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated as specified in

sub-Section (1) of Section 2(A) of the Act may make an application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

settlement of his individual dispute after the expiry of 45 days from the date he has made an application to the

conciliation officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute. Sub-Section (3) of Section

2A lays down the time limit for making sub application to Labour Court or Tribunal. It is submitted that such

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1077

application to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute shall be made before the expiry of

three years from the date of discharge, dismissal and retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-Section (1).

I have heard the learned AR for the workman and representative of the management and perused the

file carefully.

Learned AR of the workman contended that claim petition is maintainable because learned Tribunal

has to keep in view all the relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of

appointment, length of service, the grounds of which the termination has been done and the reason for delayed

raising the industrial dispute. As per learned AR of the workman, the delay occurred due to the criminal

prosecution and assurance given by the management to workman for reinstatement after the acquittal in the

criminal case. Learned AR of the workman placing reliance in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General

Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, Civil Apeal No.8434 of 2014, argued that there is no such compulsion

that it must be raised before the Court within 3 years from the date of alleged termination of the services of the

workman, provided there existed any industrial dispute between the workman and the employer.

Representative of the management argued that the present statement of claim is not maintainable

because the claimant does not fall under the definition of workman as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Learned AR of the management further argued that claim petition is time barred in view of the provision laid

down in Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is mandatory and this Court has no jurisdiction

to entertain the claim petition if it is filed beyond three years from the alleged date of discharge, dismissal

retrenchment etc. As per AR of the Management this claim petition is preferred by the workman after lapse of

three years as such barred by limitation and therefore not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Learned

representative of management has placed reliance in the case of SMT. RUKMINIBAI AND OTHERS VS.

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BIDAR DIVISION, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as in the case of M/s ITC Infotech India Ltd., Bngalore

Vs. Mr. Venkataramana Uppada, ILR 2016 KAR 3041.

The provision incorporated under Section 2-A of the Industrial dispute Act, 1947 runs as follows:—

(I)

“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

worker is a party to the dispute.

(II) Nothwithstanding 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.

(III) 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, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in Sub-Section(1).”

It is pertinent to mention that by Act 24 of 2010, Section 2-A was renumbered as Sub-Section (1) and

by same Act i.e., Act 24 of 2010 Sub-Section (2) and (3) came to be inserted after Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act.

The said amendment Act came into effect on and from 15^th September, 2010. Thus the effect of amendment is

that any workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated as specified in sub-Section (1)

of Section 2A may make up application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of his

individual dispute after the expiry of 45 days from the date he has made an application to the conciliation

officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A lays down

the time limit for making such application to Labour Court or Tribunal. It provides that such application to the

Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute shall be made before the expiry of three years from the

date of discharge, dismissal and retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in

sub-Section (1).

Thus, question which would arise for consideration in the instant case is whether dispute raised

beyond three years from the date of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment can be entertained by the Labour

Court or Tribunal by condoning the delay if any in raising the dispute or filing a claim petition or in other

1078 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

words, if an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, would it be

maintainable and such delay can be condoned?

10.

Hon’ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of SMT. RUKMINIBAI AND OTHERS

VS. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BIDAR DIVISION, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

has held that Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is peremptory in nature. It imposes a duty on the Court to

dismiss the application, which is barred by limitation even if the plea of limitation is not raised. If the claim

petition is barred by time, the Court or an adjudicating authority has no power or authority to entertain such an

application an decide it on merits. As stated, even in the absence of such a plea by the respondent or opponent,

the Court or the authority must dismiss such an application if it is satisfied that the same is barred by limitation.

11.

Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible

conclusion that time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may

be, has to be necessarily “before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section (1).” Time limit for making

an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A does not appear to have a bearing

to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right conferred under Section 2A would lapse

immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from the date of dismissal, discharge etc. In other

words, the limitation of three years prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2A being mandatory, same

cannot be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12.

So far as the case law relied by the learned AR of the workman is concerned, the ratio laid down in the

case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar(supra), is not applicable to the

facts of this case because in Raghubir Singh case, there was a reference by the State Government for

adjudication before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provision incorporated

under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has held that appropriate government in exercise of its

statutory power under Section 10-C of the Act can refer the industrial dispute between the parties at any time to

either jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Thus, the Law laid down in Raghubir Singh Vs. General

Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissa (supra) case, is not applicable to the present case because this claim

petition has been preferred by the workman under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly and

limitation prescribed therein of three years from the date of termination/retrenchment so, I am of the opinion

that case Law relied by the learned AR of the workman is not applicable with respect to claim petition under

Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13.

Undoubtedly, it is a admitted fact that workman is alleged to be terminated from service on

19.08.2015 just after lodging FIR against the workman while this petition has been preferred on 22.11.2019

under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 beyond three years from the date of alleged termination

on 19.08.2015.

14.

So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, the provisions incorporated in Section 2-A sub-

clause-3 mandates that application to the Labour Court or Tribunal shall be made before the expiry of three

years from the date of dispatch/dismissal/retrenchment or otherwise, as is specified in Sub-Section 2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, this Section is coached that mandatory terms and this Tribunal has got no

power to condone the delay at any cost. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the statutory provision

of EPF & MP Act, 1952 with respect to the condonation of delay as held in the case of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Others, reported in (2017) 5 SSC 42

as follow:—

“The Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and,

therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation has to be the binding effect and the same has

to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. To put it in a different way, the

prescription of limitation in a case of present nature, when the statue commands that this Court may

condone the further delay not beyond 60 days. It would come within the ambit and sweep of the

provisions and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it

is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution”.

15.

Having gone through the above facts and legal proposition, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion

that the claim petition is barred by limitation as such, this Court has got no power to entertain the claim petition

and liable to be dismissed. Hence, claim petition is dismissed.

16.

Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under

Section 17(2) of the Act.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1079

नई दिल् ली, 17 िून, 2021

का.आ. 384.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार वररष्ठ डाक अिीक्षक, जवभाग डाक जवभाग, संगप र, जिला- संगप र (ृंिाब) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और श्री िरिीृ नसंि , कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - II, चंडीगढ़ के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 8/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा

ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.06.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल-40012/02/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2021

S.O. 384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-ll, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employer in

relation to The Senior Superintendent of Posts, Deptt. of Posts, Sangrur, Distt- Sangrur (Pb.) and Shri Hardeep

Singh, Worker which was received along with soft copy office award by the Central Government on

01.06.2021.

[No. L-40012/02/2016-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 8/2016

Registered on:-5.4.2016

Hardeep Singh S/o Hakam Singh, Vill. Natto, PO Kila Hakima,

Via Ladda, Distt. Sangrur.

…Workman

Versus

Senior Superintendent of Posts, Deptt. of Posts,

Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur (Pb.).

…Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed on:-04.05.2021

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/02/2016-IR(DU) Dated 07.03.2016, under clause

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

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

“Whether action of the Supdt. of Post Offices, Sangrur in termination the services of

Shri Hardeep Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh w.e.f. 14.06.2013 without following the principals of

natural justice is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman Shri Hardeep

Singh entitled?”

Both the parties were put to notice and claimant/workman Hardeep Singh filed statement of claim,

with the averment, that he was engaged as GDS(Mail Carrier) by the Deptt. of Posts, Sangrur at village Jhall

w.e.f. 19.10.2009 and drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and continuously working till 14.06.2013. His

name in the seniority list exists at Serial No.389 and he was also allowed annual increment after expiry of every

year. There is no enquiry or any other charge against him during his service period. Juniors to the workman

were retained in service which is violation of Section 25-F(a), 25-F(b) and 25-G of the ID Act, 1947 and they

are all continuing in service till date. His termination is against the provisions of natural justice as no charge-

sheet, enquiry and show cause notice were served upon him before terminating his services. It is therefore,

1080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

prayed that his termination is illegal, unjust, unfair and against the laws of the land and therefore entitled to be

reinstated in service with full back wages and other attendant benefits.

Respondent/management has filed its written statement, alleging therein that the workman was put to

work as GDSMD/MC Jhall Branch Office w.e.f. 20.10.2009 on temporary basis by Sh. Sudhir Kumar the then

IP(west) Sub-Division, Sangrur. The workman was allowed only one increment in November, 2012 where in

his TRCA was fixed as Rs.2715/- from Rs.2665/- erroneously as he was not entitled for any increase in TRCA

by way of increment as he was not regularly appointed GDS. The GDS mentioned at Sr. No.390 to 442 were

recruited and approved by adopting proper procedure. The post of GDSMD/MC Jhall has been filled by the way

of redeployment and the surplus GDS has been engaged on this post. The workman submitted an application

dated 21.05.2013 addressed to Inspector Posts West Sub-Division Sangrur in which he admitted to have come

to know that he was put to work on temporary basis. He was served upon a show cause notice vide SDI(P) West

Sangrur memo No.A/Substitutes dated 17.05.2013 providing sufficient opportunity to represent his case in order

to provide natural justice. As the GDS are governed under the GDS(Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011, they

do not belong to the category of workman attracting the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is

therefore, prayed that the workman is not entitled for any kind of relief as action of the management in

terminating his services is just and fair in the eyes of the law.

In order to prove his case, workman Hardeep Singh has submitted his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A and

cross-examined by the learned counsel of the management Sh. V.K. Arya. He has stated that neither any

appointment letter was issued by the Postal Department nor any interview was conducted at the time of his

appointment. As per this witness, a notice was issued by the Postal Department for retrenchment/termination

and he presented himself before Prithvi Singh who is Sub-Divisional Inspector who informed that his services

were no more required and it come to an end. He was earning Rs.5,000/- at the time of his

retrenchment/termination. Thus, according to this witness, he was simply appointed without any advertisement,

examination or interview whatsoever and his services were terminated by issuing a notice.

Management has submitted affidavit of witness Narinder Singh, Superintendent, Post Office, Sangrur

who has tender his affidavit in support of the facts alleged in the written statement as Ex.MW1/A along with 4

documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4. He has been cross-examined by the learned AR of workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that workman was engaged for job as he was

fit to render his services. As per this witness, the work and conduct of the workman was good and there was no

complaint at all. Witness Narinder Singh has further admitted that name of workman was mentioned in the

seniority list maintained by the department due to mistake. According to this witness, workman was dis-

engaged due to the non-work in the postal-department without any charge-sheet, enquiry etc. This witness has

further stated that notice is sent to the workman as per legal provision without any compensation. This witness

has been cross-examined by the Tribunal itself wherein he was admitted that workman rendered his services

regularly from his engagement till his disengagement. Thus, there is no dispute that workman rendered his

services uninterrupted from 19.10.2009 to 14.06.2013 as is alleged by the workman in his claim petition.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar AR of workman and Sh. V.K. Arya, Ld. Counsel for the management

and perused the file, evidence and documents submitted by both the parties.

Learned AR of the workman contended that though workman was engaged as GDS(Mail Carrier) he is

terminated by respondent without following the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. No compliance has been done for the retrenchment vide Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act,

where three month notice in writing is required, indicating the reasons for retrenchment. Furthermore, prior

permission from the appropriate-government for such as the case may be prescribed by the Government has

been made on its behalf. Learned AR further argued that even in case of compliance of Section 25-F(C) has not

been made, which is mandatory in nature as such, the alleged retrenchment/termination is illegal and workman

is entitled for re-instatement in service with all back wages and other attendant benefits. Learned counsel has

placed reliance of the cases of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1

Panipat(Haryana), Civil Appeal o.3478 of 2010, decided on April 9, 2010, Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana

Warehousing Corporation, Civil Appeal No.6327 of 2014, decided on July 9,2014, Raj Kumar Vs. Director of

Education and Oths., Civil Appeal No.1020 of 2011, decided on April 13, 2016, Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of

India and Oths., Civil Appeal No.2280 of 2000, decided on March 29, 2000 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Haryana Vs. Sultan Singh &

Others, CPW No.2370/2013, decided on 17.11.2014.

Contrary to this, management counsel argued that workman was engaged as GDSMD/MC governed

under GDS(Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, in the department and his services were governed

accordingly. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable with respect to workman. Learned counsel

further argued that claimant Hardeep Singh is not a workman as defined under Section 2-S of the ID Act

therefore, he does not belong to the category of workman. Learned counsel further contended that issue relates

with the service matter as such, this Tribunal has got no power to adjudicate the matter and if jurisdiction lies, it

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1081

is with the Central Administrative Tribunal because of the Postal Department is a Central Government-

establishment. Learned counsel further contended that because of the regular recruitment, the workman was

retrenched from service after giving one month notice as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 after giving due opportunity of hearing. Thus, it could not be argued that provision of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is not complied by the respondent-management. Learned counsel further argued that there is

no legal proposition for engagement of such GDS on permanent basis that too without any advertisement,

examination or interview. Hence, it cannot be said that services of the workman is terminated without following

the principal of natural justice as well as the provisions incorporated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The first contention raised by the learned counsel of the management is that the claimant does not

come within the purview of “workman” as defined under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

because he was employed on temporary basis as GDS. In this connection, reference can be made to the decision

of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein, the Hon’ble

Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of

“workman” has observed as follows:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act. Thus, nature of appointment or source of appointment is not relevant to be a “workman” within the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Second contention of the learned counsel of the management relates with the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal. According to the learned counsel of the management, this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to decide

the reference because management is Central Government undertaking under the Government of India.

According to the learned counsel, the jurisdiction lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh. I

find no force in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District

Manager & others. Vs. Keshab Deb.(Civil Appeal No.3324 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9494 of

2004-decided on 6/5/2008 where a driver/casual labour on daily wage basis, serving in the Directorate of

Telecommunicaitons at Dimapur, had filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati

by the workman, challenging the order of his termination by his employer and the Gauhati Bench of CAT had

passed an order, holding the termination order to be illegal. Before the Apex Court, the department/employer

had raised the contention as regards jurisdiction of the CAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that an

employee who claims himself to be a workman, will have a right of election in the matter of choice of forum

either before Industrial Tribunal or before Central Administrative Tribunal, observed in para 14 as under:—

“In a case of the present nature where inter alia a employee maintains a writ petition not only on

the ground of violation of equality clause enshrines under Article 14 of the Constitution of India but

also on the ground of violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he has an option

to choose his own forum. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 does not bar the

jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It saves the jurisdiction of the Industrial

Tribunal. An employee who claims himself to be a workman, therefore, will have a right of election

in the matter of choice of forum......”

10.

Thus, it is relevant to see whether action of respondent/management is in compliance of Section 25-F,

25-G or 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 read as

under:-

“25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen-No workman employed in any industry

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

retrenched by that employer until—

(a)

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

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

notice, wages for the period of the notice;

1082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in

excess of six months; and

(c)

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

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

Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read as follows:-

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

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

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

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

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

workman.”

Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read as follow:-

[25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen-(1) No workman employed in any

industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not

less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a)

the workman has been given three months’ notice in writing indicating the reasons for

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

such notice, wages for the period of the notice; and

(b)

the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by

that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as

the specified authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf.

11.

The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the provision of retrenchment or

termination is complied in letter and spirit. Perusal of the file and documents filed by the respective parties, it is

clear that notice is issued by the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Postal Department and after giving opportunity of

hearing, his services were terminated on 14.06.2013 copy of the termination letter is attached as Ex.MW1/4.

Perusal of termination letter denotes that it is mere formality on behalf of the department and services of the

workman Hardeep Singh was terminated by observing that he was appointed as substitute and there is nothing

in his representation as such, his services is hereby terminated with immediate effect. Termination letter

Ex.MW1/4 does not reveal the reason for termination. The facts alleged in the representation by the workman

are not discussed and reasons find no place for not accepting the facts alleged in the representation. Thus,

issuance of alleged notice appears to be an eye wash as such, it may be observed that the services of the

workman was terminated without appreciating the facts and the provisions incorporated under the ID Act.

12.

So far as non-compliance of Section 25-F(c) and 25-N of the ID Act is concerned. It is pertinent to

mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Ors., Civil Appeal No.3003 of 2005, has specifically held that section 25-N is a complete scheme for

retrenchment of the workman where a number of workers are in excess of 100 workmen. In present case, as

alleged, there are more than 471 workmen which has not been controverted by the management. In such

circumstances, non-compliance of the provision of Section 25-N is damaging to the stand taken by the

management regarding the issuance of notice to the workman. Furthermore, before issuing a notice to the

workman under Section 25-N prior permission of the concerned-authority or government has to be taken before

issuing notice to workman. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court, any retrenchment of the workman can only be

done under the provisions laid down under the Act and Rules. So far as sending notice to the competent-

authority or the government under Section 25-N is concerned. It has not been duly complied as per the evidence

on record. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Civil

Appeal No.6327 of 2014, decided on July 9,2014 and in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and

Oths., Civil Appeal No.1020 of 2011, decided on April 13, 2016, has held that Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

a beneficial legislation and its object is for settlement of the Industrial Disputes. It provides unfair labour

practice on the part of the employer in case of engaging employees/temporary employees for a long period

without giving the status of permanent employees. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court the condition mentioned

in Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory and it mandates the employer to serve a notice in

the proper manner for the appropriate government or such authority as is specified by the appropriate

government by notification in the official gazette. Same view is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Raj Kumar(supra). As per the Hon’ble Court, since mandatory condition for retrenchment were not

complied with retrenchment is liable to be set aside. In nutshell, it can be observed in the light of the judgment

of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the nature of notice envisaged under Section 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is not derogatory but mandatory and employer/respondents-managements were duty bound

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1083

to comply the procedure laid down in Section 25-F and 25-N in letters and spirit before

terminating/retrenchment of the services of the workmen.

13.

Learned AR of the workman has further contended that there is gross violation of the provisions

incorporated under Section 25-G of the ID Act, 1947. In this connection, learned AR has drawn my attention

towards the evidence submitted by the workman received under the RTI Act. The copy of gradation list

Ex.MW1/2 reveals that this list contains 471 posts and 442 persons mentioned by their names while at serial

no.443 to 447 is mentioned as vacant posts. It is pertinent to mention that the name of the workman has find

place on serial no.389 while at serial no.390 onwards relates to those persons who were subsequently engaged

by the Postal Department. Learned counsel of the respondent-management could not explain as to why the

particular workman Hardeep Singh was selected for retrenchment while there many persons were rendering

their services engaged by the Postal Department after the appointment of the workman. Hence, it is not

sufficient to say that the name of the workman is mentioned in the gradation list by mistake. In reply to the facts

alleged in Para 3 of the petition about the gradation list, nothing is stated by the respondent-management except

saying that it is a matter of record. In fact, there is no pleading at all with respect to mentioning the name of the

workman in gradation list in Para 3 of written statement as such, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that

Postal Department has adopted the policy of hire and fire denouncing the policy of “last come fist go” and the

services of the workman is terminated with some ulterior motive while there were more than 50 person engaged

after the workman Hardeep Singh as per gradation list.

14.

Learned counsel of the management contended that the services of the workman is terminated because

regular recruitment has to be conducted by the department but nothing is stated with respect to the number of

date of advertisement, vacancy, and examination(if any) is conducted after the termination/retrenchment of the

workman. Thus, mere averting in written statement about the recruitment of new incumbent is any eyewash

regarding the termination of the workman that too in spite of efficient and good services of the workman

throughout his tenure as GDS in the respondent-management.

15.

Learned counsel of the workman contended that in the given scenario, facts and evidences on record, it

is crystal clear that respondent/management has retrenched the workman with highhandedness without giving

notice or retrenchment compensation as such, he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages because he

was forced to leave the job without any fault. Contrary to this, learned counsel of the management contended

that nothing has been stated in the claim petition as well as affidavit filed by the workman with respect to his

alleged post termination with respect to employment. Learned counsel of the management contended that

workman was earning as usual by virtue of daily wager after termination as such, he is not entitled for any back

wages. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junion

Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 and M/s Caparo Maruti Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial

Tribunal and another, LPA No.793/2016(O&M) in Civil Writ Petition No.59/2014, dated 30.09.2019.

16.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra) has held as under:-

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

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

wages is the normal rule.

ii)

The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages the

adjudicating authority or Court may to take into consideration the nature of job and

misconduct if any found proved against the employee/workman the financial condition of the

employer and similar other factors.

iii)

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

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

adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or

was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,

then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was

gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the

termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the

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

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

once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically

plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or

substantially similar emoluments.”

17.

The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court while Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra), and Hindustan

Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 as well as

in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL,(2014) 15 SCC 313, Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Central

1084 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,(1980) 4 SCC 443, has observed that there cannot be a

straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages along with all the relevant benefits. More or less, it

can be address to the discussion of the Tribunal with full back wages could be the normal rule and he party

objecting to it must establish. The circumstances insisting the departure at this stage, the Tribunal while

exercises its consideration keeping in view of the relevant circumstances but the discussion must be exercises

judicious must be cogent and convincing and must be appear on the face on record. When it is within the

discussion of the authority that something has to be done according to the rules, reasons and justice is not

according to law and not he humour it is not arbitrary, vague but legal and regular.

18.

It is pertinent to mention that the length of service of the workman is stated to be from 19.10.2009 to

14.06.2013 till the alleged termination. He has been terminated without any cogent evidence in utter violation of

principle of natural justice violating the proposition of Law incorporated under Section (G) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, in the light of the above facts and legal preposition, this Tribunal is of the

considered opinion that workman is entitled for reinstatement in service along with 50% back wages and the

management is directed to reinstate the workman within three months from the date of the notification of the

award.

19.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17

of the ID Act, 1947.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 17 िून, 2021

का.आ. 385.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म,1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार राष्ट्री मजल ृावर कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड (एनटीृीसी जलजमटेड), का मकुलम, अलाप्ृुझा, (कोचीन),

अिमल हुसजन सुरक्षा एिेंसी, एनाजकुलम, (कोचीन) ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िररिासन के., कामगार

के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल ,

एनाजकुलम के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 27/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2021-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2021

S.O. 385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2021) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

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

to The National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (NTPC Ltd.), Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, (Cochin), Ajmal

Hussain Security Agency, Ernakulam, (Cochin) and Shri Haridasan K., Worker.

[No. L-42025/07/2021-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. V. VIJAYA KUMAR, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25^th day of March 2021, 1942)

ID. No. 27/2021

Workman

Shri.Haridasan K.

Kunnelparambil House

Thamallackal North P.O.

Alappuzha – 690548

By Adv.C. A. Rajeev

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1085

Management

1. The National Thermal Power

Corporation Ltd (NTPC Ltd.)

Choolatheruvu P.O.

Kayamkulam

Alappuzha – 690506

2. Ajmal Hussain Security Agency

Room no.60/479 C1

Koithara Complex

Koithara Road, S. Panampilly Nagar

Ernakulam – 682036

This case coming up for hearing on 25.03.2021 and the same day this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

passed the following.

AWARD

Present industrial dispute is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 as the conciliation effort

made before the Conciliation Officer failed.

The workman was seeking a declaration that the action of the management in terminating the service of

the workman w.e.f. 31.05.2020 is illegal and unjust. He also sought a further relief of reinstatement in

service of NTPC, Kayamkulam with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attended benefits.

Summons was issued to management 1, management 2 and the workman. Management 1 and 2 entered

appearance. The learned Counsel for the workman entered appearance and filed a memo from the

workman stating that he is not interested to proceed with the above case. He also prayed that he may be

permitted to withdraw the industrial dispute.

Since the workman is not interested in pursuing this industrial dispute filed U/s 2A(2) of the ID Act, there

cannot be any adjudication regarding the claim of the workman. Hence a ‘no dispute’ award is passed in

this industrial dispute.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 25^th day of March, 2021.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 17 िून, 2021

का.आ. 386.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मेिर िनरल इंचािज, कनजल मु्‍ ाल मध् कमान, 2 अरल रोड, कैंट, ल नऊ (उ. प्र.) ; कार्मजक प्रिासजनक

अजिकारी, मु्‍ ाल मध् कमान, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मिेि प्रसाि, कामगार के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंचाट

(संिभज सं्‍ ा 26/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज ।

[सं. एल-14012/17/2016 -आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

1086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2021

S.O. 386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2016) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

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

The Major General Incharge, c/o Colonel , Headquarter Central Command, 2 Aral Road, Cantt, Lucknow (U.P);

Personnel Administrative Officer, Headquarter Central Command, Lucknow (U.P); and Shri Mahesh Prasad,

Worker.

[No. L-14012/17/2016-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

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

I.D. No. 26/2016

Ref. No. L-14012/17/2016-IR(DU) dated: 27/28-06-2016

BETWEEN :

Sh. Mahesh Prasad s/o Sh. Shriram

H. No. 313, R/o Vill & PO – Jaurash

The – Haidergarh

Barabanki – 225126.

Vs.

Major General Incharge C/o Colonel

Headquarter Central Command

2 Aral Road, Cantt

Lucknow – 226002.

Personnel Administrative Officer

Headquarter Central Command

Lucknow – 226002.

AWARD

By order No. L-14012/17/2016-IR(DU) dated: 27/28-06-2016, 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 to

this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABNDHAN, MAJOR GENERAL INCHARGE, HEADQUARTER CENTRAL COMMAND,

LUCKNOW-2 VA ANYA DWARA SHRI MAHESH PRASAD PUTRA SHRI RAM, CASUAL LABOUR

KO MAAH MARCH 2015 KO VETAN BHUGTAAN BINA NAUKARI SE NIKAAL DIYA JANA

NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO VAADI KIS RAAHAT KO PAANE KA HAKDAAR

HAI?”

The case of the workman, Mahesh Kumar, in brief, is that he was appointed by the opposite party

No. 1 on the post of Masalachi (cook) on 16.06.2013 @ Rs. 2500/- per month, which was raised to Rs. 2750/-

w.e.f. January, 2014 and Rs. 4000/- per month from October, 2014. The workman has alleged that the opposite

party made payment to him upto November, 2014 and thereafter he worked upto March, 2015 but was not paid

any salary; rather he was forced to work after March, 2015. The workman has stated that the oral termination of

his services are unjustified in the eye of law; and accordingly, has prayed that he be reinstated with

consequential benefits.

The management of the opposite parties has disputed the claim of the workman through its written

statement; wherein it has submitted that the workman’s appointment was purely contractual which was valid for

a specific period and was subject to renewal of his service at the end of the period of his contract. The

management has stated that the services of the workman had been terminated after the period of the contract

was over and the identity card submitted by the workman is for limited period, which was valid up to

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1087

30.04.2015 only. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being

devoid of any merit.

The workman filed its rejoinder; wherein apart from reiterating the averments already made in the

statement of claim, has submitted that the management has failed to comply with the provisions of Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, as it has not entered into any agreement and there is no license as

principal employer.

The workman field documentary evidence in support of his case vide list W-9; whereas the

management filed no piece of paper in support of its pleadings. The workman examined himself and he was

cross-examined by the counsel of the management; however, the management did not adduce any oral evidence

in support of its pleading in spite of ample opportunity being provided to it, which closure of opportunity to lead

evidence vide order dated 05.03.2020. The parties were heard on merits of the case and were afforded

opportunity to file their written submissions, which was adequately afforded by the management only.

Heard learned counsel of both the parties and perused entire evidence available on record in light of the

rival pleading.

The authorized representative of the workman has argued that the workman had been appointed by the

opposite party No. 1 on the post of Masalachi (cook) on 16.06.2013 and he worked as such upto March, 2015;

but his services had been terminated by the management without giving any notice or notice pay in utter

violation to the Section 25 F of the Act. He further alleged that the management even did not pay the workman

salary for the period December, 2014 to March, 2015; he also contended that the so called contractual

engagement of the workman by the management violates to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition) Act as there is no agreement on record nor any license as principal employer been filed by the

management before this Tribunal.

In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the management has submitted that the workman had been

employed on purely contractual for a specific period, which were terminated as he was found inefficient and

unsuitable to perform the required service. The counsel for the management has argued that the identity card

issued by the workman is for limited period, which was valid upto 30.04.2015 only and not beyond. The

counsel for the management, in his written submission, has relied upon number of case laws in support of his

case; but has not mentioned complete details of the citation so that no account of the same could be taken.

10.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel.

11.

The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the management of the opposite

parties and he worked with them w.e.f. 16.06.2013 to March, 2015 as Masalchi (cook). It is also the case of the

workman that his services have been terminated by the management without any notice or notice pay in lieu

thereof or any retrenchment compensation, in contravention to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.

12.

In rebuttal, the management has contended that the workman’s employment was contractual in nature,

which ceased with the expiry of the term of contract.

13.

The workman in order to corroborate his pleadings has submitted photocopy of his ‘Temporary Entry

Pass’, issued on 13.11.2014, valid upto 30.04.2015. The workman in his cross-examination has stated that no

written appointment letter was given to him; however, the management has accepted employment/engagement

of the workman on contract basis for a fixed span of time, which expired with the end of period of engagement.

The management has accepted identity card filed by the workman, paper No. 3/4 which had been issued on

13.11.2014 and had been valid upto 30.04.2015; however as per pleadings of the workman his services had

been terminated ‘orally’ w.e.f. March, 2015. The management has not filed any evidence in support of its claim

nor has adduced any oral evidence to corroborate its pleadings.

14.

The management has disputed the claim of the workman with pleading that the workman had been

employed on contractual basis for a limited period, which expired on expiry of the term of engagement;

however, it failed to corroborate its pleadings through cogent evidence i.e. contract agreement its and payment

details; nor did it controverted the evidence filed by the workman. 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.

15.

Accordingly, from pleadings of the management itself is proved that the workman had been engaged

on contractual basis; however, it did not made any specific statement regarding period of engagement of the

workman. On the contrary the workman has pleaded and proved that he had been employed w.e.f. 16.06.2013

to March, 2015; and thus, the workman had worked for more than 240 days in preceding twelve months from

the date of his alleged termination i.e. March, 2015; and oral termination of his services, without any notice or

1088 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

notice pay in lieu thereof was in violation of the section 25 F of the I.D. Act, thus, the alleged termination of the

services of the workman was neither legal nor justified.

16.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence

produced by the workman it is not proved that his appointment was as a regular worker. Admittedly, the

services of the workman were terminated orally on March, 2015. In Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh

(2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question regarding award

of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of section 25 F of the Act, entire back wages should be

awarded ………………………………….. However, where the total length of service rendered by a

workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of

termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be

wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which required to be taken into consideration, is

the nature of employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short

or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”

17.

In 2008 (119) FLR 877 Deepak Ganpat Tari vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court

relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC) A P V K Brahmandandam 2008

(118) FLR 376 (SC) Telephone DM vs. Keshab Deb 2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC) JDA vs. Ram Sahai, while

awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in

view of the fact that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily wager does not amount to retrenchment and

for violation of section 25 F in such circumstances, the employee cannot be given benefit of

reinstatement with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court has hold that in such

circumstance employee is entitled to benefit of compensation only.”

18.

Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327: (2010) 1 SCC

(L&S) 545: Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC

(L&S) 309 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a along line of cases,

this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is

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

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

of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240

days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been

found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.”

19.

In the light of principle laid down in aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper to

direct that the workman be reinstated in service. The ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to the

workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement in service.

20.

Having regards to these facts that the workman has worked as contractual worker for approximately

two years i.e. from 16.06.2013 to March, 2015 and he was getting Rs. 4000/- per month at the time of his

alleged termination and keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the law, the interest of justice would be

subserved, if, management is directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation only.

21.

Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to

the workman as compensation for termination of his services in violation of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The

said amount shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the same

shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.

22.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

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

Lucknow

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1089

नई दिल् ली, 17 िून, 2021

का.आ. 387.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्री सरकार राष्ट्री मजल ृावर कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड (एनटीृीसी जलजमटेड), का मकुलम, अलाप्ृुझा, (कोचीन),

अिमल हुसजन सुरक्षा एिेंसी, एनाजकुलम, (कोचीन), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एम. सुिीलान, कामगार

एनाजकुलम के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 23/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2021-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2021

S.O. 387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2021) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

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

to The National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC Ltd.), Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, (Cochin), Ajmal

Hussain Security Agency, Ernakulam, (Cochin) and Shri.M. Suseelan , Worker.

[No. L-42025/07/2021-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. V. VIJAYA KUMAR, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25^th day of March 2021)

ID. No. 23/2021

Workman

: Shri.M. Suseelan

Nadupallil House

Muthukulam North

Choolatheruvu P.O.

Alappuzha – 690506

By Adv. C. A. Rajeev

Management

: 1. The National Thermal Power

Corporation Ltd (NTPC Ltd)

Choolatheruvu P.O.

Kayamkulam

Alappuzha – 690506

2. Ajmal Hussain Security Agency

Room no.60/479 C1

Koithara Complex

Koithara Road, S. Panampilly Nagar

Ernakulam – 682036

This case coming up for hearing on 25.03.2021 and the same day this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

passed the following.

AWARD

Present industrial dispute is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the conciliation effort

made before the Conciliation Officer failed.

1090 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman was seeking a declaration that the action of the management in terminating the service of

the workman w.e.f. 31.05.2020 is illegal and unjust. He also sought a further relief of reinstatement in

service of NTPC, Kayamkulam with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attended benefits.

Summons was issued to management 1, management 2 and the workman. Management 1 and 2 entered

appearance. The learned Counsel for the workman entered appearance and filed a memo from the

workman stating that he is not interested to proceed with the above case. He also prayed that he may be

permitted to withdraw the industrial dispute.

Since the workman is not interested in pursuing this industrial dispute filed U/s 2A(2) of the ID Act, there

cannot be any adjudication regarding the claim of the workman. Hence a ‘no dispute’ award is passed in

this industrial dispute.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 25^th day of March, 2021.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल् ली, 17 िून, 2021

का.आ. 388.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

अिमल हुसजन सुरक्षा एिेंसी, एनाजकुलम, (कोचीन), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री बीिू ृी., कामगार के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , एनाजकुलम

ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 21/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2021-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2021

S.O. 388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2021) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

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

to The National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC Ltd), Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, (Cochin), Ajmal

Hussain Security Agency, Ernakulam, (Cochin) and Shri Biju P.,Worker.

[No. L-42025/07/2021-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL–CUM–LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

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

(Thursday the 25^th day of March 2021)

ID. No. 21/2021

Workman

Shri.Biju P.

Kayamuriyil House

Muthukulam South P.O.

Karthikappally

Alappuzha – 690506

By Adv. C. A. Rajeev

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1091

Management

: 1. The National Thermal Power

Corporation Ltd. (NTPC Ltd)

Choolatheruvu P.O.

Kayamkulam

Alappuzha – 690506

2. Ajmal Hussain Security Agency

Room No.60/479 C1

Koithara Complex

Koithara Road, S. Panampilly Nagar

Ernakulam – 682036

This case coming up for hearing on 25.03.2021 and the same day this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

passed the following.

AWARD

Present industrial dispute is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 as the conciliation effort

made before the Conciliation Officer failed.

The workman was seeking a declaration that the action of the management in terminating the service of

the workman w.e.f. 31.05.2020 is illegal and unjust. He also sought a further relief of reinstatement in

service of NTPC, Kayamkulam with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attended benefits.

Summons was issued to management 1, management 2 and the workman. Management 1 and 2 entered

appearance. The learned Counsel for the workman entered appearance and filed a memo from the

workman stating that he is not interested to proceed with the above case. He also prayed that he may be

permitted to withdraw the industrial dispute.

Since the workman is not interested in pursuing this industrial dispute filed U/s 2A(2) of the ID Act, there

cannot be any adjudication regarding the claim of the workman. Hence a ‘no dispute’ award is passed in

this industrial dispute.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 25^th day of March, 2021.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 17 िून, 2021

का.आ. 389.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार अिीक्षण ृुरातत्वजवि्, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण जवभाग, चंडीगढ़ ( ूटी), संरक्षण सिा क, भारती

ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, जिसार (िरर ाणा) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री जितेंर कुमार, कामगार के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -II, चंडीगढ़ के

ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 32/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.06.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2021-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. लहमाांशु, अिर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2021

S.O. 389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2016) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court –II , Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Superintending Archaeologist, Department of Archaeological Survey of India, Chandigarh (UT);

1092 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Conservation Assistant, Archaeological Survey of India, Hisar (Haryana) and Shri Jitender Kumar ,Worker

which was received along with soft copy office award by the Central Government on 01.06.2021

[No. L-42025/07/2021-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 32/2016

Registered on:-15.12.2016

Sh. Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kehar, Resident of House No.264,

Jag Jiwan Nagar, New Rishi Nagar, Ward No.1, Near Vatika,

Hisar, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana.

…Workman

Versus

The Superintending Archaeologist, Department of

Archaeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle,

Bay No.51-52, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh (UT).

The Conservation Assistant, Archaeological Survey of India,

Firoz Shah Palace & Tehkhana, Sub-Circle,

Hisar, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana.

…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-05.05.2021

The workman Jitender Kumar has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for his reinstatement with full back wages along with interest and

continuity of service.

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition is that the claimant/workman was appointed on

the post of Mali in the year 2006 on part-time basis by the respondent/management for which applications were

invited/demanded in order to fill up the part time vacant posts. The appointment of the workman was made on

the basis of terms & conditions of regular services approved by the Central Government. The workman had

obtained the experience/training certificate of Mali under the St. Thomas Church Garden Nursery, near Old

Court Chowk, Hisar, Haryana from 15.02.2008 to 30.06.2010. The work is still in existence and numbers of

similarly situated junior employees are still working with the management so, retaining the juniors by

terminating the services of the workman amounts to violative of section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The workman requested the management for regularization of his services time and again but instead of

regularization of the services of the workman all of sudden in the month of June, 2015, the

respondent/management illegally terminated the services of the workman by refusing him duty, without

assigning any reason & justification, without issuing any charge-sheet, or conducting any domestic enquiry,

without issuing any show cause notice and without payment of any compensation to the workman as per

Section 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the termination of the workman by the

management by refusing him duty w.e.f. June 2015 is illegal, wrongful, malafide and against the principle of

natural justice, unfair labour practice and abuse of the managerial & administrative powers of the management

and in utter violation of the law laid down by the High Courts as well as Hon’ble Apex Court vide landmark

judgments from time to time. The workman falls under the definition of the workman and management also

falls under the definition of “industry” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the submissions

made above, it is therefore, prayed that workman is entitled for reinstatement into service with full back wages

along with interest and continuity of services with all consequential benefits.

Respondents/managements have filed its written statement, alleging therein that the question of

inviting application to engage any labour on part time basis as claimed by the workman does not arise as the

department engages part time labour against estimated work and as per approval given by the Head Quarter and

funds allotted to the department for the work at particular monument/site. The claimant/workman was engaged

as a daily wager/casual labour and was paid wages as per rate fixed by DC Hisar and management has not

violated Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was no provision for part time worker in the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1093

approved estimate of 2015-16 in A.R. (Non-Plan) therefore workman was not engaged as part time worker for

the year 2015-16. It is incorrect that claimant/workman has been working continuously for the approximately 8

year or he has completed 240 days in a year. The workman was engaged as a casual worker/labour(daily wages)

on muster roll basis against estimate of particular work under A.R.(Non-Plan) for the month of June & July

2015 till the said work is completed. The workman was engaged as part time casual worker only for 10 months

in 2007 and 11 months in 2008 as per the provision given in the estimate under A.R.(non-plan). In the year

2014 he was engaged as a part time casual worker as per requirement and as per provisions of estimate such as

in February 13 days, March 13 days, April 18 days, May 20 days, June 30 days and so on. Even if the

claimant/workman had worked continuously on part time basis in the whole year, then he could not attained 240

days in a given year in any way. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that claim petition of the claimant/workman

be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

In order to prove his case, workman Jitender Kumar has submitted his affidavit and proved it as

Ex.WW1 who has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of the management. This witness has stated that

he has 5 children aged about 15 years to 5 years who are taking education in government-school. According to

the witness, he was appointed by CEO Kaul Sahib without any appointment letter. He has further stated that he

rendered his services in the management-office from 8 am to 5 pm not only for 2 hours as alleged by the

respondent-management. As per this witness he had worked with the management as part time and payment

was made accordingly on the basis of DC rates.

Management has submitted affidavit of witness Arvind Sharma, Surveyor Officer of management, who

has submitted his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A along with 2 documents(colly) i.e. Ex.MW1/1(Hand Receipts) and

Ex.MW1/2(Muster Roll) as documentary evidence in support of the facts alleged in the written statement and

cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted

that during the course of engagement, his work and conduct was satisfactory and notice was not served to the

workman at the time of his termination because he was a daily wager. This witness has alleged that there were

no records pertaining to the year 2007 and 2008 relating to the workman. He has denied the suggestion of the

learned counsel of the workman that he was regular employee of the department. He has further admitted that

workman rendered his services from 2015 to 2017 on muster roll. Thus, as per the cross-examination of this

witness, there is no doubt that claimant/workman has rendered his services as Mali on part-time and was paid as

per DC rate fixed year to year.

I have heard Sh. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for the workman and Sh. V.K. Arya, Ld.

Counsel for the management and perused the file, evidence and documents submitted by both the parties.

Before averting to the critical analysis of evidence on record, it is relevant to mention those facts which

are admitted between the parties. The engagement of workman as part time Mali, payment of workman as per

DC rate, alleged disengagement of workman by the respondent-management without any notice and

compensation are admitted facts. Thus, the relationship of workman and management as employee and

employer is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also pertinent to mention that there is nothing on record to

prove that management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 as is alleged by the workman in his claim petition as well as affidavit because nothing is submitted in the

form of oral or documentary evidence to prove that he was disengaged in spite of the fact that there were juniors

to him or some other persons have been engaged in his place after his alleged termination.

Having gone through the facts in the pleadings as well as oral evidence led by both the parties, there is

no doubt that workman rendered his services with the management at least from the year 2007 to June 2015 i.e.

till his alleged dis-engagement/termination. Management has not accepted the version of the claimant/workman

with respect of rendering his services from the year 2006 as is alleged in the claim petition. There is nothing on

record to prove that workman rendered his services in the year 2006 while initial burden lies with the workman

to prove that he was engaged in the year 2006 as part-time Mali. The real controversy lies between the parties

with respect to the non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the time of the

alleged termination of the workman by the respondent-management. Learned counsel of the management

contended that being a daily wager and working with few hours there were no need to serve a notice to the

workman as he had not rendered 240 days of service in preceding year from the date of alleged termination as

required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Contrary to this, learned counsel of the

workman contended that workman rendered his services from the year 2006 to June 2015 continuously and

tenure of rendering services from the year March 2009 onwards is proved by the documentary evidence filed by

the management as Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2(colly) and oral evidence of the management witness-Arvind

Sharma, Surveyor himself. From perusal of hand-receipts as well as muster-roll Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2, it

appears that initially claimant/workman was rendering his services for 2 hours from the year March 2009 to

March 2011 and subsequently he rendered his services throughout the month excluding weekly off from

01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015. Thus, the fact alleged in the written statement that workman was employed for 2

hours service per day falsify from the documents filed by the management itself in the form of hand-receipts

pertaining to the payment to the workman itself. Thus, it is a proved that subsequently he rendered his services

1094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2021/ASHADHA 12, 1943

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for so many years throughout except holidays as is mentioned in the documents filed by the management itself.

Similarly, muster-roll Ex.MW1/2 reveals that he was further engaged for the month of June 2015 and July 2016

and rendered his services throughout the month.

Learned counsel of the management contended that workman discharged from his duty due to non-

availability of fund for the year 2015, 2016 as there was no provision for part-time worker in the approved

estimate of the year 2015-16 in A.R.(non-plan) forcing the management to discharge the workman. Learned

counsel further contended that he was further engaged as casual worker on muster-roll basis against estimate of

A.R. (non-plan) for the month of June 2015 and July 2015 till the said work is completed. There is nothing on

record in the form of documentary evidence that there was no provision for part time worker in the approved

estimate for the year 2015 in A.R.(non-plan). For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that contention of the

learned counsel of the management is true then there should be documentary evidence to support this fact on

record but management has not submitted the approved estimate of the year 2015-16 to prove the facts alleged

in the written statement. Thus, I am not convinced with the argument that workman was retrenched due to non-

availability of fund for the year 2015, 2016 as there was no provision for part-time worker in the approved

estimate of the year 2015-16 in A.R.(non-plan).

10.

Learned counsel of the workman has drawn my attention towards the reply filed by the management in

pursuance of the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner where the engagement of the workman as

part time casual worker from the year 2007 is admitted from alleged reply sent to the Assistant Labour

Commisioner vide demand notice sent by the workman.

11.

So far as the non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, it is

relevant to see whether action of respondent-management is in compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 read as under:-

“25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen-No workman employed in any industry

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

retrenched by that employer until-

(a)

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

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

such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b)

the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any

part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority

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

12.

The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the provision of retrenchment or

termination is complied in letter and spirit. It is admitted fact that neither notice is served upon the workman by

the management nor retrenchment compensation is given to the workman. Similarly, the provision incorporated

under Section 25-F(c) with respect to the notice to the appropriate-government has also not been complied.

Thus, it can be observed that the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not complied

in letter and spirit. In this connection, learned counsel of the management contended that for the application of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 240 days working in preceding year from the date of

termination is mandatory and workman had not rendered 240 days service with the respondent-management.

The argument advanced by the learned counsel of the management does not found support from the documents

pertaining to the payment through hand-receipts and muster-roll.

13.

This is a specific case of the workman that his services were terminated from June 2015 but this fact is

not specifically denied by the respondent-management in Para 5 of the written statement where it is alleged that

he was engaged as casual worker on muster-roll basis for the month of June and July 2015 till the said work is

completed. It is a settled position of law that if there is no specific averment in the statement of defence with

respect to the fact then as per the settled law, what is not specifically denied is deemed to be admitted. When a

fact asserted is not specifically denied, no amount of evidence to prove the facts is required which are not in

issue. It is pertinent to mention that management did not amend its written statement and went to trial on it.

Moreover, as per documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that workman has rendered 240 days services before

his alleged dis-engagement/retrenchment preceding one year from the month of June 2015. Number of days

mentioned in the photocopies of the pay slips are conclusive proof that he was regularly rendering his services

before the alleged retrenchment/termination that is why respondent/management has not specifically admitted

the date of alleged termination in his written statement. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that workman had

rendered 240 days of service in preceding year from the date of his termination as such, either one month notice

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 3, 2021/आषाढ़ 12, 1943

1095

or retrenchment compensation of one month is required to be given to the workman as per provision

incorporated under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.