2846 GI/2022
(897)
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. 18]
नई दिल् ली, मई 1— मई 7, 2022, िजनवार/ वैिाख 11— वैिाख 17, 1944
No. 18]
NEW DELHI, MAY 1—MAY 7, 2022, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 11–VAISAKHA 17, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िै जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् 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)
जविेि मंत्राल
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 4 मई, 2022
का.आ. 432.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के सिा क उच् चा ोग, जसलिट में श्री राम दकिोर रजव िास, सिा क अनुभाग
अजिकारी को दिनांक 04 मई, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए
प्राजिकषत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(20)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12052022-235726
CG-DL-W-12052022-235726
898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2022
S.O. 432.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and
Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ram
Kishore Ravi Das, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Assistant High Commission of
India, Sylhet to perform the consular services with effect from May 4, 2022.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2022(20)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Dy Secy. (Consular)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 268/2001½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@509@1997-vkbZ vkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 268/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/509/1997-IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 268/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Kankanee Colleiry under Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL.
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30.03.2022
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
899
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/509/1997-IR(C-I) dated 18/21.06.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the RCMS from the management of BCCL, Sijua Area for continued
employment and regularisation of Sh. Sukhdeo Bhuia and 8 others (as per list enclosed) as
Cartridge Makers is just & fair. If so, to what relief are the said workman entitled and from
what date?”
List of Workmen
1. Sukhdeo Bhuia 2. Kush Kumar Mishra
3. Nirmal Kumar Sharma 4. Bageshwar Das
5. Sheo Kumar Singh 6. Birendra Singh
7. Gaya Prasad Singh 8. Ajay Kumar Mishra
9. Abdesh Kumar Mishra
2. The reference is received on 21/12/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Working Committee Member or Area
President of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along
with relevant document within fifteen days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However
after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently both of them left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to the
parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union and the notice returned unserved with
endorsement “Addressee Not Found”. Now the case is pending since 21/12/2001 and workman/union is not
appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 मई, 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/k rarz ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 6@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@180@2007-vkbZ vkj ¼ ch-1½]
Mh. xqgk] अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2022
S.O. 434.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/180/2007–IR (B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
Industrial Dispute Case No.6 of 2008
Dated of passing of the award 25.06.2019
Present: Shri B.C.Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar.
Between:
1.
The Chief Manager, SBI
Chatrapur,District-Ganjam,Odisha.
2.
Sri S. Rama Babu S/o. Late S.C. Reddy,
Karini Street,
Chatrapur, Dist-Gnjam.
…First Party- Managements
Versus
Sri Lingaraj Nayak,
S/o.Late Kanduri Nayak,
Chatrapur (Kapil Harizan Sahi),
District-Ganjam.
…2nd. Party Workman
Appearances:-
For the First Party Management : Sri A.K. Prusty
For the 2nd Party workman
: Self
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute
between the above named parties for its adjudication vide its order No,L-12012/180/2007-IR(B-I) in exercising
authority under Clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act") and the Schedule of the reference is as follows:-
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Chatrapur Br. Through his contractor
Sri S. Chinneya Reddy terminating the service of Sri Lingaraj Nayak, is justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Briefly stated the case of the 2nd Party Workman is that he joined in the establishment of 1st Party
Management No.1 on 17.1.1990 as a Sweeper on temporary basis and continued to work as a sweeper in
Chatrapur State Bank of India, Main Branch till 5.12.2005 when he was refused employment. According to him
on his joining a S.B. Account No.59/6584 was opened in the said branch of the 1st Party Management at
Chatrapur and he was receiving his wages through the said S.B.Pass Book. He was performing his duty with
utmost sincerity and diligently to the satisfaction of his authority. There was no adverse remark or stigma of
any kind in his service record. It is his stand that he was employed continuously and uninterruptedly with effect
from 17.1.1990 till he was discharged from service on 5.12.2005. Persons who joined temporarily in the 1st
Party Management subsequent to his joining are regularized whereas his seniority was ignored and he was
discharged from service without compliance of notice pay and rehabilitation compensation. Hence, he raised a
dispute before the labour machinery and consequently the reference is made to this Tribunal for adjudication of
the dispute as stated earlier.
3.
The 1st Party Management Bank and the Contractor Sri S. Chinayya Reddi on being impleaded in the
reference were noticed. The contractor Sri Reddy did not choose to contest the claim of the 2nd party for which
he has been set exparte. The 1st Party Management No.1 (the Bank) has contested the claim denying the
allegation raised by the 2nd Party. According to the Management No.1 the disputant workman was never issued
with any appointment letter or he was ever paid any wage by the Management No.1 for any work. The Bank
being a public sector undertaking has its own Recruitment Rules and no Branch Manager has any authority to
appoint any one to do any work in the Bank without the appointment being made under the Rules. It is the
stand of the Management No.1 Bank that one Chennya Reddy Contractor was entrusted for deputing labour to
clean and sweep the premises Since the disputant never given appointment, the question did not arise for his
retrenchment as alleged by the disputant. There was also no requirement on the part of the Management No.1 to
provide notice pay and rehabilitation compensation to the disputant as he was never appointed nor he was
retrenched by the Management. Hence, the Management has insisted rejection of the claim statement.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
901
4.
On the foresaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for adjudication of the
dispute:-
i)
Whether the action of the Management of the State Bank of India, Chatrapur Branch terminating
the services of Sri Lingaraj Naik, is justified ?
ii)
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?
FINDINGS
5.
The disputant has examined himself as W.W.1 and filed Xerox Copy of S.B.IPass Book, Copy of
experience Certificate issued by Sri S.Chinneya Reddy, copy of letter dt.17.7.2006, letter dated.31.8.2002,
letter dated.24.8.2006 addressed to Manager, SBI, Chatrapur, and copy of representation addressed to Regional
Manager, SBI, Bhubaneswar which are marked as Ext.1 to Ext.6 respectively to establish his claim whereas the
Management has examined its Chief Manger as M.W.1 and filed Xerox copy Saving Account No.30438305865,
Xerox copy of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2006 Page 1806 (Secretary , State of
Karnataka and others –Vers- Uma Devi and others, Rules of H.C. copy of judgment dt.17.02.2010 and news
paper clipping regarding a contract labour cannot claim reinstatement, copy of settlement between the
Management of SBI and All India State Bank Staff Federation., copy of Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court
dated.15.5.1998 in the case of A.Mandal & others, copy of the order of SLP dated.16.6.1999 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, copy of Judgment of the Honb’le High Court in OJC No.9039 of 1997, copy of Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court dt.18.9.1998 in SLP No.3061 of 1999 respectively to refute the claim of the 2nd party.
Law is well settled that the burden lies on the 2nd party workman to show his appointment and
continuous and uninterrupted engagement of 240 days in a calendar year in order to make his retrenchment
for dismissal of service illegal on ground of non compliance of the provisions of Sec.25(f) i.e./or non-payment
of notice pay and rehabilitation of compensation. If, the evidence of the disputant workman(W.W.1) was
scrutinized carefully it is emerging that no appointment letter or any scrap of paper towards his
appointment/engagement in the Branch of 1st party management is produced. The 1st party Management No.1
Bank being a public undertaking hs its own Recruitment Rules. Hence appointment in the Bank can be
presumed to be made as per rules. The disputant has admitted that he was not subjected to any Recruitment
test for his alleged appointment. Similarly, he fails to lead any credible evidence to establish that he was
receiving wages directly from the Management No.1 though he has exhibited xerox copy of his S.B. .Account
opened in the Management Bank. The same does not suggest that he was appointed by the Management
Bank or his wages were paid to him directly by the Manegement Bank by depositing the same in S.B.
Account. On the other hand it is stated by the disputant that during the period from 17.1.1990 to 15.12.2005
the Management No.2 S. Chenneya Reddy was a contractor under the 1st party management No.1. Being an
authorized contractor under the principal employer Sri Reddy appointed him as temporary sweeper as a result
of which he was working in the Chatrapur branch of the Ist Party Management from 17.1.1990 to 15.12.2005.
In his testimony he has further stated that said contractor issued a certificate Ext.2 towards his engagement in
the Bank. That being the testimony of the disputant workman the stand of the Management No.1 is to be
accepted. Hence it can be safely concluded that the engagement of the disputant in the Branch of the 1st party
Management if any, was through the contractor Sri Chennya Reddy. Hence for all the purpose as well as in
absence of any evidence or material in record towards appointment and payment of wages to the disputant by
the Management No.1 the disputant cannot be counted as an employee of the Management No.1. He being
appointed by the Contractor for temporary period or a specific period the question does not arise on the part
of the 1st party management bank to give notice pay and rehabilitation compensation to the 2nd Party workman
when he is alleged to have been refused work in the bank. Since he is a labourer of the contractor, any claim is
to be paid by the said contractor.
Further, there being no evidence as to his appointment directly by the 1st party Management No.1 Bank
and payment of wages by the said Bank and there being lack of evidence in record to his claim that he was
working continuously and uninterruptedly for 240 days in the calendar year preceded to his disengagement, his
retrenchment on 5.12.2005 , if any, cannot be termed as illegal on account of non-compliance of provisions of
Sec.25(f) of the Act.
As the disputant has miserably failed to establish his appointment by the 1st party management No.1, he
is not entitled to any relief.
6.
For the reasons discussed above I am constrained to hold that the statement of claim filed by the
2nd party disputant workman has no merit for consideration as such the same stands rejected.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated and corrected by me
B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer
902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2022
का.आ. 435.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री
सरकार जसजन र जडजविनल मैनेिर, मेससव लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा, इंिौर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जन ोिकों और प्रेजिडेंट, इंिौर जडवीज़न इन्सुरेंस एम्ृलॉईस एसोजसएिन, इंिौर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट
औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा
(सीिीआईटी /एलसी/आर/53/2013) प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. एल-17011/20/2012- आई आर(एम)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2022
S.O. 435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (CGIT/LC/R/53/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of The Sr. Divisional Manager, M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, Indore
and The President, Indore Division Insurance Employees Association, Indore.
[No. L-17011/20/2012-IR(M)]
D.GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/53/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The President
Indore Division Insurance
Employees Association,
51, Bima Nagar, Indore -452001(MP)
…Workman
Versus
The Sr.Divisional Manager, LIC of India,
Divisional Office, 19 M.G.Road,
Indore-452001
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of March-2022.)
As per letter dated 7/3/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
17011/20/2012-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the punishment order of the Management of LIC of India dated 30/10/2004 of
withholding of one annual increment passed against Shri Sangeep Namjoshi is proportional to
the misconduct committed by him? What relief the workman is entitled to? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of defence/claim.
2.
The workman Union who has filed statement of claim on behalf of the workman Sandeep NamJoshi
has put a case that the workman remained absent due to his illness on medical advise and had informed the
office by letter and orally also. He had sent a registered letter to the Management regarding his illness and
absence. This letter was received by Management on 26-8-2004 as this fact was admitted by Management in its
communication dated 9-9-2004, hence he could not be said to have absented willfully and unauthorizedly. The
charge holding him guilty of breach of Rules of (Staff) Regulations 1960, Section 21, 24, 30(1) and awarded
punishment of reduction of one increment and also holding his absence as leave without pay, hence committed
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
903
illegality. Accordingly the Union as prayed that setting aside the punishment, the absence of workman be
regularized with salary and his increment be restored.
3.
The case of management in brief is as taken in their written statement of defense is that the workman
Sandeep Joshi absented himself without any approval by the Management and without any information to
Management. He remained absent till 13-10-2004 for 94 days and returned back on work on 14-10-2004. He
did not file any application of leave before absenting himself. He did not produce any medical certificate. The
Management has denied that the workman informed the Management by letter or orally and has further
submitted that the workman produced medical certificate on 25-8-2004. According to the Management, this Act
of the workman is in violation of Rule 30(1) of (Staff) Regulations 1960, hence recording absence without
authority and holding it as unauthorized absence, the impugned punishment was passed. Before passing the
impugned punishment, a charge sheet was issued by Management. The workman filed his reply dated 20-10-
2004 admitting his mistake and assuring that this mistake will not be repeated in future. No departmental appeal
was preferred by the workman against the punishment order.
4.
The workman has filed his Examination in Chief in the form of affidavit . The Management has also
filed affidavit of Pankaj Sharma, a Management witness as Examination in Chief.
5.
At the time of arguments, the workman did not appear, hence arguments of Shri Amitabh Bharti,
learned counsel for the Management were heard and record has been perused by me.
6.
Pleadings of the workman makes it clear that he has not challenged the legality of inquiry or the fact
that the charge was not proved, his challenge is only on the proportionality of punishment, hence only one issue
as mentioned below, remains to be decided in the case in hand :-
“Whether the punishment award is disproportionate to the charge proved?”
7.
In the case in hand, the charge proved in of unauthorized absence and punishment is reduction of one
increment and by no scale it can be said that the punishment awarded is so shockingly disproportionate to
warrant interference by this Tribunal.
8.
The settled preposition of law on this issue requires to be mentioned, which is as follows:-
It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence
relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of
invoking the powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that
the Court should interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the
misconduct committed or it is harsh.
1.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while
discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of
the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the
disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation,
it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent
reasons in support thereof.”
2.
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the
High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion
that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the
relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty
imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness,
exactness expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the department
/establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.”
3.
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review
of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English
law summarized the legal position in the following words:
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance
of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court
would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the
904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial
review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the
decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
4.
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
the legal position as follows:
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it
finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
5.
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court
stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
6.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia
M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the
High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary
authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of
punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or
that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition
of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of
factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the
delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any,
and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works.
Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
7.
Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence
led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the
material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based
on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence
will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the
courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out
perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion
or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in
disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated
or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous
considerations
9.
The Principle which emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that this Tribunal does not work as an
Appellate Authority and secondly that no interference in punishment is warranted by this Tribunal. It is proved
to the satisfaction of this Tribunal that the punishment is not so shockingly disproportionate to the charge that it
requires interference. Hence, holding the punishment proportionate to the charge, the Issue is answered
accordingly.
10.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The punishment order of the Management of LIC of India dated 30/10/2004 of withholding
of one annual increment passed against Shri Sangeep Namjoshi is held to be just and
proper.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
C. No order as to costs.
11.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
905
ubZ fnYyh] 4 मई, 2022
—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds प्रबंिra= ds संबद्ध fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k ua 1 चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20/2021) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12025/01/2022- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½&05]
Mh- xqgk] अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2022
S.O. 436.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No.1 Chnadigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2022– IR(B-1)-05]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI D.K. SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER' CENTRAL
GOVT' INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH
Case No. IDR No. 20/2021
Rishu Kumar son of Sh. Suresh Kumar
…Petitioner/workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager, State Bank of India, Rait Branch Distt.
Kangra- (HP) 176052
2.
The Proprietor, M/s, Sunrise Co.Shop
No. 2238/5B, 2"‘
Floor, Shanti Nagar, Manimajra,
Chandigarh-160101. (U.T.)
…Respondent/Managements
APPEARANCES
For the workman :
Shri M.R. Dhiman, A.R. for workman
For the management :
Shri Sahil Pundeer, Associate for management
AWARD
Passed on: 23/02/2022
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of State Bank of India, Rait Branch, Kangra (HP) and M/s Surise Co. in
dismissing the workman Sri Rishu Kumar, son of Sh. Suresh Kumar w.e.f. 08.12.2020 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
1.
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The workman Rishu Kumar appears and
files a petition for withdrawal of this case stating therein that the management has taken him back on duty and
has settled his all dues, so he may be allowed to withdraw the present IDR Case. In v’iew of the statement of the
concerned workman, the present IDR case is withdrawn. Hence No Claim Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, P.O.-cum-Link Officer
906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 मई, 2022
—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds संबंि जन ोिकों vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 195/2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh िैA
[la- ,y-12012/244/2000- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 437.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 195/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/244/2000– IR(B-1)]
D.GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/195/2000
Present: P.K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Lachhu Dhimer,
S/o Mulal, Gram Post,
Badgaon Dhasan,
District Tikamgarh (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Assistant General manager,
Region-3,State Bank of India,
Divisional Office,
Jayanegaganj,
Gwalior (M.P.)
2.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Tikamgarh,
District Tikamgarh(M.P.)
… Management
AWARD
(Passed on 1-4-2022)
As per letter dated 3-7/11/2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12012/244/2000(IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Zone -3, Gwalior(M.P.) in
terminating the services of Shri lachhu Dhimer, Ex-Temporary Messanger w.e.f. 10-9-1997, while
he has worked continuously from 10-11-1994 to 10-9-1997, is justified? If not what relief he is
entitled?” .
Later on this refefence has been amended. The Ministry vide letter dated 23/3/2017 issued a
Corrigendum wherein amendment to schedule was made as under:-
“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Zone -3, Gwalior(M.P.) in not
appointment on permanent post of Messenger and in terminating the services of Shri Lacchu
Dhimar, Ex-Temporary Jessanger w.e.f. 10-9-1997 while has worked continuously from 10-11-1994
to 10-9-1997 is justified?If not, what relief he is entitled to?”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
907
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he entered in the service of the
management as daily rated messenger. He was given employment from time to time with artificial breaks within
the period 1986 to 1997. There was a settlement between the staff Union and the Management wherein it was
agreed that the appointment shall be given to casual and temporary employees on permanent basis if that
employee has completed 240 days of engagement with the management in one calendar year or in 36 calendar
month. A Scheme in this respect was framed by the Bank and notice for appointment of such workers was
issued by the Bank in the month of August 1988, inviting application from those workers who had worked for
30 days from 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 in block of 36 months. The workman having been eligible, also applied for
the same. A list of selected and waitlisted candidates was prepared on the basis of selection procedure in the
year 1990. It was also mentioned that this waiting list would remain valid upto 18-9-1992. The name of the
applicant workman had been placed at serial no.5 of the wait list.
3.
It was further the case of the workman that in the year May-1991 again applications were invited by
Bank for appointment of casual/daily rated/workers/messenger/peon and sweepers for permanent post. Also it
was mentioned in the advertisement notice that the list prepared by the Bank will remain valid only up to 1996
and the candidates in the list could be appointed subject to availability of vacancy. It was also notified that
candidates who had already applied in pursuance of the earlier notice were not required to apply again. The
Management prepared a consolidated waiting list based on the recruitment procedure with respect to the
recruitment notification of August-1988 and May1991 in which the name of the workman was placed at serial
no.72. According to the workman, one Mathura Prasad and Second Atmaram Sahu who were at Serial No.6 & 7
in the waiting list of 1988 in which the workman was at serial no.5, hence junior to the workman in the merit list
were granted regular appointment in the year 1993 and 1997 respectively. Accordingly to the workman, the
action of the Management in preparing a consolidated wait list when the first wait list with respect to
recruitment notification of 1988 was also valid up to year 1992 as per the notification is arbitrary and illegal.
Also the act of appointment of Mathura Prasad and Atmaram Sahu in 1993 and 1997 respectively who stood at
serial no. 6 & 7 in the first wait list by ignoring the workman who was at serial no.5 is also against law and
arbitrary and is also against the terms of settlement, even otherwise also the workman is entitled to be appointed
on a permanent post because he has completed 240 days in service in a calendar year and has obtained the status
of a permanent employee. According to the workman, his termination is against law. He is out of employment
after his termination. He has accordingly prayed that setting aside his termination on 10-9-1997, holding it
against law , the workman be held entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and also be held entitled to
consequential benefits.
4.
The case of the management is that the workman was employed as a daily rated messenger with the
Bank . He worked for 122 days within the period 1-1-1986 to 31-7-1988. Thereafter, he was engaged as a
purely daily rated contractual employee form 1988 to 1997. The number of days he was engaged during this
period is mentioned in paragraph two of the written statement of Bank which is as follows:-
S.No.
Period
Number of days
1
1988
53 days
2
1989
87 days
3
1990
36 days
4
1991
16days
5
1993
15days
6
1994
43days
7
1995
317 days
8
1996
272 days
9
1997
10days
5.
According to the management, the workman was not in continuous employment and had not worked
for 240 days in the year preceding the dated of his dis-engagement; hence his dis-engagement is not against law.
Also it has been pleaded by Management that interview of those employees who were discontinued after 1-7-
1975 or working in the Bank up to 31-7-1988 was conducted by the Bank and a panel of selected candidates was
prepared in accordance with the settlement. Previously the temporary employees who had completed minimum
prescribed period of service from 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 was considered. This period was later on extended
from 31-7-1988 to 14-8-1991. Accordingly the eligible daily wagers casual labour employees, who had
completed required minimum service during the period from 1-7-1975 upto 14-8-1991 were given a chance for
permanent employment. Advertisement was released for inviting applications from such workers. The workman
also appeared in the interview in the year 1990; His name figured much below in the wait list. He was not given
permanent appointment in the bank as he was figured much below in the wait list. The daily rated employees
who were called for the interview in the year 1990 taking the cut of date as 31-7-1988 and were in the waiting
list, were not required to be called for interview again in the year 1992 on second vacancy notification released
on account of extension of cut of date to 14-8-1991. The workman was continued as casual labour in the bank
till the year 1997 i.e. date of his termination. Also it has been pleaded by Management that as per the settlement,
908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the wait list was required to be kept alive till the year March-1997, so that opportunity for permanent
employment could be given to the empaneled candidates in the vacancies. Also it has been pleaded by
management in paragraph seven of the written statement of witness that the workman was placed at serial no.9
in the waiting list, prepared after the recruitment procedure, with respect to first notification. This waiting list
was consolidated with the waiting list prepared after recruitment procedure of second vacancy position released
in the year 1992 interview of which was held in the year 1992 and the workman was place at serial no.70.
Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
6.
In the evidence, the workman has examined himself on oath and has been cross-examined. The
workman has further proved the following documents :-
Exhibit W-1: Interview letter dated 13-12-1990.
Exhibit W-2 :letter of appointment of workman as temporary messenger on 10-2-1986.
Exhibit W-3: Carbon copy of application sent by the workman to Assistant General Management, through the
Branch Manger stating that those who were junior to him have been regularly appointed and he has not been
considered.
Exhibit W-4: Application of workman to Management.
Exhibit W-5:- Application of workman to Management.
Exhibit W-6:- Application of workman to Management showing receiving seal of management on 6-6-1997.
Exhibit W-7:- another application of workman to Management with receiving seal of Bank:
Exhibit -8:- Photocopy of working days certificate of the workman.
Exhibit W-9: Certified copy of working list prepared on the basis of first vacancy recruitment notification filed
and proved in the reference in case No.32/2011(this document has been marked as Exhibit W-1, it is
renumbered as Exhibit W-9).
Exhibit W-10, certified copy of photocopy of recruitment notification proved in reference case
No.32/2011(this document has been marked as Exhibit W-2, it is renumbered as W-10).
7.
The Management has examined its witness on oath Uday Bhagat, Regional Manager who has been
cross-examined . Management has not filed nor has proved any documents.
8.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the workman Shri Arun Patel for the workman and Shri
Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the Management. Both the sides have filed their written arguments which are
part of the record. I have gone through the written arguments.
9.
After perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination in
the case in hand:-
1. Whether the action of the Management in amalgamating the two waiting lists prepared after
two recruitment procedures with respect to two vacancy notices, is justified in law or fact?
2. Whether the action of Management in not offering appointment to the workman on the basis of
first waiting list and appointing other two persons who were junior to the workman in the first
waiting list, is justified in law or fact?
3. Relief to which the workman is entitled?
10.
ISSUE NO.1:-
According to the pleadings of parties, the first recruitment notice was issued in the month of August-
1988 and applications from all such casual labours who had completed 240 days service in a calendar year or in
36 calendar months from 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 in a block of 36 calendar months were invited. This is also not
disputed that the workman had completed the required tenure as mentioned above and hence was eligible for
appointment. The case of the workman was that the list of selected candidates and the wait listed candidates
was prepared which was to remain valid up to 18-9-1992. The recruitment process was held in the year 1990
and list of selected as well as wait listed candidates was prepared thereafter and published. The Management
does not dispute this fact in its pleadings. The case of the management is that in this recruitment process
,interview was held in the year 1990 in which the applicant workman also appeared. It is further the case of the
Management that the name of the applicant workman figured much below in the wait list. Further it has been
pleaded that his name was at serial no.9 in the wait list after the interview. Whereas the case of the workman is
that his name was at serial no.5 in the wait list. The workman has stated this fact on oath and has been cross-
examined by Management. He has also filed a Court certificate copy of the waiting list filed and proved in
another case No.R-132/2012 which goes to show that the name of the workman figures at Serial No.5 in the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
909
waiting list. On the other hand the Management does not file any other waiting list to show that the name of the
workman was at serial no.9 or much below in the waiting list. The Management witness Shri Arvind Khare,
Chief Manager who has been examined from the side of the management has stated that interview was held on
the basis of recruitment notification of 1988 in the year 1990 but he had not seen the merit list or wait list
prepared on the basis of this interview. He only came to know orally by some one that the name of the
workman figured much below in the list. The management is not in possession of the documents i.e. the list of
selected/wait listed candidates on the basis of first recruitment notification which is not produced, hence
adverse inference against the Management will be drawn, that had it been produced by Management, it would
have been against the case of the Management. i.e. It was withheld. From the basis of above discussion, the
case of the applicant workman that he was placed at Serial No.5 in the wait list of first recruitment notification is
held proved.
11.
The case of the Management is that a second recruitment notification was issued in the year 1991 by
extending the period from 31-7-1988 to 14-8-1991 and the list of selected candidates/waiting list of candidates
was prepared. Thereafter, the list prepared on the basis of first recruitment notice and the list prepared on the
basis of second recruitment notice were amalgamated and a composite list was prepared wherein the name of the
workman figured at serial no.72. This fact has been stated by the management witness in his statement on oath
also that the Management has withheld the documents in this respect. Hence, an adverse inference against
Management will be drawn that had any such list been produced before this Tribunal, it would have militated
against the case of the Management or may be that there was no such list at all , as claimed by the workman.
12.
The question which arises here is whether amalgamation of two lists has any sanction of law. The
Management and its learned counsel has miserably failed in showing any notification, Rule or Law under which
these two waiting lists were merged or amalgamated. The Management also failed to explain as to how a person
at serial no.5 in the first wait list stood at serial no.72 in the amalgamated list and what was the basis of this.
Hence, the action of Management in amalgamating the two wait lists prepared on the basis of two recruitment
notification is held not supported by any law and is held to be without any sanction of law. The action of
Management is accordingly held arbitrary and discriminatory. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
13.
ISSUE NO.2:-
The case of the workman is that the list prepared on the basis of first recruitment notification was to be
inforce till 1992. The second vacancy notification was released in the year 1991, which goes to show that there
were vacancy with the Management. The Management could not have released vacancy notification in the year
1991 without exhausting the waiting list prepared on the first recruitment notification.
14.
The case of the management is that the list prepared on the basis of first recruitment notification and
second recruitment notification were amalgamated. It shows that on the date of amalgamation, the list on the
basis of first recruitment notification was inforce and was effective then. why it was amalgamated. The
workman has taken specific case that Mathura Prasad and Atmaram Sahu who were at serial No.6 & 7 in the
waiting list of first recruitment notification were given appointment in the year 1993 and 1997. The case of the
Management is that the name of the workman figured at Serial No.9 in the waiting list that is why these two
persons who were above the workman at serial no.6 and 7 were given appointment. As has been observed
earlier no such list has been produced by Management, whereas the list produced by workman, as referred to
above establishes his case that his name figured at serial no.5 in the list prepared on the basis of first recruitment
notification. Hence, the action of not offering appointment to the workman whereas offering appointment to
other workman as mentioned above which were below to the applicant workman in the list is nothing but
discriminatory and arbitrary. Hence the action of management in not appointing the workman applicant on
permanent post of Messenger on the basis of list prepared after recruitment process of first recruitment
notification is held against law and also held arbitrary as well as discriminatory. Issue No.2 is answered
accordingly.
15.
ISSUE NO.3:-
Since the action of Management as stated above has been held against law, the question arises as to
which relief the workman is entitled to. It has been submitted from the side of the management that he may be
given a lump sum compensation. The workman has specifically pleaded that since his dis-engagement, he has
never been in any gainful employment and has stated so in his affidavit, which is uncontroverted. This is also
the fact that the workman has not performed the job of messenger during this period. This fact also requires to
be taken into account.
16.
In the light of facts and circumstances proved, in the case in hand, I am of the considered view that the
ends of justice will be served if the workman is held entitled to be offered appointment to the post of Messenger
from the date of 1-5-1991, he is held entitled to be reinstated and also he is held entitled to 50% back wages
from 1-5-1991 and shall be deemed to be in continuous service of the management for all in-service and post
retiral benefits. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the Management of State Bank of India, Zone -3, Gwalior(M.P.) in not
appointment on permanent post of Messenger and in terminating the services of Shri
Lacchu Dhimar, Ex-Temporary Messanger w.e.f. 10-9-1997 while has worked continuously
from 10-11-1994 to 10-9-1997 is held unjustified in law.
B. The workman is held entitled to be appointed on the permanent post of Messanger from
1-5-1991 and he is also held entitled for 50% back wages from this date till the date of this
Award. Thereafter, he is held entitled to full wages.
C. The workman is also held entitled to be deemed in continuous services of the management
for all in-service and post retiral benefits.
D. Parties to bear their own cost.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj nhun;ky iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa जनर्िवष्ट vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 163@2018½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-37011/10/2018-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 438.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 163/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ahmedabad shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Deendayal Port
trust and their workmen.
[No. L-37011/10/2018 -IR(B-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present. Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 12th April, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. - 163/2018
The Chairman,
Deendayal Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh, TCX-South-94, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
: None
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
911
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/10/2018-IR (B-II) dated
13.11.2018 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand raised by the President, Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh, Gandhidham on the
management of DPT (erstwhile KPT) taking alleged illegal decision of inviting E-tender and quotations
for maintenance work of Mooring launches/crafts by Mechanical Engineering Department and that the
management should not be allowed to outsource the above said work of perennial nature of jobs is legal
and justified? If so, what relief the Union is entitled?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 03.12.2018. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by
the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Notice Exh. 2 issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written
statement thereof. A period of more than 3 years had been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement
of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 मई, 2022
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
nhun;ky iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kr=] संबंि जन ोिकों vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa जनर्िवष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 174/2018) izdkf'kr djrh
gSA
[la- ,y-37011/11/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 439.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ahmedabad shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Deendayal Port
trust and their workmen.
[No. L-37011/11/2018 -IR(B-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 12th April, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. - 174/2018
The Chairman,
Deendayal Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
….First Party
V/s
The President,
Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,
TCX-South-94, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/11/2018-IR (B-II) dated
20.11.2018 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Deendayal Port Trust in showing favouritism/bias in
carrying out transfers/postings and not following the transfer/posting policy in a transparent manner in
cases of Messengers/Daftry is legal, just and proper? And if not, what relief the concerned Union is
entitled to and to what extent? And what are the directions, if any, necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 07.12.2018. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by
the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Notice Exh. 2 issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written
statement thereof. A period of more than 3 years had been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement
of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
nhun;ky iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 175@2018½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gSA
[la- ,y-37011@01@2018-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
913
New Delhi,the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 440.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 175/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ahmedabad shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Deendayal Port
trust and their workmen.
[No. L-37011/01/2018 -IR(B-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 12th April, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. - 175/2018
The Chairman,
Deendayal Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,
TCX-South-94, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/01/2018-IR (B-II) dated
20.11.2018 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Deendayal Port Trust in fixing the license fee equivalent to
market rent for Port quarters vide circular No. GA/QR/1601/75 dated 05.06.2008 is legal, proper and
justified? If not, what relief the Port employees/workmen are entitled to and to what extent?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 07.12.2018. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by
the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Notice Exh. 2 issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written
statement thereof. A period of more than 3 years had been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement
of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 73@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@86@2007-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union
Bank of India, and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/86/2007-IR(B-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 73/2007
Date of Passing Award- 12/04/2022
Between:
Shri Mohd. Tasleem,
S/o Late Shri Ali Mohd.
R/o Village Gunoni, Post-Dharkot,
Tehri Garhwal (Uttaranchal)
… Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Dehradun Branch, Radha Place,
78, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun-248001.
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri Puneet Kumar (A/R) : For the claimant.
Shri Rajat Arora (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Union Bank of India, and its workman/claimant herein, under
clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No.
L-12012/86/2007 (IR(B-II) dated 07/12/2007 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating/disengaging Shri Mohd.
Tasleem, from the service of the Bank (Chamba Branch) w.e.f. 15.12.2004 without any notice and
compensation under section 25F, G and H of the Id Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?’’
As per the claim statement the claimant was working as a peon/messenger since 02/01/1998 in the
management Bank in it’s branch at Chamba in the district of Tehri on daily wage basis. When he was working
as such to the utmost satisfaction of the management leaving no scope for any complain, on 15/12/2004,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
915
suddenly the Bank management terminated his service. At the time of such termination, no notice, notice pay or
termination compensation was paid to him. The action of the Bank was in complete violation of the provisions
of sec 25F of the ID Act as he had worked continuously for the bank and had also worked for 240 days or more
in the calendar year preceding to his termination. His deceased father was a permanent employee of the
Management Bank. But for the work done by the claimant he was being paid his remuneration by vouchers on
putting his signature on the same. The effort made by the claimant by requesting the management for his
reinstatement turned out futile. Hence, he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer. But the
conciliation failed too and the appropriate Govt. referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Management Bank appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the workman
.While denying employer and employee relationship between them, the management has explained that in order
to provide better customer service the Bank sometimes engages casual worker for short terms and make
payment of wage to those persons working intermittently through payment vouchers. The management Bank
being a nationalized Bank has it’s own rules and procedure of employment. The vacancies are properly notified
and the sub staffs of the Bank are appointed from among the names sponsored by the Employment Exchange
subject to fulfillment of the requisite criterion. While denying the claim that the claimant had worked
continuously for the Bank from 1998 to 2004, it has been stated that the claimant was working for the Bank for
the period March 2003 to December 2004. The total no of the days he worked was only 84. Stating the details of
the days he had worked in a month in the WS, the management has pleaded that the claimant was not an
employee of the Bank appointed following due procedure and as such the question of his termination does not
arise at all. Thus the stand taken is that the claim is not maintainable as there never existed any industrial dispute
and the same is liable to be rejected.
In the replication filed the claimant has stated that at one point the Bank is admitting him as a casual
employee and again denying the employer employee relationship. By filing a certificate issued to him by the
then manager in 1998, he has taken a stand that in the certificate he has been described as a part time worker of
the Bank and the management is guilty of suppressing the truth.
On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal by order dated 10/01/2011 held that no other issue than
under the reference be made. At this juncture the claimant moved an application for a direction to the
management for production of documents like the original cash voucher, the cash payment register for the
period January 1998 to December 2004. But the management expressed inability to produce the documents on
the ground that the said documents are not in the possession of the Bank and whatever document is available
have been placed on record. Thus the Tribunal gave liberty to the claimant for filing secondary evidence and in
compliance thereto, the claimant has filed the photocopies of several payment vouchers and petty cash memos
for the period 2003 to 2004.
The claimant testified as WW 1 and besides his oral evidence, proved the photocopies of the cash
payment vouchers, petty cash receipts and one certificate issued by the then manager of the bank in the year
1998 describing him as a part time employee. On behalf of the Bank one of the Manager testified as MW 1 and
deposed exactly in the line of the stand taken in the written statement.
At the outset of the argument the learned AR for the Management submitted that when the
management has denied the employer employee relationship the burden is on the claimant to prove the same by
oral and documentary evidence. But in this case the documents filed by the claimant do not prove the same.
Mere filing of some cash payment vouchers will not prove his claim it when it is specifically pleaded that
between March 2003 to December 2004, the claimant had worked intermittently for 84 days as a casual worker.
No evidence has been placed on record to prove that he was working for the Bank from 1998 to 2003. In his
reply the learned AR for the claimant argued that the management in this case is the mighty employer and in
possession of all the relevant documents, which could have thrown light on the points of controversy. But the
management managed to suppress the documents and adverse inference should be drawn for the same. He also
argued about the certificate issued in the year 1998 by the Manager evidencing that he was a part time worker of
the Bank since 1998.
FINDINGS
The most important point for adjudication in this proceeding is about the alleged illegal termination of
the claimant by the management Bank. For the same it is to be decided first if the workman was working as a
peon/messenger on daily wage basis for the Bank for the period 02.01.1998 to 15.12.2004. The workman has
pleaded and laid evidence that he was working as such for the aforesaid period. The management took a stand
that the workman had never worked as a daily wage peon or messenger. He was working intermittently to carry
out the work as a casual worker during the period between March 2003 to December 2004. The admitted facts
are that no appointment letter or termination letter was issued by the management to the claimant. Thus, from
the evidence on fact it is to be ascertained if at all the workman was working for the Bank during the relevant
period. The workman as WW1 has fully supported the averments of the claim statement and produced a series
916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of documents which are in the nature of cash vouchers and petty cash memos. These are all photocopies filed by
the claimant as liberty was granted for adducing secondary evidence. It is worth mentioning here that the
claimant had demanded the management to file the documents like attendance register cash voucher register etc
for the relevant period. Though the management has admitted that the claimant was working from March 2003
to December 2004 and not from 1998 continuously, no document was produced. The management took a stand
that whatever document is available have already been placed on record. But surprisingly not a single document
has been placed on record by the management nor the witness of the management produced the same while
testifying. The circumstances lead to a conclusion that the management has suppressed the documents which
could have thrown light on the point of controversy.
Now the documents filed by the claimant are to be scrutinized. On scrutiny it is found that the
documents filed by the claimant includes one certificate issued to him by the manager of the Bank on
27.01.1998 describing him as the PTS and Peon working on daily wage basis. The claimant has filed
photocopies of several cash vouchers issued on different dates spanning from 2003 to 2004. These documents
also include two cash vouchers dated 20.02.1998 and 04.03.1998 which contain the signature of the claimant
and the seal and signature of the Bank official having its Branch at Chamba. The claimant has also filed a series
of petty cash memo issued during the period between 2003 to 2004. Basing on these documents the Ld. A/R for
the bank management submitted that the claimant was working intermittently for the bank 2003 to 2004.But
there are also petty cash memos issued on 03.03.1998 ,02.07.1998, 07.02.1998,13.02.1998 etc. There are several
such petty cash memos of the year 1998 which contains the signature of the bank official with seal and signature
of the claimant and these documents are in the nature of the evidence to prove that the claimant was working for
the bank during the period 1998 to 2004. The claimant has filed the copy of the police complaint lodged at the
PS on 03.01.2016 alleging loss of documents during travel. This copy of the FIR has been marked as WW1/1
and the same has not been disputed from the side of the management. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant proves that he was working in the management Bank having its branch at Chamba as a
casual worker on daily wage basis from 1998 to 2004 and whatever document was available with him has been
placed on record. He could not produce complete documents as some were lost in the year 2016. At the cost of
repetition be its stated here that the bank management in this case when called upon to produce the documents
failed to do so on the pretext that whatever document is available has been placed on record. But surprisingly no
document has been placed on record by the management and it is a clear case of suppression of documents by
the management for which adverse inference is bound to be drawn against the management.
Mr. Arora the LD. A/R for the Bank submitted that the primary burden is on the workman to show that
he was working as a daily wager in the Bank and had completed 240 days of work during the period of 12
months preceding to his alleged termination. He also pointed out that in the written statement the bank has given
a detail account of the days of work done by the claimant and the amount paid to him between March 2003 to
December 2004. Hence, the claimant has to adduce cogent evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in
the preceding calendar year before his termination. He also argued that the claimant since was working as a
daily wager there was no necessity of complying the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act.
In the case of Delhi Cantonment Board vs. CGIT 129(2006)DLT 610, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi have held that there is no distinction between permanent employee or a temporary employee and
termination of service without complying the provisions of section 25F is illegal. In the case of Jasmer Singh
vs. State of Haryana 2015(1)SCALE 360 the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that none compliance of the
provisions of section 25F at the time of termination when the workman was working as a daily paid worker is
illegal. But the Ld. A/R for the respondent strenuously argued that when there was no employer and employee
relationship between the claimant and the management the question of compliance of 25F was not at all
required. He thereby argued that heavy burden lies on the claimant to prove the employer and employee
relationship and in this case the claimant has miserably failed to do so. He also submitted that there being no
employment, there was no occasion for the management to issue the termination order.
The law is well settled that once the claimant acquires the status of workman within the meaning of
section 2(S) of the ID Act and completes 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year preceding his
termination, the same would be valid only after compliance of the due procedure laid down in section 25F of the
ID Act. The law is again well settled that the burden lies on the claimant to prove that he had worked for 240
days or more in the calendar year. In this case the management has only furnished a list of the days in which the
claimant was engaged by the Bank. The management is a nationalized bank and supposed to maintain all
relevant documents relating to employment of persons and payment made to them. Though, the management has
claimed that the claimant had all together worked for only 84 days between March 2003 to December 2004 not a
single piece of paper or document has been placed on record. On the other hand the documents though not
complete as filed by the claimant clearly shows that he was working from 1998 to 2004 and payment were made
to him through cash voucher and petty cash memos. This is a typical case of an illiterate low paid workman
advancing the claim against the mighty employer who is in possession of all relevant documents. Non
production of the documents by the management has no doubt influenced the merit of the case advanced by the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
917
claimant but that will not wipe out the rights of the claimant. Thus, from oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant it is clearly proved that he was engaged as a daily wager in the Bank from 02.01.1998
to 15.12.2004 when his service was illegally terminated by the Bank without comply of the provisions of section
25F of the Id Act. And the bank has intentionally suppressed the material documents relating to the claim of the
claimant.
The Hon’ble Supreme court way back in the year 1968 in the case of Gopal Krishna Ji Kedkar vs.
Mohhamad Haji Latif and others reported in AIR 1968 SCC 1413 came to hold that the burden of proving a
fact lies with the party which possesses the best evidence. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bal Kishan vs. Presiding Officer reported in 1996(3)SCT 548.
Recently the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. P.O. IT Panipat
reported in 2018 LLR 1229 have held that when documents were called but not produced the management is
guilty of withholding the documents which could have thrown light on the dispute.
The factual position of this proceeding is that the materials available on record being placed by the
claimant lead to a conclusion that the management had employed the claimant on daily wage basis from 1998 to
2004, made payment to him through cash vouchers and one of the manager had also issued a certificate of merit
to him. The witness examined on behalf of the management when confronted with the said certificate admitted
that the documents appears to be a letter of the Bank but he cannot certify its authenticity. Thus, in view of the
facts and the principles decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Fisheries Termianl
Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chabda (2010)ILLJ 3SC the none compliance of the conditions
specified in section 25F of the Id Act makes the termination of the claimant illegal. Since the claimant has
successfully proved through oral and documentary evidence about the work done for 240 days preceding to his
termination the burden shifts to the employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service. The management in this case has inexplicably failed to produce
the complete records and muster rolls for the relevant period and infact there was practically no challenge to the
deposition of the claimant except putting suggestions of the denial. Thus, it is held that the service of the
claimant was terminated without complying the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. The
action of the management in terminating the service of the claimant ignoring the period of work rendered by
him amounts to unfair labour practice and the management is guilty of suppressing material documents which
could have clarified the issue under dispute. Accordingly it is held that the claimant for the unfair labour
practice meted to him and for his illegal termination is entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant workman. Since the
alleged termination took place in the year 2004 and more than 18 years have passed in the meantime and it is not
known whether the claimant is still eligible to be employed, it is felt proper to direct the bank to pay a lumpsum
amount of compensation to the claimant instead of reinstating him into service. Accordingly the bank is directed
to pay Rs. 500,000/- to the claimant as a lumpsum compensation for the illegal termination of his service in the
month of December 2004. This amount shall be paid to the claimant within 3 months from the date when the
award would become enforceable failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of accrual and till the final payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for
notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2022
का.आ. 442.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार अिीक्षण ृुरातत्वजवि्, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, 22, माल रोड, , आगरा ( ू.ृी); मिाजनिेिक, भारती
ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, 11, िनृ , नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री इंद्रृाल ससंि, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर के ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा 15 of
2016) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
02.05.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42012/06/2016- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15 of 2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Superintending Archeologist ,Archeological Survey of India, 22, Mall Road, AGRA (U.P.); The
Director General, Archeological Survey of India, 11, Janpath, New Delhi, and Shri Indrapal Singh,worker which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.05.2022.
[No. L- 42012/06/2016- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 15 of 2016
L-42012/06/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016
BETWEEN :
Shri Indrapal Singh S/o Shri Yadav Singh,
Village-18, Balhera, Po-Malpura,
AGRA(U.P)-283102
AND
1.
The Superintending Archeologist
Archeological Survey of India,
Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,
AGRA(U.P.)-282001
2.
The Director General,
Archeological Survey of India,
Janpath, New Delhi-110011
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Government of India in letter no. L-42012/06/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating
services of Shri Indrapal Singh S/o Shri Yadav Singh workman with effect from 01.04.2014 is just
fair & legal ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”
On receipt of notification notice was issued to the parties on 23rd March, 2016. In response to the
notice the AR of the worker filed the claim statement on 22.04.2016. Later on 24.10.2016 AR of the
management filed a written statement. On 07.12.2017 A.R of the worker filed rejoinder. From thereon the case
was fixed for filling of the documents of the worker. On perusal of the record it is found that the worker failed
to make his presence before this Tribunal and did not file the documents.
On 05.04.2022, during the pendency of the dispute A.R of the worker filed a memo declining his
interest to pursue the dispute. The worker failed to communicate with the A.R despite his several futile attempts
to intimate the worker regarding the proceeding of the dispute. This clearly manifests the reluctance and non
interest of the workman to pursue the case. Pleadings of the workman are not to be read as substantive evidence.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
919
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2022
का.आ. 443.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म,1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार अिीक्षण ृुरातत्वजवि्, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, 22, माल रोड, आगरा ( ू.ृी); मिाजनिेिक, भारती
ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, 11, िनृ , नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ना ुआ, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर के ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा 16 of
2016) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
05.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42012/07/2016- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16 of 2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Superintending Archeologist , Archeological Survey of India, 22, Mall Road, AGRA (U.P.); The
Director General, Archeological Survey of India, 11, Janpath, New Delhi, and Shri Nathua,worker which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.04.2022.
[No. L-42012/07/2016- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 16 of 2016
L-42012/07/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016
BETWEEN :
Shri Nathua S/o Shri Chandan Singh,
42- Kandau Bara, Fatehpur Sikri,
AGRA (U.P)-283110
AND
1.
The Superintending Archeologist
Archeological Survey of India,
Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,
AGRA(U.P.)-282001
2.
The Director General,
Archeological Survey of India,
Janpath, New Delhi-110011
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Government of India in letter no. L-42012/07/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016
920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating
services of Shri Nathua S/o Shri Chandan Singh workman with effect from 01.01.2014 is just fair &
legal ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”
On receipt of notification notice was issued to the parties on 23rd March, 2016. In response to the
notice the Authorised Representative of the worker filed the claim statement on 22.04.2016. Later on
24.11.2016 AR of the management filed a written statement. On 07.12.2017 Authorised Representative of the
worker filed rejoinder. From thereon the case was fixed for filing of the documents of the worker. On perusal of
the record it is found that the worker failed to make his presence before this Tribunal and did not file the
documents.
On 05.04.2022, during the pendency of the dispute, the Authorised Representative of the worker filed a
memo declining his interest to pursue the dispute. The worker failed to communicate with the Authorised
Representative despite his several attempts to intimate the worker regarding the proceeding of the dispute. This
clearly manifests the reluctance and non interest of the workman to pursue the case. Pleadings of the workman
are not to be read as substantive evidence.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2022
का.आ. 444.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार प्रबंिन, गैरीसन इंिीजन र (ई / एम) 36 लाल बिािुर िास्त्री मागव, लखनऊ ; प्रबंिन, उन्नजत इंिीजन सव,
72 उस्ट्मान एन््लेव, से्टर-ओ, अलीगंि, लखनऊ, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री प्रिीृ,कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ के ृंचाट
(संिभव सं् ा 56/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉृी के सा 12.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-14012/21/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2019) 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 Management,Garrison Engineers (E/M),36 Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Lucknow ;The management, M/s
Unnati Engineers, 72 Usman Enclave, Sector-O, Aliganj, Lucknow, and Shri Pradeep,Worker which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2022.
[No. L-14012/21/2017- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
921
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 56/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/21/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29.10.2018
BETWEEN :
Sh Pradeep S/o Buddhu Prasad
Village – Jagankheda, Post – Barauni
Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow – 226002
AND
1.
The Management
Garrison Engineers (E/M)
Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Lucknow – 226002
2.
The Management
M/s Unnati Engineers
Usman Enclave, Sector-O, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-14012/21/2017- IR(DU) dated: 29.10.2018 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 to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF GARRISON ENGINEERS (PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER) & THEIR
CONTRACTOR M/S UNNATI ENGINEERS IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH PRADEEP,
EMPLOYED AS HELPER STATED TO BE SINCE 2006 TILL 08.09.2015, IS FAIR, JUST & LEGAL?
IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN ENTITLED TO & TO WHAT EXTENT?”
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to the Sh. Pradeep, S/o Buddhu Prasad Village – Jagankheda, Post
– Barauni, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim
along with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt
of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties
involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 16.08.2019 and the office was directed to issue
registered notice to the workmanfor filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on
24.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 24.10.2019 none turned up on behalf of the workman; however, the opposite
party No. 01 put up its appearance. Next date 08.01.2020 was fixed for filing of statement of claim. The
workman remained absent on 08.01.2020 also; accordingly, fresh notice was issued to the workman fixing
18.03.2020 to file statement of claim but workman remained absent on 18.03.2020 & 17.06.2020; and from the
track record of the notice sent to the workman, it was evident that the notice issued to the workman had been
delivered to him. Accordingly, the service of notice was sufficiently presumed vide order dated 27.11.2020;
however, in the interest of justice, another date was given for filing of statement of claim. The workman
remained absent on 27.11.2020, 22.01.2021, 26.02.2021, 18.05.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.12.2021, 11.02.2022 and
18.02.2022. The workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates normoved any application or
adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim. More than two years’ time has passed and the
workman has failed to file his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the
reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis
of which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there is
no grievance left with the workman. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned.
The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2022
का.आ. 445.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्द्री सरकार क्षेत्री जनिेिक, इग्नू क्षेत्री केंद्र, गवनवमेंट एसृीएमआर कॉलेि ऑफ कॉमसव ृररसर, अरसबंिो
ब्लॉक, कैनाल रोड, िम्मू (िम्मू और कश्मीर); मैससव बी.डी. जस् ोररटी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ृिली लेन, तीसरी
जबसल्डंग ग्रेटेड कैलाि, िम्मू (िम्मू और कश्मीर) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुनील कुमार, श्री संिीत
कुमार, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -ll, चंडीगढ़ के
ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा 167/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्री सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 26.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42012/44/2019- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 167/2019) 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 Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre, Govt. SPMR College of Commerce Premises,
Aurobindo Block, Canal Road, Jammu (J&K); M/s. B.D. Security Private Limited, 1st Lane, 3rd Building
Greated Kailash, Jammu (J&K), and Shri Suneel Kumar, Shri Sanjeet Kumar, Worker which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.04. 2022.
[No. L- 42012/44/2019- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. S. K. Thakur, Presiding Officer
ID No.167/2019
Registered on:-06.12.2019
Sh. Suneel Kumar S/o Lt. Madan Lal, Bharda Kilan,
The-Akhnoor, Distt. Jammu(J&K)-181201.
Sh. Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Mohinder Lal, H.No.71, Mandlik Nagar,
Toph Sherkhania, Jammu (J&K)-181121.
…Workmen
Versus
1.
The Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre, Govt. SPMR College
of Commerce Premises, Aurobindo Block,
Canal Road, Jammu(J&K)-18001.
2.
M/s B.D. Security Private Limited, 1st Lane,
3rd Building Greated Kailash, Jammu(J&K)-180002.
…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-08.03.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-42012/44/2019-IR(DU) dated 02.12.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
923
“Whether the action of management of Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre, Govt. SPMR
College of Commerce Premises, Aurbindo Block Canal Road, Jammu in terminating the services
Sh. Suneel Kumar S/o Lt. Madan Lal, Bharda Kilan, The-Akhnoor, Distt. Jammu(J&K)-181201
and Sh. Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Mohinder Lal, H.No.71, Mandlik Nagar, Toph Sherkhania,
Jammu (J&K)-181121 employed through security Agency B.D. Security Pvt. Ltd. 1st lane, 3rd
Building, Greater Kailash Jammu w.e.f. 30.07.2018 is just, fair and legal? If not to what relief the
workman is entitled to and from which date?’’
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as to the
respondent/management. The postal article sent to the workmen, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workmen. Workmen is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the
opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workmen is not interested in adjudication of
the matter on merit.
2.
Since the workmen has neither put their appearance nor they have filed statement of claim to prove
their cause against the respondent/management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.167/2019.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act
for publication.
S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2022
का.आ. 446.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्द्री सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, बीएसएनएल टेलीफोन ए्सचेंि, एृीटी. गुलबाई
टेकरा, गुिरात ूजनवर्सवटी रोड, नवरंगृुरा रोड,अिमिाबाि (गुिरात),; डी.ई. प्रभारी, भारत संचार जनगम
जलजमटेड, बी / एच ईएसआईसी अस्ट्ृताल, सामान् अस्ट्ृताल, बाृूनगर, अिमिाबाि; जनिेिक, मैससव अरसवंिकांत
सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िुकान सं् ा 3, लाभ रेिीडेंसी, अटलाटाड़ा, वडोिरा (गुिरात), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
सजचव, ऑल गुिरात लाल ववत कामिार ूजन न, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण
एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , अिमिाबाि के ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा 121/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै,
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 40011/15/2019- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 121/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, BSNL Telephone Exchange, Apptt. Gulbai
Tekra, Gujarat University Road, Navrangpura Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat); The D.E. Incharge, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, B/h ESIC Hospital, General Hospital, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad ; The Director, M/s Arvindkant
Security Agency, Shop No. 3, Labh Residency, Atlatada, Vadodara (Gujarat), and The Secretary, All Gujarat
Lal Vavata Kamdar Union , which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 27/04/2022.
[No. L- 40011/15/2019- IR (DU)]
D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 12th April, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. - 121/2019
1.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
BSNL Telephone Exchange, Apptt. Gulbai Tekra,
Gujarat University Road, Navrangpura Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380015
2.
The D.E. Incharge,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
B/h ESIC Hospital, General Hospital, Bapunagar,
Ahmedabad – 380015
3.
The Director,
M/s Arvindkant Security Agency,
Shop No. 3, Labh Residency, Atlatada,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390012
…First Parties
V/s
The Secretary,
All Gujarat Lal Vavata Kamdar Union,
B/104, Savigovind Plaza Bodakdev,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380015
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/15/2019-IR (DU) dated 30.08.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union, Secretary, All Gujarat Lal Vavata Kamdar Union, Ahmedabad
against the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ahmedabad & its Contractor, M/s
Arvindkant Security Agency, Vadodara for 1. Demand of payment of Bonus @ 8.33% for the year of
2017-2018. 2. Demand of 28 days leave with wages & 3. Payment of overtime wages on weekly off
days from 01.03.2017 to 31.03.2018 to Sh. Rameshsinh J. Tomer & Rajsinh A. Yadav, Contractual
Security Guard is legal, fair and justified? If yes, what relief, Sh. Rameshsinh J. Tomar & Rajsinh A.
Yadav are entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 16.09.2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by
the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Notice Exh. 2 issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written
statement thereof. A period of 2 and half years had been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement
of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
925
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-12012@11@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2022
S.O. 447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.17/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/11/2015– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2015
Present: P.K. Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)
Smt. Lakshmi Bai,
W/o late Hiralal,
6/88, Homeguard Colony,
Ratlam (MP)
…Workman
Versus
The Branch manager,
State Bank of India,
Main Branch Ratlam,
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 6-4-2022.)
As per letter dated 13/2/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12012/11/2015-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ratlam in verbally
terminating the services of workman Smt. Lakshmi Bai w.e.f. 12-2-2014 is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have submitted their statement of claim/defence.
2.
According to the workman, she was appointed as a daily wager for the work of gardening in the SBI
Main Branch Ratlam and has been working as such continuously since July-2013. Initially she was paid Rs.70/-
per day which was increased up to 4500/- per month. She was not being paid wages as per the Collector rate.
Her services were terminated by the Bank under an order on 12-2-2014. She made a representation against her
illegal termination before the Bank. Thereafter she raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner,
Central Government, Bhopal. The Management engaged another person for the same job after her removal.
According to the workman, her disengagement is bad in law and is violative of Section 25G of the Industrial
Disputes Act.1947(hereinafter referred to as the word Act) because she had completed 240 days in continuous
926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service of the Bank, in the year preceding the date of her dis-engagement. Accordingly, she has prayed that she
be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits, setting aside her dis-engagement.
3.
The case of the Management is mainly that the workman was a daily wager appointed on the basis of
availability of job . She was paid her daily wages. She never worked continuously for 240 days. She was
disengaged because the Bank decided to outsource the job and engaged an Outsourced Agency for the job.
According to the management, there is no illegality in her dis-engagement. Accordingly, the Management has
requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has filed notice of Regional Labour Commissioner issued to the Bank during the
conciliation proceedings and photocopy of RTI documents both marked as Exhibit W-1 and W-2 respectively.
Rest all the documents are photocopies denied by the Management and which were required to be proved by the
workman but the workman has not proved the same.
5.
Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to workman, she did not examine any witness, nor filed or
proved any documents. The management has also not examined any witness.
6.
No argument was submitted form the side of the workman and neither any written argument was filed.
I have heard learned counsel for the management and have perused the record.
7.
The reference is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.
8.
Before entering into any discussion, it is necessary to reproduce Section 25B and Section 25G of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which is as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of
work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in
continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he
shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the
workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one
hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii)
two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman,
during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the
case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in
any other case.
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.
9.
The burden to prove her claim is on the workman that she had been in continuous engagement of
Management for 240 days as mentioned under Section 25B referred to above, in the year proceeding the date
of her dis-engagement. In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T.Hadimani(2002) 3 SCC 25, it has been so
held. This view has been followed in other decision of Bhavnagar Municipla Corporation & Others Vs.
Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and Another(2014)16 SCC 130 and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Om
Prakash Sharma (2006) 5 SCC 123.
10.
The workman has not discharged its burden to prove her continuous engagement with the Management
Bank as referred to above. Hence, there is no material on record to hold the termination of service of workman
against law. Accordingly, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
927
11.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ratlam in verbally terminating the
services of workman Smt. Lakshmi Bai w.e.f. 12-2-2014 is held to be just and proper.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारत जतब्बत सीमा ृुजलस ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
30/2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-42012@183@2002-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2022
S.O. 448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of Bharat Tibet Sima Police and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.05.2022.
[No. L-42012/183/2002 –IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2003
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Smt. Mithelesh Jogi
W/o late Shri Prahalad Jogi,
Village Jogi Mohalla,
Old Shivpuri,
Shivpuri (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Commandant,
Bharat Tibet Sima Police,
Shivpuri, Guna(M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 12-4-2022)
As per letter dated 9-1-2003 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
42012/183/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Tibet Sima Police Shivpuri in orally terminating
the services of Smt. Mithilesh Jogi W/o late Shri Prahlad Jogi w.e.f. 1-4-1999 is legal and
unjustified? if not to what relief she is entitled to? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties have
filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Objection regarding maintainability of the reference was raised from the side of the management
during the course of hearing, hence with the consent of the parties, this objection was taken and was heard as a
preliminary point and is being decided after hearing.
3.
The connected facts are that according to the workman she worked in the Balwadi Shiksha Vidyalaya
School Indo Tibet Seema Police at Shivpuri in the period from 7-2-1992 to 31-3-1999 continuously in every
year for a period of not less than 240 days. Hence she was entitled to be regularized but the Management orally
terminated her services on 1-4-1999 without any notice or compensation which is against Section 25G of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947(referred to herein as the word ‘Act’). The workman raised a dispute. The
reference was sent by the Central Government to this Tribunal for adjudication after failure of conciliation.
4.
According to the management, no Balwadi School as mentioned by the workman is run by Indo
Tibetan Border Police in Shivpuri as claimed by the workman. A jhoolaghar was established in the year 1989 by
M.P. Bal Kalyan Parishad for the welfare of families of the soldiers in the Indo Tibetan Border Police force.
The Bal Parishad had granted budget for it. This jhoolaghar was run on the budget made available by State of
Madhya Pradesh . State of Madhya Pradesh has stopped this scheme, hence the jhoolaghar project work was
disbanded. The Indo Tibetan Border Police has no concern with this jhoolaghar. The workman was never
appointed by the Management of ITBP. The Management of ITBP is not an industry as defined in Industrial
Disputes Act,1947, hence the reference is not maintainable against the Management of ITBP. Also it has been
stated that the workman is not entitled to any relief from the Management of Indo Tibetan Border Police.
5.
On the basis of these pleadings of parties, the preliminary point which necessarily arises for
determination is as to whether the Indo Tibetan Border Police is industry as defined in Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 or not and secondly whether the reference is maintainable against the Management of Indo Tibetan
Border Police or not?.
6.
Learned counsel for the management has referred to Section 2J of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and
has submitted that since Indo Tibetan Border Police is a para military force established by Government of India
engaged in protecting the border thus doing the sovereign duties of a State cannot be said to be an industry in
the Act. Learned Counsel has further referred to OM No.10-9-2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary in the
Ministry of Home Affairs informing the Ministry of Labour that the Indo Tibetan Border Police is not an
industrial establishment, hence not covered. On the other hand it has been submitted from the side of the
workman that since the jhoolaghar was being maintained under Indo Tibetan Border Police, it will be an
industry for that purpose.
7.
Section 2j and 2k and 2ka of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 is being referred to as follows:-
[(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers
and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen;
(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected
with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the
conditions of labour, of any person;
[(ka) “industrial establishment or undertaking” means an establishment or undertaking in which
any industry is carried on:one or some of such activities is or are an industry or industries,
then,—
(a) if any unit of such establishment or undertaking carrying on any activity, being an
industry, is severable from the other unit or units of such establishment or undertaking,
such unit shall be deemed to be a separate industrial establishment or undertaking;
(b) if the predominant activity or each of the predominant activities carried on in such
establishment or undertaking or any unit thereof is an industry and the other activity or
each of the other activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or unit thereof
is not severable from and is, for the purpose of carrying on, or aiding the carrying on of,
such predominant activity or activities, the entire establishment or undertaking or, as the
case may be, unit thereof shall be deemed to be an industrial establishment or
undertaking;]
8.
The Indo Tibetan Border Police is undisputedly a Central Para Military force deputed for security of
Borders. It cannot be covered within the meaning of industry as mentioned in Section 2J of the Act as referred
to above because it is not into any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and
includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation, hence the applicant cannot be
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
929
said to be a workman for the purpose of the Act and the present dispute cannot be held to be an industrial
dispute as defined in the Act, as mentioned above.
9.
Hence in the light of the above discussion, the reference is held to be not maintainable before this
Tribunal and is liable to be answered accordingly.
10.
On the basis of the above discussion, the reference is answered as follows:-
Since the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force is not an industry as defined in Section 2j of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
11.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if'pe jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011@60@2017-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2022
S.O. 449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/60/2017– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/7/2018
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)
The General Secretary,
Bharatiya Rail Dalit Mazdoor Association,
H.No.1519/B, Road No.4
New Railway Colony, Ratlam (MP)
…Workman
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Ratlam (MP)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 11-4-2022)
As per letter dated 1-2-2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
41011/60/2017-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of DRM Western Rauilway, Ratlam in imposing
punishment of stoppage of one(1)Annual Increment w.e.f. 7/11/2008 in r/o Shri B.L.Suryavanshi,
without disposing his mercy appeal dated 16-12-2008 is just and proper? If not, to what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The workman during the whole proceedings was present for once and later on he absented himself on
all the dates fixed for hearing and nor has he filed any written statement of claim, inspite of several
opportunities being given.
3.
The Management though was represented by its learned Shri R.K.Soni but has not filed the statement
of defense, inspite of several opportunities granted, hence the case proceeded ex-parte against the workman vide
order dated 22/10/2021.
4.
The initial burden to prove their claim lies on the workman. He has not filed any statement of claim
nor has he filed any documents or evidence in his support. The workman has miserably failed to prove his
case. Hence this tribunal is constrained to decide the reference against the workmen.
5.
Accordingly an ex-parte award in favour of the Management is passed. The workman is held entitled
to no relief.
6.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if'pe jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41012@1@2002-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2022
S.O. 450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-41012/1/2002– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/2002
Present: P.K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ashok Kumar Jana
S/o Devendra Nath Jana,
Quarter No.405, Post Office Road,
Babukoli, Bilaspur(C.G.)
…Workman
Versus
The Deputy Chief Signal
& Telecommunication Engineer (Const.)
South Eastern Railway
Bilaspur (C.G.)
..Management
AWARD
(Passed on 8-4-2022)
As per letter dated 17/5/2002 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-41012/1/2002-IR(B-1).The dispute under reference relates to:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
931
“Whether the action of the management of Dy.CSTE(Constn.), S.E. Railway, Bilaspur in
terminating the services of the workman Shri Ashok Kumar Jana is justified?if not, what relief the
workman is entitled?” .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed on 25-3-1998
by Management post facto sanction was accorded by DRM Bilaspur vide letter dated 27-8-1998. The workman
was working to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was issued warning letters on 15-12-1999, 15-1-2000,
12-9-2000 and 10-7-2001 which were without any basis. On inquiry, he was served with a 14 days’ notice for
termination of his services vide order of management dated 30-8-2001. He submitted is reply to the notice. He
also moved an application before the Assistant labour Commissioner, Bilaspur against the proposed termination
notice. The Respondent management terminated his services w.e.f. 13-9-2001. Thereafter he raised an industrial
dispute. The Central Government made a reference to this Tribunal after failure of conciliation. According to
the workman, his termination was bad in law as he had worked for 240 days and was appointed against existing
vacancy with Post-Facto sanction of DRM, Bilaspur for appointment. His services were terminated without
granting any opportunity of hearing and without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,1947
in this respect. The Terminating Authority did not consider the fact that letters of warning were issued to the
workman without hearing his case, hence could not be considered. According to the workman, he deserves to
be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits and he has prayed accordingly.
3.
The case of the management is mainly that the workman was appointed as casual bungalow peon. He
had not completed three years of service up to the date of transfer to the other Railway Department. It was a
condition of his services that if his services were not found satisfactory then he can be terminated. These
conditions are mentioned in Circular No.P/R&R/Bungalow/Peon/Poly/1840 dated 29-8-2000, which are as
follows:-
(1) If a Substitute/Casual Bungalow Peon has not completed 3 years service up to the date of the
date of transfer to other Railway /department/long leave of the officer who engaged him,
then his/her service is to be terminated with due notice and his/her name is to be kept in live
casual Labour Register for re-engagement in future as per requirement, provided his service
was satisfactory.
(2) If the service of a bungalow Peon is unsatisfactory till regularization his services should be
terminated.
4.
The following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide order dated 30-3-2017 which are as
follows:-
1.
Whether the services of the workman are terminated complying with the Rule 301 of India
Railway Establishment Code & Circular dated 29-8-2000?
2.
Whether the termination of services of the workman is in violation of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947 and as such illegal?
3.
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?
5.
According to the management, the workman was in the habit of disobeying instructions/orders of his
superiors and used to remain continuously absent unauthorized from his duty without any proper information.
For these acts warning letters were issued to him from time to time. The Officer with whom he was engaged as
a casual bungalow peon was transferred and released the workman on 25-7-2001, hence his services were no
more required and he was liable to be terminated for which 14 days’ notice as required in Rule 301 of Indian
Railway Establishment Code-1 was given to him and his services were terminated accordingly. According to
the management, there was no illegality in terminating in terminating the services of the workman.
Accordingly, the Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
6.
In evidence, the workman filed photocopy documents regarding his educations qualification and some
certificates as well as pass/p.t.os issued to the workman. The workman filed his affidavit also but he never
appeared for cross-examination. The workman filed documents exhibit W-1 to W-15, admitted by the
management and which shall be referred to as and when required. The management has filed affidavit of its
witness. The workman did not appear to cross-examine the management witness, hence opportunity of cross-
examination was closed.
7.
The workman did not appear at the time of argument. He did not file any written argument. I have
gone through the record as well.
932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
ISSUE NO.1:-
The Rule 301 of India Railway Establishment Code-1 is being reproduced as under:-
301. Termination of service and period of notice—(1) Temporary railway servants.—When a person
without a lien on a permanent post under Government is appointed to hold a temporary post or to
officiate in a permanent post, he is entitled to no notice of the termination of his service if
such termination is due to the expiry of the sanction to the post which he holds or the expiry of the
officiating vacancy, or to his compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity or to his
removal or dismissal as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provisions of Clause (2) of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the termination of his service is due to some other cause, he
shall be entitled to one month’s notice provided he was engaged on a contract for a definite period and
the contract does not provide for any other period of notice; and to a notice of 14 days if he was not
engaged on a contract. Temporary railway servants with over three years continuous service, shall,
however, be entitled to a month’s notice. The periods of notice specified above shall apply on either
side, and steps should be taken to bring this condition to the notice of the railway servants concerned.
Note.—(1) Show cause notice is necessary for the termination of the service of permanent railway servants.
(2) Apprentices.—Except as otherwise provided in his service agreement, the service of an apprentice shall
be liable to termination on one week’s notice.
(1) Certain other railway servants.—The services of certain other railway servants specified below shall be
liable to termination on notice on either side for the periods shown against each. Such notice is not, however,
required in cases of dismissal or removal as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provisions of
clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity.
(a) Probationary officers and Group A & Group B
railway servants on Probation
3 month’s notice
(b) Gazetted railway servants on probation in the Medical department.
1 month’s notice
(c ) Group C and Group D railway servants on probation
1 month’s notic
(4) The service of any of the railway servants mentioned in clauses (1), (2) and (3) who is entitled to
a notice of stipulated period may be terminated forthwith and on such termination the railway
servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for
the stipulated period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them
immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which
such notice falls short of the stipulated period of notice.
Note. (i)—The appointing authorities are empowered to reduce or waive, at their discretion the
stipulated period of notice to be given by a railway servant but the reason justifying their
action should be recorded. This power cannot be re-delegated.
(ii) However, in respect of Group ‘A’ probationers of railway services undergoing
probationary training at the Centralized Training Institutes, this power may be exercised by
the heads of Centralized Training Institutes where their probationary training has been
centralized.
(Authority: Railway Board’s letter No. E(Trg.)2004(13)/2 dated 08.12.2004)
(5) The notice of termination of service or order of forthwith termination of service as the case may
be, under this rule should be given by an authority not lower than the appointing authority.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1), (2) and (4) of this rule, if the Railway servant
or Apprentice is one to whom the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, apply, he shall
be entitled to notice or wage in lieu thereof in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
Note.—No notice of termination will be necessary in a case where temporary railway servant is
deemed to have resigned his appointment and ceased to be in employment if such a person remained absent on
extraordinary leave beyond a limit of 5 years for whom no show cause notice is required as in the case of
permanent railway servants.
9.
The bear perusal of Rule 301 of India Railway Establishment Code-1 makes it clear that in case of
Group C and D Railway Servants on probation require one month notice before their termination. This notice
can be waived but the railway servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and
allowances for the stipulated period of notice at the same rates for which he was drawing earlier before his
termination. This is not disputed that the workman was in ‘D’ category.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
933
10.
This is also not disputed that the Management invoked its powers under Rule 301 of Indian Railway
Establishment Code-1 to terminate the workman, as it is clear from the written statement of defence filed by the
Management in reply to para-28 at page-8. The Management witness also states the same in her affidavit as her
examination in chief. It is also established that 14 days termination notice was given to the workman whereas
as per Rule 301 of India Railway Establishment Code-1 requires 30 days notice, hence the notice of termination
given to the workman does not have the force of law. The termination on such defective notice cannot be
justified in law. Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered.
11.
ISSUE NO.2:-
As submitted by learned counsel for the workman, the Department of South Eastern Railway is an
Industry as defined in Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Hence the present issue is an industrial dispute as defined
in Section 2(j) and 2(k) the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, which is as follows:-
Sec.2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘industry’ as any business, trade,
undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment,
handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen”.
Sec.2(k) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers,
or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected
with the Sec. 2 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 employment or non-employment or the terms
of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;
[(ka) “industrial establishment or undertaking” means an establishment or undertaking in which
any industry is carried on: Provided that where several activities are carried on in an
establishment or undertaking and only one or some of such activities is or are an industry or
industries, then,-
(a) if any unit of such establishment or undertaking carrying on any activity, being an industry,
is severable from the other unit or units of such establishment or undertaking, such unit shall be
deemed to be a separate industrial establishment or undertaking;
(b) if the predominant activity or each of the predominant activities carried on in such
establishment or undertaking or any unit thereof is an industry and the other activity or each of
the other activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or unit thereof is not
severable from and is, for the purpose of carrying on, or aiding the carrying on of, such
predominant activity or activities, the entire establishment or undertaking or, as the case may be,
unit thereof shall be deemed to be an industrial establishment or undertaking;]
12.
The workman has also referred to the Seven Judges Bench decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in
the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewarage Board, Etc. VS. R. Rajappa & Others(1978) 2 SCC 213
on this point. Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 also provides for 30 days notice or
compensation in lieu of notice before termination of an employee who has completed 240 days in continuous
service in the year preceding the date of his termination
13.
The Management does not dispute the claim of the workman that he had completed 244 days in service
in one year, hence holding the termination of the workman not proved as defined under Section 25G of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
14.
ISSUE NO.3:-
In the light of the findings recorded above, when the termination of the workman has been held against
law, the point still remains as to what relief the workman is entitled. The nature of appointment of workman
was temporary as it is established from the evidence on record, hence he is not entitled to reinstatement.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rs.one lakh) as full and final settlement in lieu of all the claims of the workman, will meet the ends of justice
in my view. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management “of Dy.CSTE(Constn.), S.E.Railway, Bilaspur in terminating
the services of the workman Shri Ashok Kumar Jana is held not justified in law and fact.
B. The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.one lakh) as
full and final settlement in lieu of all the claims of the workman.
16.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@54@2015-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2022
S.O. 451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.41/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/54/2015– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 12th April, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. - 41/2015
1.
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Regional Office, Nilambaug,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 364001
2.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Nilambaug Branch, Nilambaug,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 364001
3.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Chitra Branch,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat) - 364001
…First Parties
V/s
Shri Chandrasinh Juvarnsinh Vala,
Nr. Nirbhay Society, Plot No. 1,
Gurukul School Area, Pujanagar, Chitra,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri J.D. Chalishajar
For the Second Party
: None
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 7, 2022/वैिाख 17, 1944
935
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/54/2015-IR (B-I) dated 05.05.2015
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhavnagar in terminating the services
of Shri Chandrasinh Juvansinh Vala from service w.e.f. May, 2005 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief, the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 14.05.2015. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by
the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Notice Exh. 2 issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written
statement thereof. A period of approximately 7 years had been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 77/2019½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@91@2019-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2022
S.O. 452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.05.2022.
[No. L-22012/91/2019 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/77/2019
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha(HMS)
1864 Wright Town,
Jabalpur (M.P.)-482001
…Workman
936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 7, 2022/VAISAKHA 17 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The General manager,
Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL,
PO-Jamuna Colliery,
District Anuppur (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 7-4-2022)
As per letter dated 13/11/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-22012/91/2019-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of SECL in not correcting the date of birth of workman
Shri Das Prasad as per provisions of implementation instruction No.76 is justified? If not, what
relief the workman Shri Das Prasad S/o Hiralal is entitled for ? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
The workman never appeared and did not file any statement of claim.
3.
The management filed its written statement of defence, wherein it has been pleaded that the claim of
the workman was that he was first appointed on 18-1-1982. His qualification was Class-8th pass. His date of
birth as per his certificate was 4-7-1961. In the Mining Sirdar Certificate also the same date of birth was
recorded. This certificate was issued on 13-7-1990. In his service experts also his date of birth is 4-7-1961 but
someone had manipulated the record and changed it to 18-1-1958, since then his date of birth as 18-1-1958 was
recorded in every document maintained by the management as mentioned in para-11 of the written statement.
The workman has now relied on his school leaving certificate/mark sheet which was never produced before the
Management at any point of time, hence it cannot be accepted at the fag end of his career.
4.
The workman never appeared, hence the reference proceeded ex-parte against the workman. The
management filed affidavit of its witnesses and proved documents Exhibit M1 to M7 which are mainly
documents relating to his date of birth/age of the workman maintained by the Management since the date of his
first appointment.
5.
None appeared for the workman at the time of argument. No written argument was filed . I have heard
Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management and I have gone through the record as well.
6.
The Reference is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.
7.
The initial burden to prove his case is on the workman in which he has failed as there is no evidence or
even pleadings, stating the claim of the workman. On the other hand , from the evidence of Management
witness on oath and the documents proved by him, the case of the management, that the date of birth of the
workman is 18-7-1958 stands proved.
8.
Accordingly, holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered
against the workman.
9.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management of SECL in not correcting the date of birth of workman
Shri Das Prasad as per provisions of implementation instruction No.76 is held just and
proper.
B.T he workman is held entitled to no relief.
10.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.12 15:40:02 +05'30'