3565 GI/2022

(1083)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 23]

नई दिल् ली, िून 5— िून 11, 2022, िजनवार/ ज् येष् ठ 15— ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

No. 23]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 5—JUNE 11, 2022, SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 15–JYAISTHA 21, 1944

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप 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—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(व् यय जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 15 जसतम्बर, 2021

का.आ. 525.—रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उप-

जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, केंन् र सरकार एतिद्वारा भारतीय लेखा परीक्षा और लेखा जवभाग में भारत सरकार के

जनम् नजलजखत कायाालय जिसमें अस्ट् सी प्रजतित कमाचारीवृंि ने जिन् िी कायासािक का ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत

करती िै, अथाात:—

मिाजनिेिक अंतरााष्ट्रीय पयाावरण लेखा परीक्षा और सतत जवकास केन् र, ियपुर का कायाालय ।

[ई. फा. सं. ए-12034/02/2021-ई.िी.]

ऐनी िािा मैथ् यू, अपर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16062022-236581

CG-DL-W-16062022-236581

1084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE)

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2021

S.O. 525.—In pursuance of sub – rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Government of India in

the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi, namely —

Office of the Director General International Centre for Environment Audit and Sustainable Development,

Jaipur.

[E. F. No. A-12034/02/2021-EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Addl. Secy.

जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2022

का.आ. 526.—बैंककारी जवजनयमन अजिजनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 53 (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों

का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, भारतीय ररिवा बैंक की जसफाररि पर, एतद्द्वारा, यि घोषणा करती िै दक उि

अजिजनयम की िारा 10 की उप-िारा (1) के खण्ड (ग) के उप-खंड (i) के उपबंि पंिाब नैिनल बैंक पर लागू निीं िोंगे,

ििां तक इसका संबंि पंिाब नैिनल बैंक के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मुख्य कायाकारी अजिकारी, श्री अतुल कुमार गोयल को

पीएनबी िाउससंग फाइनेंस जलजमटेड और पीएनबी मैटलाइफ इंजडया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड के बोडा में दिनांक

31.12.2024 तक अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनिेिक के पि पर नाजमत करने से िै।

[ई. फा. सं. 13/24/2016-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2022

S.O. 526.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of

1949), Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions

of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Punjab National Bank

in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri Atul Kumar Goel, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer,

Punjab National Bank to the Boards of PNB Housing Finance Limited and PNB MetLife India Insurance Company

Limited as a Director, for a period up to 31.12.2024, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[E. F. No. 13/24/2016-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2022

का.आ. 527.—बैंककारी जवजनयमन अजिजनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 53(1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों

नेिनल क्रेजडट गारंटी रस्ट्टी कंपनी जलजमटेड के जनिेिक मंडल में दिनांक 31.12.2024 तक की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगले

आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, नाजमत करने से िै।

[ई. फा. सं. 13/24/2016-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1085

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2022

S.O. 527.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of

1949), Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions

of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Punjab National Bank

in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri Atul Kumar Goel, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer,

Punjab National Bank to the Board of Directors of National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Limited, for a period

up to 31.12.2024 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[E. F. No. 13/24/2016-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

जविेि मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2022

का.आ. 528.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के दूतावास, सीओल में िरि चंर जत्रपाठी और प्रिांत कुमार यािव, सिायक अनुभाग

अजिकाररयों को दिनांक 03 िून, 2022 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकाररयों के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के जलए

प्राजिकृत करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2022(22)]

एस.आर.एच. फहमी, उप सचचव (काांसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2022

S.O. 528.— 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 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sharad Chandra

Tripathi and Shri Prashant Kumar Yadav, both Assistant Section Officers as Assistant Consular Officers in the

Embassy of India, Seoul to perform the Consular services with effect from 03 June, 2022.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2022(22)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Cansular)

जिक्षा मंत्रालय

(उच्चत्तर जिक्षा मंत्रालय)

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 529.—केंर सरकार, सरकारी स्ट्थान (अप्राजिकृत अजिभोजगयों की बेिखली) अजिजनयम, 1971

(1971 का 40) की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए डॉ. जबजपन कुमार जतवारी, सि-प्रोफेसर, रािनीजत

जवज्ञान जवभाग, दिल्ली जवश्वजवद्यालय को उि अजिजनयम के प्रयोिनाथा, संपिा अजिकारी जनयुि करती िै, िो दिल्ली

जवश्वजवद्यालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन सावािजनक पररसरों के संबंि में दिल्ली अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट्थानीय सीमाओं के

भीतर उि अजिजनयम के तित संपिा अजिकारी को प्रित्त की गयी िजियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और दिए गए कायों का

जनष्पािन करेंगे।

[फा. सं. 4-11/2021-सीयू.II]

मृतयुंिय बेिेरा, आर्थाक सलािकार (सीयू&ए)

1086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION)

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 529.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Bipin Kumar Tiwari,

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, as Estate Officer for the purposes of the

said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer under the said

Act within the local limits of jurisdiction in Delhi in respect of the public premises under the administrative control of

the University of Delhi.

[F. No. 4-11/2021-CU.II]

MRUTYUNJAY BEHERA, Economic Advisor (CU&A)

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी, 2022

का.आ. 530.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, सिंिुस्ट्तान एयरोनॉरटक्स जलजमटेड, चकेरी, कानपुर (यूपी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री नीरि िुक्ला, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानपुर पंचाट (संिभा

संख्या 19 of 2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 17/02/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[la- ,y-42012/180/2012- आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2022

S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19 of 2013) 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 General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Chakeri, Kanpur (U.P.) and Shri Neeraj Shukla,

worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/02/2022.

[No. L- 42012/180/2012- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 19/2013

Ref. No. L-42012/180/2012-IR(DU) dated: 05.03.2013

BETWEEN :

Shri Neeraj Shukla S/o Shri Krishan Dutt Shukla

House No. 107, Rooma

Kanpur (UP)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1087

AND

The General Manager

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Chakeri, Kanpur (UP)

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/180/2012-IR(DU) dated: 05.03.2013 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

16.09.2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.,

IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SHRI NEERAJ SHUKLA S/O SHRI KRISHAN DUTT

SHUKLA WORKMAN W.E.F. 10.03.2008 IS JUST FAIR AND LEGAL? IF NOT, TO WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO?”

3. The case of the workman, Neeraj Shukla, in brief, is that he was appointed as labourer with opposite

party establishment in April, 1997 in HPT 32 Section and thereafter was transferred to Donier Section in

the year 1998; and subsequently was transferred to the section which dealt with the maintenance of

telephone lines, installed in the residential colony of the establishment. The workman has submitted that he

used to clean aircrafts in HPT 32 section and Donier Section and w.e.f. 08.08.2007 he used to look after

maintenance of telephone lines of the residential colony of the opposite party under supervision of various

officers of the management of HAL. The workman has submitted that he worked continuously since his

appointment up to 10.03.2008, when his services have been illegally terminated without any notice/notice

pay or any retrenchment compensation. The workman has alleged that number of employees who were in

employment in the same manner, who were junior to him were regularized; and accordingly, has prayed that

his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with consequential benefits including full back

wages.

4. The management of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has filed its written statement; wherein it has

denied the claim of the workman and has submitted that the workman had never been appointed by the

opposite party in any capacity; nor did he under go any recruitment process, prescribed for the Public

Sector Undertaking, as such, there was no termination of his services at any point of time as there was no

relationship of employee and employer between the workman and the HAL at any point of time. Moreover,

the management has submitted that in fact the workman was an employee of M/s Mehrok Enterprises to

whom work contract for repair and maintenance of Telecom and Telecom Equipments at the Township was

assigned. The management has categorically stated that the workman was never paid any amount as salary

or otherwise. The management of HAL has also submitted that it had no control over performance of work

in respect of the workman engaged through the contractor, M/s Mehrok Enterprises. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein apart from reiterating averments already made in the

statement of claim, has submitted that he was an employee of the HAL and has no concern with M/s

Mehrok Enterprises.

6. The parties have filed photocopy of documents in support of their respective claim. The workman

examined himself whereas the management examined Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Chief Manager (Human

Resources) in support of their pleadings and the parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

of each other. The parties also made oral submissions in support of their case.

7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties at length; and perused entire evidence on record.

8. The learned authorized representative of the workman has submitted that the workman had been appointed

as labourer with opposite party establishment in April, 1997 and continued to work in different sections,

under supervision of the superior authorities, without any break till the date of his alleged termination i.e.

10.03.2008. The learned counsel has also alleged that the management adopted pick and choose policy and

regularized many juniors, sparing the workman, which is against settled principles of law and also his

termination is illegal as the management terminated the services of the workman without any notice or

notice pay or any retrenchment compensation in lieu thereof in utter violation of provisions of Section 25 F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. In rebuttal, the learned counsel of the management has argued that the workman had never been

appointed in any capacity with the HAL; rather his services were availed by assigning a contract of work to

1088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

one M/s Mehrok Enterprises, which engaged the workman to complete the work allotted to it through

contract; hence there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of HAL and

the workman, therefore, there arise no question of violation of any statutory provision or termination of the

workman at any point of time. Moreover, he submitted that being a Public Sector Undertaking the opposite

party management has prescribed procedure for recruitment on various posts etc. and the workman had never

gone through regular recruitment process. It is also the case of the management that it was the contractor

who used to allot work to the workman and used to supervise his work and the management of HAL had

no control over the workman at all. The learned counsel has relied upon:

(i)

2015 (144) FLR 830 Oshiar Prasad & others vs Employers in Relation to Management of

Sudamadih Coal Washery of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad.

(ii)

2019 LLR 515 (SC) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and othrs.

(iii)

2014 (143) FLR 1 (SC) Balwant Rai Saluja& another vs Air India Limited & others.

(iv)

2015 LLR 137 (Bombay High Court) M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr.

JagannathVithalJagrap& another.

(v)

20-18 LLR 488 (Patna High Court) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Barauni vs The Union of India.

(vi)

2009 (121) FLR 1151 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) M/s Ghai Rubber India vs Dev Raj &

another.

(vii)

2009 (122) FLR 359 (Delhi High Court) ChanderSain& others vs J.B. Garments.

(viii) 1992 LAB IC 75 (SC) Dena Nath& others vs National Fertilizers Ltd. & others

(ix)

2014 LLR 842 (Jharkhand High Court) Their Workmen, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union v s

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & another.

(x)

2006 (109) FLR 204 (SC) Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation

Ltd. & anther vs S.C. Pandey.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings and submissions of the parties and

scanned entire evidence on record.

11. It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as Peon by the opposite party; but was not given

any appointment letter; and he worked with the opposite party continuously for the period from April, 1997

up to 10.03.2008; however, his services were terminated orally w.e.f. 10.03.2008 without any notice or

notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention of the provisions contained in the section 25 F of the I.D. Act,

1947 instead of fact that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

12. Per contra, the single pointed case of the management is that the workman was never selected or

appointed by the management of the HAL and there was no relationship of employee and employer between

the workman and the HAL; however, his services had been availed through a contractor, for which a formal

contract had been assigned to the contractor. Learned representative has also pleaded that the management

never made any payment to the workman and there was no relationship of employer and employee between

the management of the HAL and the workman; therefore, there arose no question of terminating his services

or violation of any of the provision of the Act.

13. The workman in his oral evidence on oath has stated that he worked w.e.f. April, 1997 to 10.03.2008

without any break; however, during cross-examination he could not prove any appointment letter. The

workman has filed photocopy of number of documents which go to show that that the workman had been

working as casual worker in years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. He has submitted photocopy of medical

prescription of Medical Department of HAL, Kanpur dated 10.08.2007 in respect of himself. The workman

has also tried to summon original of the documents filed by him which has been denied by the

management, taking stand that the workman was not their employee rather he was employee of a contractor

viz. M/s Mehrok Enterprises. The assertion workman Neeraj Shukla that he was given appointment by the

HAL authority as per document marked paper no. 12/14 is found to be fallacious. On referring to paper no.

12/14 it is manifestly clear that in that paper workman Neeraj Shukla has been shown as casual worker.

The papers 12/15 and 12/19 clearly show that claimant workman was engaged as casual labour. The papers

marked paper no. 12/13, no. 12/14, no. 12/15 no. 12/16, no. 12/17 indicate that claimant workman was

engaged as casual worker. Simply because medical assistance was provided to the wife of the claimant it

cannot be logically concluded that the workman was employee of the O.P. HAL. In paper no. 13/33

presumably a gate-pass he has been shown as worker of the establishment M/s Mehrok Enterprises. He has

passed class VIII and it is doubtful if one class VIII pass out could be absorbed against any regular

vacancy. No letter of appointment has been proved on behalf of the workman. In such scenario it can be

logically concluded that workman Neeraj Shukla was engaged by Contractor M/s Mehrok Enterprises. In

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1089

Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. Reported in [ 2014 (143) FLR 1] at para 57, it has been observed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following words:

Further, the above case made reference to the case of the International Airport Authority of India

case (supra) wherein the expression "control and supervision" in the context of contract labour was explained

by this Court. The relevant part of the International Airport Authority of India case (supra), as quoted in

Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case (supra) is as follows:

"38. ... if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will

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

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

if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and

control lies with the contractor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim of the workman that he was directly hired by the Officer of the HAL is not supported with

evidence. Rather claimant has admitted that he did not undergo any examination or interview. Some

other technically qualified workmen might have been given appointment by the HAL authorities but

that circumstance will not confer any legal right on the claimant to be absorbed in any permanent

job in the HAL. After all recruitment for regular posts in the HAL is governed by separate rules.

Photocopy of letter of contract dated 26.03.2007, ( Paper no. 13/34, no. 13/35, no. 13/36) issued to the

contractor, M/s Mehrok Enterprises has been referred. From perusal of said contract letter it is

evident that the contract period was limited to 07.04.2007 to 06.04.2008 only and in the instant

case the workman has claimed to have worked from April, 1997 to 10.03.2008.

14. Admittedly, the workman had neither under gone through regular recruitment process nor had been given

any appointment letter; however, there is ample evidence to record this finding that the workman had

actually worked for more than 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination i.e. 10.03.2008; and oral termination of his services, without any notice or notice pay in lieu

thereof was in violation of the section 25 F of the I.D. Act, thus, the alleged termination of the services of

the workman was neither legal nor justified.

15. Now, it is to be considered as to whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence

produced by the workman it is not proved that his appointment was as a regular worker. Admittedly, the

services of the workman were terminated orally on 10.03.2008. In Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh

(2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question regarding

award of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that

the termination of service was in violation of section 25 F of the Act, entire back wages should

be awarded ………………………………….. However, where the total length of service rendered by

a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of

termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be

wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which required to be taken into consideration, is

the nature of employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to

short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”

16.

Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC

(L&S) 545: Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others

(2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of

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

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

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

instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

1090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed

240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not

been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.”

17. In the light of principles laid down in aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper to

direct that the workman be reinstated in service. By paying compensation to the workman instead in place

of relief of reinstatement in service ends of justice can be upheld. It is more or less clear that he was a

casual worker engaged by a Contractor. He accepted his casual job on his volition. Since the claimant

workman has come up with the false pleadings and assertions he should not be rewarded with huge

compensation to be borne by H.A.L. At this distant point of time exact compensation with mathematical

exactitude cannot be worked out.

18. Having regards to these facts that the workman has worked as daily wager for approximately 11 years,

therefore, keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the law, the interest of justice would be

subserved, if, the management is directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation only instead of

reinstatement.

19. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- Rupees One Lakh only) to the

workman as compensation for termination of his services to be deposited as HAL in the account of the

workman. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of publication of the award,

failing which; the same shall carry simple interest @ 8% per annum.

20. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

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

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 531.—औद्योचिक चववाद अचिचियम, 1947(1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससस चवश्वकमास फीड ांि एजेंसी, क्योंझर के प्रबांितांत्र के सांबद्ध चियोजकों और चमस्टर िीरेि पूठा, डसांघभूम (वेस्ट),

झारखण् के बीच अिुबांि में चिर्दसष्ट औद्योचिक चववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योचिक अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय,

ििबाद-2 पांचाट (सांदभस सांख्या 11/2015) को प्रकाचित करती है।

[सं. एल-26012/4/2014-IR(M)]

ी. िुहा, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad-2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of M/s Vishwakarma Feeding Agency, Keonjhar and Mr. Dhiren Putha, Sighbhum

(West), Jharkhand.

[No. L-26012/4/2014-IR(M)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S. K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 11 OF 2015.

PARTIES:

Mr. Dhiren Putha,

C/O Jharkhand General Kamgar Union,

At: Jorapokhar, PO: Jhinkpani, Singhbhum (West), Jharkhand.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1091

Vs.

M/a Vishwakarma Feeding Vijay II Iron Mine, M/s Usha Matin Ltd., Agency Contractor,

At: Station Road, PO: Barbil Distt: Keonjhar, KEONJHAR

Order No. L-26012/4/2014-IR(M) dated 07.10.2014

On behalf of the workman/Union

…None

On behalf of the Management Mr.R.Rao,Ld.Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Dhanbad

Dated the 25^th March, 2022

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-26012/4/2014-IR (M) dated 07.10.2014.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s Vishwakarma Feeding Agency is justified in

terminating the services of Sh.Dhiren Puthal? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Upon the Reference Industrial Dispute got registered after receipt from Government of India notices were

sent to both the litigant par ties, i.e., workman and Management. The Notice sent by Regd. Post likely to have

reached its destination as none turned undelivered. Workman filed statement of general nature against the

O.P./Management on 16.06.2015. The OP/Management could not be able to file the counter claim and kept

on buying time on different pretext.

The workman concerned merely filing the statement of general nature without any specific claim or

documents in support of the dispute raised did not take initiate nor make effort to proceed further to contest

the Case on merit even after being rendered service of notices and suo motu adjournments. Rather he left the

proceedings in midway pointing to fact the matter being rendered infructuous. Since the Reference cannot be

kept pending for an indefinite period specially when the person who raised the matter backed out to contest.

There is no ground to drag the issue further without any basis .Simultaneously The Tribunal is left with no

option except to pass a No Dispute Award in the lack of interest of the workman. The matter appears to have

resolved. Under present scanty facts of the reference, the present matter did not call for any merit despite the

remedy available under I.D. Act. The workman could not avail of it .Hence with facts and circumstances, in

the present an Award bearing No.11/2015 is passed with no relief to the workman whatsoever .

Let the copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government as required under the act for publication.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 532.—औद्योचिक चववाद अचिचियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार जिरल मैिेजर, मेससस स्टील अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इांच या चलचमटे , ििबाद के प्रबांितांत्र के सांबद्ध चियोजकों और

सेक्रेटरी, झारखण् जिता मज़दूर यूचियि, ििबाद के बीच अिुबांि में चिर्दसष्ट औद्योचिक चववाद में केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योचिक अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय, ििबाद-2 पांचाट (सांदभस सांख्या 36/2016) को प्रकाचित करती है।

[सं. एल-26012/6/2016-IR(M)]

ी. िुहा, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 532.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad-2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The General Manager, M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., Dhanbad and The

Secretary, Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union, Dhanbad.

[No. L-26012/6/2016-IR(M)]

D.GUHA Under Secy.

1092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officers

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1) (D) OF THE I.D. ACT., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 36 OF 2016.

PARTIES:

The Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,

Vishwakarma Colony, Nutundih PO: Jagjivan Nagar, Distt: Dhanbad -826003

Vs.

The. General Manager,

M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd,

Chasnalla Colliery, PO: Chasnalla, Dhanbad

Order No. L-26012/6/2016-IR(M) dated 24.06.2016

On behalf of the workman/Union

:Mr. Pintu Mandal Union Representative

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State: Jharkhand Dhanbad

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 25^th March 2022

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-26012/6/2016-IR(M) dated 24.06.2016.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management fair, legal and justified to superannuate Sri Y.K.Vaswani, on

30.06.2015 while he should be superannuated on 30.06.2018 on the basis of his date of birth assessed

06.06.1958 at the time of appointment by Medical Officer of the Company, and the same date of birth

mentioned as in the LPC Bio date, Identity Card, Medical of Company, and other document etc. If not so,

what relief Management can provide to him. ”

Since the Reference Industrial Dispute got registered after receipt from Government of India notices were

issued upon the workman as well as the Respondent/management. The Notice sent by Regd. Post likely to have

reached its destination as none turned undelivered. Workman is provided ample sufficient opportunities to file claim

statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement. The I.D case since its

inception on 04.07.2016 concluded on 24.03.2022 but during the entire proceeding of hearing barring one appearance

by the Union Representative they did nothing to file claim of statement.

As a matter of fact workman has neither put appearance nor has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the Respondent/Management knowing very well of limitation of time for filing such claim. So the matter is

perceived to have lost the issue as there is no further need to proceed ahead. Under such circumstances the Reference

cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period as there is much possibility of the matter rendered inftuctuous thereby

Tribunal is left with no option except to pass a “No Claim Award”. Hence, facts and circumstances, in the present

matter do not call for any merit. Accordingly “No Claim Award” is passed in the instant reference ID No. 36/2016.

3 Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under the Act for publication.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 533.—औद्योचिक चववाद अचिचियम, 1947(1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस यूरेचियम कॉपोरेिि ऑफ़ इांच या चलचमटे , जादुिोड़ा, झारखण् के प्रबांितांत्र के सांबद्ध चियोजकों और उिके कमसकार

के बीच अिुबांि में चिर्दसष्ट औद्योचिक चववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योचिक अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय, ििबाद-1 पांचाट

(सांदभस सांख्या 113/2002) को प्रकाचित करती है।

[सं. एल-29011/32/2002-IR(M)]

ी. िुहा, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1093

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 113/2002) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of M/s Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., Jadugoda, Jharkhand and Their

Workman.

[No. L-29011/32/2002-IR(M)]

D. GUHA, 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. 113/2002

Employer in relation to the management of Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., Jadugoda.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri P.R. Rakshit, Advocate.

For the workman. : None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Uranium

Dated 18/04 /2022

AWARD

By Order No. L-29011/32/2002-(IR(M)) dated 08.10.2002 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 action of the management of UCIL in not allowing the representatives of UCIL

Ministerial Staff Association in wage negotiations justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled?”

The reference is received on 18/11/2002 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, UCIL Ministerial

Staff Association, Jaduguda 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 workman/union appeared on 20/02/2003, but subsequently workman/union did not

appear before this Tribunal. Further the management had appeared on certain dates. Thereafter, again three regd.

notices were issued to both the parties but the notice issued to union returned unserved. Now this case is pending

since 18/11/2002 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt that workman/union has lost its

interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 534.—औद्योचिक चववाद अचिचियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस जीचियस कांसल्टेंट्स चलचमटे , िई ददल्ली; मेससस बाल्मेर लॉररए एां कॉपोरेिि चलचमटे , िई ददल्ली के प्रबांितांत्र के

सांबद्ध चियोजकों और श्री अरुण कुमार, हररयाणा के बीच अिुबांि में चिर्दसष्ट औद्योचिक चववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योचिक

अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय, िई ददल्ली-2 पांचाट (सांदभस सांख्या 138/2020) को प्रकाचित करती है।

[सं. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]

ी. िुहा , अवर सजचव

1094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi-2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s Genius Consultants Ltd., New Delhi; M/s Balmer Lawrie &

Co. Ltd., New Delhi and Shri Arun Kumar, Haryana.

[No. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty

ID.NO. 138/2020

Sh. Arun Kumar,

R/op C-139, Dabua Colony, Ward no.-07,

7, Lodhi Church, NIT Faridabad, Haryana-121001

…Workman

Versus

1.Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.

Core-08, Ground Floor, Scope Complex,

7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. Genius Consultants Ltd.,

A-25, 2^nd Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

NewDelhi-110044

….Managment

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference no. ND

96(04)2020-ID-FOC-Dy. CLC(C), New Delhi dated 01.07.2020/10.08.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Genius Consultants Ltd. (Contractor of Balmer Lawrie

& Co. Ltd.) in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Arun Kumar w.e.f 06.03.2019 is just, fair

and legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that

the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1095

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 535.—औद्योचिक चववाद अचिचियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार न्द्यू इांच या असुरेन्द्स कॉपोरेिि चलचमटे के प्रबांितांत्र के सांबद्ध चियोजकों और चमस अिीता रािी त्यािी, िई ददल्ली

के बीच अिुबांि में चिर्दसष्ट औद्योचिक चववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योचिक अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय, िई ददल्ली-2

पांचाट (सांदभस सांख्या 168/2012) को प्रकाचित करती है।

[la- ,y-17011/7/2012-IR(M)]

Mh- xqgk, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 168/2012) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi-2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of New India Assurance Corporation Limited and Ms. Anita Rani Tyagi.

[No. L-17011/7/2012-IR(M))]

D. GUHA, 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. 168/2012

Date of Passing Award- 30.05.2022

Between:

Ms. Anita Rani Tyagi,

W/o Shri Dinesh Tyagi,

Through The General Secretary,

General Insurance Employees Federation,

NR.C-3, Community Centre,

Naraina, New Delhi-110028

…. Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

New India Assurance co. Ltd.,

87, M. G Marg, Fort,

Mumbai-400001.

The DY. General Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Scope Minar, Core-1,

Laxmi Nagar, District Centre,

New Delhi-110092.

3. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

339, Bombay Bazar,

Meerut (U.P) 250001

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Rajiv Agarwal

…For the workman(A/R)

Shri Naveendeep Singh

…For the Management (A/R)

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and its workman/claimant

herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act

1096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1947 vide letter No. L-17011/7/2012 (IR(M) dated 10/12/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of the management of New India Assurance

Company Limited of imposing penalty of reducing the basic pay of workmen Smt. Anita

Rani Tyagi from the cadre of Sr. Assistant to the basic pay of Assistant in violation of order

of Disciplinary Authority dated 10/08/2009 is illegal and unjustified? If so to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

This order deals with the grievance of the claimant with regard to the punishment imposed on her

in the domestic inquiry which she describes as unreasonably disproportionate to the charge leveled against

her.

In order to deal with the dispute and controversy, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts as per

the claim statement in detail.

The claimant at the relevant time was working as a Senior Assistant in the management. On

03.06.2008, with the permission of her superior she had gone to the office of her senior colleague Mr. Subash

Yadav to ascertain as to why a substantial amount of her medical claim was disallowed. It was about 4pm

and Mr. Yadav was in his cabin alone. when the claimant asked him as to why Rs 4000/- has been deducted

from the medical reimbursement bill raised by her, he instead of answering passed some coloured remarks

and caught hold of her hand with some ulterior intention. When she raised alarm, Mr. Yadav tore the cheque

held by her and threatened her of departmental action. The claimant on the same day lodged a complaint at

the local police station and for outraging the modesty of a woman, a case u/s 354 IPC was registered and the

same is still pending. On the next day i.e on 04.06.2008, she also lodged a complaint to the higher authorities

against Mr. Yadav. Mr. Yadav in order to save his skin, made a counter allegation against the claimant and

the management took prompt action on the same and on 04.06.2008, placed her under suspension and on e

departmental inquiry was initiated. The charge framed against the claimant was that she on 03.06.2008, she

misconducted herself by shouting at the top of her voice at the senior colleague and even slapped him in the

office.

The departmental inquiry was conducted hastily violating the principles of natural justice and at the

end, the punishment was handed over by which her current pay in the cadre of senior assistant was reduced to

the initial scale of pay applicable to the senior assistants. The said punishment was given in terms of Rule

23(F)of the New India Assurance Company Ltd (conduct ,discipline and appeal) Rules 2003.

Being aggrieved the claimant preferred departmental appeal and revision. But those were decided

against her too. Having no other departmental remedy available, she approached the Labour commissioner

for conciliation. But for the pre occupied mind of the management conciliation failed and the appropriate

Govt. referred the matter for adjudication, if the punishment imposed is proper and legal. If not, to what relief

the claimant is entitled to.

The management was called upon to file reply, wherein the management justified the action taken against the

claimant. This Tribunal framed altogether three issues and the issue no 1 relating to the fairness of the Domestic

inquiry was heard and considered as a preliminary issue. The tribunal after considering the materials placed on record,

by order dated 08.01.2020 came to hold that the domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance to the Rule and

procedure and principles of natural justice was thus found followed in the inquiry. That issue was accordingly decided

against the claimant. And it was directed that the claimant shall adduce evidence on the proportionality of the

punishment imposed on her. But for the objection raised by the learned AR for the management that once the

domestic inquiry is held to have been conducted fairly, there is no scope for adducing fresh evidence and the Tribunal

has the power to give a decision on the proportionality of the punishment on the materials available on record. This

argument was obviously resisted by the claimant. But by order dated 16.12.21, both parties were called upon to argue

if the punishment imposed comensurates the charge of misconduct.

Whereas the learned AR for the Management supported the order imposing punishment as proper the

claimant has described the same as extremely harsh. During course of argument a calculation sheet was filed showing

the cumulative financial loss suffered by her. It was also argued that for the said punishment she was denied

promotion to the CL I grade, though her name was in the zone of consideration. A document described as schedule for

promotion from CL III to CL I containing the name of the claimant has been filed.

This tribunal in view of the arguments advanced has to give a finding on the proportionality of the

punishment imposed on the claimant. In the case of Muriadih Colliery VS Bihar Coalliery Kamgar Union (2005)

3 SCC331, the Hon’ble SC have held:-

“it is well-established principle in law that in a given circumstance, it is open for the Industrial Tribunal

acting u/s 11-A of the I D Act 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1097

valid reasons. If the tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment awarded in domestic inquiry, it should bear in

mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and stringency of the punishment.”

Whether a misconduct is severe or otherwise depends on the facts of each particular case. In a case where the

charge is about misappropriation of public money or breach of Trust, no doubt the same is serious in nature and

distinguishable from the charge of demeanor or in subordination as in this case. More over the finding in the relevant

inquiry is based upon oral evidence only.

In the case of Regional Manager U.P.S R TC, Etawah & others Vs. Hotilal and another, 2003(3) SCC

605, referred in the later case of UPSRTC VS NanhelalKushwaha(2009) 8 SCC, 772, the Hon’ble Apex Court

have held that “The court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reason as to why it

is felt that the punishment inflicted was not commensurate with the proved charge. A mere statement that the

punishment is not proportionate would not suffice.It is not only the amount involved ,but the mental set up, the type of

the duty performed and similar relevant circumstances, which go into the decision making process are to be

considered while deciding the proportionality of the punishment awarded. If the charged employee holds a position of

trust where Honesty and Integrity are in built requirements of functioning,it would not be proper to deal with the

matter leniently.”

But as stated in the preceeding paragraph the allegation against the claimant was of misbehavior and physical

assault caused to a senior colleague. The admitted evidence is that before initiation of domestic inquiry and placing

her under suspension in contemplation of the inquiry, she had lodged FIR alleging that the senior colleague Mr. Yadav

had out raged her modesty as a woman. The evidence on record also shows that the criminal trial is still pending.

The learned AR for the management while placing reliance in the case of West Bokaro Colliery(Tisco) vs.

Ram Prasad Singh (2008) 3 SCC 719 argued that when there is un equivocal evidence of misbehavior towards

superiors, such evidence rendered before the Tribunal can not be discarded. He also relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble SC in the case of M/S Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co of India vs. The Management and Others to argue that

the discretion vested in the Tribunal u/s 11-A should be judiciously exercised. The crux of his argument is that the

punishment imposed on the claimant is appropriate to the charge and the Tribunal should not interfere.

The learned AR for the claimant on the other hand argued on the legislative intention behind incorporation of

sec 11A of the Act by placing reliance in the case of ML Singla vs. Punjab National Bank, AIR 2018 SC 4668,

submitted that in the said judgment the Hon’ble SC have held that even if the issue relating to the fairness of the

inquiry is decided in favour of the employer, even then the Tribunal has to consider if the punishment comensurates

the charge. There is no dispute that section 11-A of the Act empowers the industrial tribunal to interfere with the

quantum of punishment in appropriate cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport

Corporation vs. Rawel Singh AIR 2008(SCW) 2099 have held that section 11A of the Act empowers this tribunal to

interfere with the quantum of punishment. But the discretion is to be exercised judiciously in such cases where order

of punishment is quiet harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the officials concerned.

In this case the evidence adduced before this Tribunal reveals that the alleged occurrence is the lone incident

for which she was proceeded to. During the inquiry though Mr. Yadav stated about the filthy words were uttered by

the claimant towards him, the exact verbatim was neither recorded during inquiry nor in the evidence recorded by this

Tribunal. It is also not disputed that the criminal case for outraging the modesty of the claimant by Mr. Yadav is still

pending. In such a situation the imposition of punishment appears dis proportionate to the charge.

It is felt proper to observe that in the case of Firestone referred supra, the Hon’ble SC have held that after

incorporation of the provision of sec 11A in the ID Act, the Tribunal in order to record a finding on the fairness of the

domestic inquiry or the proportionality of the punishment, can not be confined to the materials which were available

at the domestic inquiry. On the other hand ‘material on record’ in the proviso to sec 11A of the ID Act must be held to

refer the materials before the Tribunal. They take in (1) the evidence taken in by the parties during the domestic

inquiry (2) the evidence taken before the Tribunal. Thus on considering the evidence recorded during the domestic

inquiry and adduced before this Tribunal the one only conclusion is that the punishment imposed on the claimant for

the isolated incident of in subordination amounting to misconduct is disproportionate and harsh, more so when the

case of outraging of modesty against Mr. Subash Yadav is still pending. The imposed punishment has not only

occasioned in huge financial los, but also resulted in loss of opportunity in promotion and mental agony. Hence it is

felt proper to interfere and modify to a lesser punishment in exercise of the power conferred u/s 11A of the ID Act.

Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant. For the finding rendered in the

preceeding paragraphs it is held that imposition of the punishment of reverting her current pay scale on the date of

passing of the order in the inquiry to the initial scale of senior assistant is illegal and liable to be set aside. The

management is directed to stop one annual increment of her salary in the year the impugned order was passed without

cumulative effect which will commensurate the charge proved against the claimant and serve the ends of justice. The

1098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management is directed to refix the pay of the claimant as directed above and pay the arrear accrued salary and other

consequential benefits within three months from the date of publication of the award failing which the accrued amount

shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accrual and till the actual 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, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 536.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार

vgenkckn; izca/kd] fcM+yk lu ykbZQ bUlksjsal

daiuh fyfeVsM] vtesj के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों औरJh lquhy rksykuh

केबीच अिुबंि में गिगदिष्ट औद्योगिक

गििाद मेंकेन्रीय सरकार औद्योचिक अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय, जयपुरपंचाट (सांदभस सांख्या 85/2014) को प्रकागित करती है।

[la- ,y-17012/128/2014-IR(M)]

Mh- xqgk, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of The Zonal Manager, M/s Birla Son Life Insurance Company Limited,

Ahmedabad; The Manager, M/s. Birla Son Life Insurance Company Limited, Ajmer and Shri Sunil Tolani,

Ajmer.

[No. L-17012/128/2014-IR(M)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

अनुबंि

Reference No. L-17012/128/2014-IR (M)

Dated: 08.12.2014

4^th Floor, Sapath-

4, Opposite

S.G.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1099

“Whether the action of the management of Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. In terminating the services

of Sh. Sunil Tolani w.e.f. 03.07.2013 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?’’

यद्यजप

1- 2019 LLR

;

SSC- 571

FLR

WLC

UC 139

RSRCTC

5- 1984 AIR 516

FLR 226

FLR 215

FLR 819

FLR 284

(s)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1101

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 537.—औद्योचिक चववाद अचिचियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससस इांच यि ऑयल कॉपोरेिि, चां ीिढ़; मेससस कोको इांच यि ऑयल पैट्रोल पांप, चां ीिढ़ के प्रबांितांत्र के सांबद्ध

चियोजकों और श्री चविोद कुमार, पांचकुला के बीच अिुबांि में चिर्दसष्ट औद्योचिक चववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योचिक

अचिकरण एवां श्रम न्द्यायालय, चां ीिढ़-1 के पांचाट (सांदभस सांख्या 12/2020) को प्रकाचित करती है।

[la- Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]

Mh- xqgk, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 537.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (12/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh-1 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, Chandigarh; M/s COCO Indian Oil

Petrol Pump, Chandigarh and Shri Vinod Kumar, Panchkula.

[No. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT' LNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,

CHANDIGARH'

SHRI D.K. SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER'

CASE NO. ID NO. 12/2020

VINOD KUMAR Son of Shri Amrit Lal, Panchkula

…Petitioner/ workman

V/s.

Indian Oil Corporation, Sector 19, U.T. Chandigarh

1102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Through its authorized representative.

COCO Indian Oil Petrol Pump,

Sector 33, U.T., Chandigarh

Through its authorized representative.

Shri Ashu Singla,

COCO Indian Oil Petrol Pump,

Sector 33, U.T., Chandigarh

….Respondetns/Managements

Appearances:-

For the workman

: Shri R.S. Rathi, A.R. for workman

For the management

: Sh. Paul S. Saini, A.R. for Respondent No.1 & 2

Sh. Parmod Bhardwaj, A.R. for Respondent No. 3

AWARD

Passed on: 25/02/2022

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Indian Oil Corporation, Chandigarh and COCO Indian Oil Petrol Pump,

Chandigarh in terminating the workman Sri Vinod Kumar, son of Sh. Amril Lal w.e.f. 11.12.2019 and

no wages have been paid from 01.12.2019 to 11.12.2019 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

2. Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The workman Vinod Kumar appears and files an

application for withdrawal of this case stating therein that the matter has been was amicably settled between the

parties as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the compromise/settlement dated 24.02.2022 executed between

Sh. Vinod Kumar, the concerned workman and Shri Ashu Singla (Respondent No.3). In view of the statement of the

concerned workman, the present ID case is withdrawn. Hence No Claim Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 538.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

एयर इंडिया एयर ट्ांसपोर्ट सडवटसेज डिडिर्ेि. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

-11012/39/2018.

(सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/39/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1103

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 150/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Zala Ajay Singh,

House No. 14 B Ward, Kubernagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 3823406

….Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/39/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Zala Ajay Singh, Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

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

1104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 539.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सह

–

Je U;k;ky; अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV (

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/41/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 152/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/41/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 152/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Ravat Dashrathbhai Shankarbhai,

Shantisaga Ni Chali, Meghaninagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/41/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Ravat Dashratbhai Shankarbhai, Handyman, working at

Ahmedabad w.e.f 04.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and

from which date and what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1105

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 540.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV (

)

dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/35/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022

[No. L-11012/35/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 116/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Shahbaz Rana,

1357, Nava Vas, Near Navagaja Pir, Raikhad,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for second party

: None

1106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-11012/35/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 30.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Shahbaz Rana, Sr. Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what

other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 15.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 541.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y-11012/21/2018. vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/21/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 140/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1107

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

….First Parties

V/s

Shri Samir Sama,

3/71, Govt. A Colony, Near Dariyakhan Dome,

Shahibaugh,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380004

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/21/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 31.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Samir Sama, Handyman, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f 04.06.2017 is

proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what other

directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 542.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa जनर्िाष्ट

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV (

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/22/2018.

(सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/22/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

1108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 141/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Bhagwansingh Sisodiya,

22, Sun Bunglows, Near Shivam School,

Pashwanath Township, Nawa Naroda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380046

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/22/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 31.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd. (AIATSL),

Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Bhagwan Singh Sisodiya, Sr. Customer Agent, working at

Ahmedabad w.e.f 04.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from

which date and what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1109

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 543.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/28/2018. vkbZ- vkj

(सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/28/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 144/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Ms. Chandni Pachani,

6, Arvind Society, Near Ramji Mandir, Hansol Gam,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380075

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/28/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 31.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Ms. Chandni Pachani, Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief she is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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,

1110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 544.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/29/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

राजेन्द्र स िंह,अवर सिव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/29/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 145/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Aezaz Rana,

A 37, Taslim Society, Near Bibi Talav, Vatva,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380040

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1111

mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-11012/29/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 31.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Aezaz Rana, Sr. Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 545.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/40/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 151/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022

[No. L-11012/40/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 151/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

1112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Mohammad Sadik Sakirbai Pathan,

Marwadi Ni Chali, Behind Shahi Masjid, Dudheshwar Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380004

….Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/40/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Mohammad Sadik Sakirbhai Handyman, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

04.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 546.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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[;k 154@2018½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-06-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 11012/43/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/43/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1113

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 154/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Ravat Niteshbhai Rambhai,

Shantisaga Ni Chali, Meghaninagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/43/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in terminating

the services of Shri Ravat Niteshbhai Rambhai, Handyman, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f 04.06.2017 is

proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what other directions

are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

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

1114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 547.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/38/2018. vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 149/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/38/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 149/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Ms. Chaya Avasthi,

26, Mansukhnagar Society, Behind R.H. College,

Bhavsar Hostel, Nava Vadaj,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380013

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/38/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Ms. Chaya Avasthi, Jr. Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1115

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief she is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 548.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/37/2018. vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 148/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/37/2018– IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 148/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

1116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Saiyed Sultan,

1317/49, Green Chowk, Dargah Road, Vatva,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382445

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/37/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Saiyed Sultan, Jr. Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 549.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds संबंि fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-

-11012/36/2018.

(सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/36/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1117

ANNEPXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 147/2018

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Karan Santwani,

34, Patel Society, Near Indira Bridge, Hansol,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/36/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 01.11.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Karan Santwani, Sr. Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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

1118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 550.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/30/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/30/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 146/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Sanjay Raval,

E7 Payal Plaza, Behind Water Tank,

Hirawadi Road, Sejur Boga,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380045

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/30/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 31.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1119

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Raval, Handyman, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f 05.06.2017 is

proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what other

directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 19.11.2018. 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.

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.

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.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 551.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/34/2018. vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/34/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 115/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

1120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

Ms. Chandani Bhalodiya,

Orchid B 101, Parshwanath Atlantis Park,

Near Agora Mall, Sughad,

Gandhinagar (Gujarat) - 382424

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/34/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 30.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Ms. Chandani Bhalodiya, Sr. Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f

05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief she is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 15.11.2018. 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

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 552.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/24/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Air

India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/24/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1121

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 96/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

…First Parties

V/s

hri Hasan Mulani,

12/3, New G Ward, Kubernagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380045

….Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/24/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 26.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Hasan Mulani, Handyman, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f 04.06.2017

is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what other

directions are necessary in this regard?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 12.11.2018. 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

1122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 553.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटा सर्वासेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa जनर्िाष्ट vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV

(

/

) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012/32/2018.vkbZ-vkj

(सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2022.

[No. L-11012/32/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

Dated 12^thMay, 2022

Reference (CGITA) No. - 113/2018

1. M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai - 400099

2. The Sr. Asstt. General Manager – GH,

M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

SVP International Airport, Terminal 4,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380003

….First Parties

V/s

Shri Abhi Desai,

C/17, Akshardham, Opp. D-Mart, L.B.S. Road, Bapunagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380045

…Second Party

Appearance for first parties

: None

Appearance for 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-11012/32/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 30.10.2018 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Abhi Desai, Customer Agent, working at Ahmedabad w.e.f 05.06.2017 is

proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what other directions

are necessary in this regard?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 15.11.2018. 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1123

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

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 554.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के साथ

परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट ऑफ़ सेल के कारखानों और स्ट्थापनाओं के

जनयजमत कमाचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। यि छूट रािपत्र में इस vf/klwpuk के tkjh

gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1)

कारखाना और स्ट्थापना छूट प्राप्त कमाचाररयों के नाम और पिनाम जवजनर्िाष्ट करते हुए, कमाचाररयों का

एक रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

कमाचारी उि अजिजनयम के अिीन ऐसे फायिे प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको पाने के जलए वे इस अजिसूचना

द्वारा िी गई छूट प्रिान करने की तारीख से पूवा संित्त अंििानों के आिार पर िकिार िो िाते िैं;

(3)

छूट प्राप्त अवजि के जलए, यदि कोई अजभिाय पिले िी दकए िा चुके िों, तो वे वापस निीं दकए िाएंगे;

(4)

उि कारखाने और स्ट्थापना का जनयोिक उस अवजि की बाबत जिसके िौरान उस कारखाने पर उि

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी

जववरजणयां, ऐसे प्ररूप में और ऐसी जवजिजष्टयों से युि िोगी िो कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण)

जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 45 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जनयुि दकया गया कोई सामाजिक

सुरक्षा अजिकारी या इस प्रयोिन के जलए जनगम का इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकृत कोई अन्य पििारी-

(i)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी

जववरण में अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सतयाजपत करने; या

(ii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा

यथाअपेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

(iii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके

फलस्ट्वरूप इस अजिसूचना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु रूप में पाने का

िकिार िै या निीं; या

(iv)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िब उि कारखाने और स्ट्थापना के संबंि में

अजिजनयम के उपबंि प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे दकन्िीं उपबंिों का अनुपालन दकया गया था या निीं,

जनम्नजलजखत काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा-

1124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(क) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस

अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय

या अन्य पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी से यि

अपेक्षा करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से संबंजित ऐसे लेखा,

बजियां और अन्य िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक या अन्य पििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें और

उनकी परीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं; या

(ग) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि को,

िो ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास करने

का युजियुि कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में रखे गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, लेखा, बिी

या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ) यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

(6)

जवजनवेि या जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रिान की गई छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नई इकाई को

छूट के जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/04/2020-एस.एस-I]

मिन चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 554.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and

establishments of Bhilai Steel Plant of SAIL from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for

a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1)

the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees’;

(2)

the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have

been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted

by this notification operates;

(3)

the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during

which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said

period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of

the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the

said Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of—

(i) verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44

of the said Act for the said period; or

(ii) ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted

under this notification; or

(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment to be

empowered to —

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1125

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied

by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person

found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to

examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and

payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document

maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or

(e) exercise such other powers as may be specified.

(6) in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/04/2020-SS-I]

MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 555.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के साथ

परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कृषक भारती कोआपरेरटव जलजमटेड के कारखानों और स्ट्थापनाओं

के जनयजमत कमाचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। यि छूट रािपत्र में इस vf/klwpuk के tkjh

gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1)

कारखाना और स्ट्थापना छूट प्राप्त कमाचाररयों के नाम और पिनाम जवजनदिष्टा करते हुए, कमाचाररयों का

एक रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

(3)

(4)

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी

जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

उि अजिजनयम, की िारा 45 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जनयुि दकया गया कोई

सामाजिक सुरक्षा अजिकारी या इस प्रयोिन के जलए जनगम का इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकृत कोई अन्य

पििारी-

(i)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी

जववरण में अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सतयाजपत करने; या

(ii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा

यथाअपेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

1126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके

िकिार िै या निीं; या

(iv)

जनम्नजलजखत काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा-

(क) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस

अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना,

कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी

से यि अपेक्षा करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से संबंजित ऐसे

लेखा, बजियां और अन्य िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक या अन्य पििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें

और उनकी परीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं; या

(ग) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि

को, िो ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास

करने का युजियुि कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ)

यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

(6)

छूट के जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/07/2020-एस.एस-I]

मिन चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 555.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and

establishments of Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be

effective for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1)

the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees’;

(2)

the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have

been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted

by this notification operates;

(3)

the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1127

returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period

under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said

Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of —

(i)

verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section

44 of the said Act for the said period; or

(ii)

ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment to

be empowered to —

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may

consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and

allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person

found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the

said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an

employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document

maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be specified.

(6)

in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/07/2020-SS-I]

MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 556.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के साथ

परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, इंजडयन फामासा फ़र्टालाइज़र कोआपरेरटव जलजमटेड के कारखानों

और स्ट्थापनाओं के जनयजमत कमाचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। यि छूट रािपत्र में इस

vf/klwpuk के tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1)

एक रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

(3)

(4)

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी

1128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

(i) उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी

जववरण में अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सतयाजपत करने; या

(ii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा

यथाअपेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

(iii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके

िकिार िै या निीं; या

(iv)

जनम्नजलजखत काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा-

(क) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस

अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना,

कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी

से यि अपेक्षा करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से संबंजित ऐसे

और उनकी परीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं; या

(ग) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि

को, िो ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास

करने का युजियुि कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में रखे गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, लेखा,

बिी या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ) यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

(6)

जवजनवेि या जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रिान की गई छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नई इकाई को छूट के

जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/08/2020-एस.एस-I]

मिन चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 556.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and

establishments of Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited from the operation of the said Act. The

exemption shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1)

the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1129

(2)

the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have been

entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3)

the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such

returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period

under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said

Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of —

(i)

verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 of

the said Act for the said period; or

(ii)

ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’ State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer

in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment to be

empowered to —

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied

by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person

found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to

examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and

payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document

maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be specified.

(6)

In case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/08/2020-SS-I]

MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 557.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के साथ

परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ओएनिीसी मैंगलोर पेरोकेजमकल्स जलजमटेड के कारखानों और

स्ट्थापनाओं के जनयजमत कमाचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। यि छूट रािपत्र में इस

vf/klwpuk के tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1)

एक रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

(3)

1130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(4)

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी

जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

(i)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी

जववरण में अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सतयाजपत करने; या

(ii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा

यथाअपेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

(iii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके

िकिार िै या निीं; या

(iv)

जनम्नजलजखत काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा-

(क) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस

अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना,

कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके

प्रभारी से यि अपेक्षा करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से

संबंजित ऐसे लेखा, बजियां और अन्य िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक या अन्य पििारी के

समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक

समझते िैं; या

(ग) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि

को, िो ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास

करने का युजियुि कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

बिी या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ)

यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

(6)

जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/10/2020-एस.एस-I]

मिन चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1131

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 557.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and

establishments of ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

2. The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1)

the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees’;

(2)

the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have been

entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3)

the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such

returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period

under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said

Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of —

(i)

verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section

44 of the said Act for the said period; or

(ii)

ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment

to be empowered to —

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may

consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other

official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to

the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such

information as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person

found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom

the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an

employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other

document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be specified.

(6)

in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/10/2020-SS-I]

MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

1132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 558.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के साथ

परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, राउरकेला स्ट्टील प्लांट ऑफ़ सेल के कारखानों और स्ट्थापनाओं के

gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1) कारखाना और स्ट्थापना छूट प्राप्त कमाचाररयों के नाम और पिनाम जवजनर्िाष्ट करते हुए, कमाचाररयों का

एक रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

(3)

(4)

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी जववरजणयां,

ऐसे प्ररूप में और ऐसी जवजिजष्टयों से युि िोगी िो कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 के

अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

उि अजिजनयम, की िारा 45 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जनयुि दकया गया कोई सामाजिक

(i)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी जववरण

में अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सतयाजपत करने; या

(ii) यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेजक्षत

रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

(iii) यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके फलस्ट्वरूप

इस अजिसूचना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु रूप में पाने का िकिार िै या निीं;

या

(iv)

जनम्नजलजखत काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा-

(क) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस

अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

या अन्य पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी से यि अपेक्षा

करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से संबंजित ऐसे लेखा, बजियां और

अन्य िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक या अन्य पििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा

करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं; या

(ग) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि को,

िो ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास करने का

युजियुि कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1133

(ङ)

यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

(6)

जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/11/2020-एस एस-I]

मिन चौरजसया] अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 558.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and

establishments of Rourkela Steel Plant of SAIL from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1) the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees’;

(2) the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have been

entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such

returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period

under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said

Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of —

(i)

verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section

44 of the said Act for the said period; or

(ii)

ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment

to be empowered to —

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may

consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other

official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to

the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such

information as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person

found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom

the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an

employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other

document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises;

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be specified.

1134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(6)

in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/11/2020-SS-I)]

MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2022

का.आ. 559.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के साथ

परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, एचआईएल (भारत) जलजमटेड के कारखानों और स्ट्थापनाओं के

gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1)

एक रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

(3)

(4)

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी

जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

(i)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी

जववरण में अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सतयाजपत करने; या

(ii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा

यथाअपेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

(iii)

यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके

िकिार िै या निीं; या

(iv)

जनम्नजलजखत काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा-

(क) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस

अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना,

कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी

से यि अपेक्षा करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से संबंजित ऐसे

और उनकी परीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं; या

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1135

(ग) प्रिान या अतयवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि

को, िो ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास

करने का युजियुि कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ)

यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

(6)

जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/12/2020-एस.एस-I]

मिन चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2022

S.O. 559.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and

establishments of HIL (India) Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for a

period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1)

the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees;

(2)

the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have

been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted

by this notification operates;

(3)

the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during

which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said

period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of

the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the

said Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of—

(i)

verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section

44 of the said Act for the said period; or

(ii)

ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment

to be empowered to—

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may

consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other

official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to

the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such

information as he may consider necessary; or

1136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person

found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom

the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an

employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other

document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be specified.

(6)

in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/12/2020-SS-I)]

MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 िून, 2022

का.आ. 560.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

जिरटि एयरवेि, ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

– सि –

न्यायालयनंबर

] नई दिल्ली ds iapkV (

)

dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20013/01/2022-

(सीएम-1)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2022

S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

British Airways, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/06/2022.

[No. L-20013/01/2022 – IR (CM-I)]

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. 87/2014

Date of Passing Award- 31.05.2022

Between:

Ms. Sandhya Jolly,

W/o Shri Sharad Jolly,

R/o C-30, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi-110016

….Workman

Versus

The Management of British Airways,

DLF Plaza Towers,

DLF City Phase-1 Gurgaon,

Haryana 122002

…. Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1137

Appearances:-

Shri S.A Sebastian (A/R)

…. For the claimant

Shri Sanjay Rawat (A/R)

…For the Management

AWARD

This is a claim filed by the claimant invoking the provisions of section 2A of the Industrial Dispute

Act 1947 wherein the action of the management in terminating her service illegally has been challenged.

Prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with continuity, full back wages and other consequential

benefits. Notice of the dispute being served the management appeared and participated.

As stated in the claim petition the claimant Sandhya Jolly was appointed in the Delhi Office of

British Airways as an accounts clerk on 26.04.1996. That post was in Grade B of the Cadre. Subsequently

she was promoted to the post of account Supervisor in Grade S1 and again as Accounting Team Leader and

finance analyst in Grade S3. In the year 2009 the British Airways an organization engaged in the business of

Transportation and Cargo through Air service announced finance reorganization and the said change being

implemented worldwide all affected business management team members were asked to reapply for new

roles that had evolved due to this global reorganization. As per that agreed British Airways redeployment

process the affected staff had the option of applying for new roles or to opt for the VSS Scheme. When the

vacant position in the workman’s Grade S3 was advertised the claimant was asked to reapply and prove her

merit in the selection process. But she was not selected and offered with the proposal of VSS. But the

claimant did not accept the same and after repeated meetings held the claimant took up a vacant role of

Finance Assistant. No grade protection was allowed to her and she was advised to apply as and when a

position in Grade S3 would be advertised. Since, 01.01.2010 the claimant continued to work as the Finance

Assistant i.e till her job was illegally terminated. While the matter stood thus on 11.04.2014 Mr. Sandeep Rai

the manager to whom the claimant was reporting invited the entire finance team including the claimant for a

meeting. The meeting was joined by Mr. Sanjay Soni the manager HR who in the said meeting announced

about the reorganization of South Asia Finance Team on the basis of 2011 BA-Iveria merger and formation

of International Airlines Group (IAG). The claimant and others were made to understand that the

reorganization is meant to achieve efficiency, synergies and integration etc. Mr. Soni also informed that after

formation of IAG there was an urgent need of setting up a world class finance hub and as a consequence to

the change all transactional financial processing work has been outsourced to Accenture Chennai and only

the high value added work is to be done within the BA Finance Organization. The new South Asia Finance

Team Structure was displayed on the screen for few minutes but never shared or published for the

information of the workman and her co-employees. On the same day at 11.30A.M the claimant was invited

for a discussion where some concern was expressed by the claimant with regard to the presence of Ms. Ritika

Luthra a stranger. This annoyed Mr. Sanjay Soni who compelled the claimant to give a statement to the effect

that she insisted for Ms. Ritika Luthra to leave the room. This was not acceptable to the claimant. In the said

meeting the claimant was informed that for the reorganization of the finance team the impacted surplus

employees have to apply for redeployment and it was also informed that 17^th April will be the last day for

submission of Role Preference Form and the selection process will be held on 22^nd /23^rd April. The claimant

raised concern and about the interaction made during the meeting held on 11/04/14 and sent an email

requesting for the information regarding the redeployment process, the vague redeployment form given

which lacks clarity with regard to job requirement and benefit etc. on account of the said email on 17.04.2014

the claimant was called by Mr. Sandeep Rai, her manager for a one to one discussion and verbal meeting. In

the said meeting the claimant again insisted and requested the information on the Finance Reorganization

Pack. Mr. Sandeep Rai instead of answering the query of the claimant replied that she should trust the

management. This prompted the workman not to apply for the newly created position of Finance Executive

in Grade LM for want of clarity. On 22.04.2014 and 23.04.2014 interview was conducted in respect of the

members of the finance team who had applied for the new position of finance executive in LM Grade. On

23.04.2014 at 4.40P.M when the claimant was in her desk she was called and guided by Mr. Sandeep Rai to

the meeting room for an urgent meeting called by Mr. Sanjay Soni the HR Manager. With lots of hesitation

the claimant went to the meeting room where Mr. Soni served her with a termination notice with immediate

effect based on the Global Company arrangement of BA and IAG and the BA Finance India Organization.

Thus, the service of the workman was illegally terminated w.e.f 24.04.2014 and the letter of termination was

served on her via courier and speed post. In the termination letter it was mentioned that the entire

transactional accounting, reconciliation payment and accounting functions being transferred to Accenture and

due to non availability of any other opportunity in BA for such restructuring the service of the workman

stands terminated w.e.f 24.04.2014. Thereafter an amount of Rs. 1815967/- was credited to her salary

account. The claimant received the same under protest and without prejudice sent a cheque of Rs. 10207/-

1138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

towards two days excess salary credited to her account. Subsequent thereto another Rs. 10,00,000/- was also

credited to her account towards gratuity and the claimant by writing a letter dated 21.05.2014 protested the

same. The claimant being aggrieved by the illegal termination of her permanent employment raised a dispute

before the conciliation officer. But for the adamant and non cooperative attitude of the management the

conciliation failed and she was advised to approach the Tribunal. Accordingly she has filed the present claim

petition.

In the claim petition she has denied about the restructuring or reorganization in British Airways as

stated in the termination letter. It has also been stated that she has been made a victim of hostile

discrimination as no other employee of the finance department of British Airways in India was terminated. It

is also stated that the work in Finance Department has not been sourced out as mentioned in the termination

letter and the job performed by her was of perennial nature and the said post has been given a different

nomenclature and a new LM Grade with a view to take out the employees from the category of workman

defined in section 2(S) of the ID Act. It has also been stated that her termination of service on account of the

alleged reorganization is violative of BA’s Policy including the redeployment process which provides that

the affected employees who are not fit to handle the job in the new position would be provided necessary

training and the persons who cannot be redeployed at that instance will be given an option for any other post

under the BA Business Response Scheme. She has further stated that the termination of her service is in

violation of section 33(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act as she was on the date of her termination was a

protected workman being the working President of the Federation of British Airways Employees Union. At

the time of her termination the management least bothered to publish the seniority list of the employees and

victimized her for the legitimate trade union activities undertaken in the capacity of the working president of

the federation. Thus, the claimant has described the action of the management in terminating her service as

illegal discriminatory and contrary to the provision of Id Act amounting to unfair labour practice and thereby

she has prayed for an award declaring the termination illegal with the relief of reinstatement continuity of

service, full back wages and all other consequential service benefits.

The management British Airways entered appearance and filed written statement denying and

challenging the claim advanced by the claimant workman. The stand taken in the WS is that the British

Airways is an international carrier which encountered huge loss on account of the Global Economic

slowdown, weaker consumer confidence and high oil price. This impacted the revenue flow and the survival

of the company was at stake. Several initiatives were taken to reorganize and restructure its business in the

year 2008-2009. As a consequence thereof in the year 2010 alongwith other restructuring measures the BA

joined International Airlines Group (IAG) which was constituted as the parent company. There was a need to

restructure and ensure that IAG has synergies and scalable finance platform. Accordingly a global decision

was taken to engage some expert body to handle the Transactional Finance Activities of the entire IAG

Group including BA. It was also decided to move away from individual transactional finance function and

transfer it to a single entity. The British Airways thus decided to transfer the transactional accounting and

reconciliation payments to an organization having essential credential and expertise in the matter.

Accordingly the entire above said work was transferred to Accenture a global leader in providing

consultancy, technology and shared service expertise to its client. This restructuring was rolled out in several

offices of BA across UK, Europe and Asia including the South Asia Region to which the business in India

falls. The work with Accenture commenced w.e.f 27^th April 2014. As a result of such transfer of transactional

accounting and reconciliation payment and finance payable work to Accenture the service of 10number of

employees in the finance department was not required. This situation occurred for the transfer of undertaking

envisaged u/s 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and no illegality was ever committed while

terminating the service of the claimant. It has also been stated that as a progressive employer the

management has a redeployment policy and under this policy the serving employees are free to apply for

redeployment whenever a vacancy exists in a particular department. The employees who wish to seek

alternate carrier opportunity in BA and the employees whose services are coming to an end in their

department are free to offer their candidature for the vacant positions. The 10 impacted employees were

conveyed about the redeployment selection process with respect to the posts available. At that time there

were 6 LM Grade post vacant and those posts were in a higher grade then the grade held by the 10 affected

employees. Out of the 6 ,2 posts of such LM Grade were already filled and the 10 impacted employees were

called upon to apply and participate in the redeployment process. Though all of the said impacted employees

submitted the form and agreed to participate the claimant refused to participate despite repeated request. The

selection procedure was taken up and 4 out of the 9 impacted employees were appointed to the new posts

available in LM Grade. When the claimant refuse to participate in the redeployment exercise, on 17^th April,

and 21^st April 2014 several email correspondences were made with her in which the time period for

submission of the application was enlarged. Despite that the claimant refused to participate. The management

thus had no other option than terminating the service of the claimant w.e.f 24^th April 2014. While doing so

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1139

the provisions of Id Act were strictly complied and the claimant was paid 3 weeks salary for each completed

year of service in addition to one month pay in lieu of notice which was in a higher side then the

retrenchment compensation payable under law. She was also paid Rs. 10,00,000/- towards gratuity and the

claimant accepted the same. Thus, the management has stated that no unfair labour practice was adopted nor

any hostile discrimination was meted out to the claimant. The claim advanced by her is baseless and liable to

be rejected.

The claimant filed rejoinder saying that the termination of her service cannot fall under the scope of

section 25FF of the Id Act in as much as the transfer of transactional accounting and reconciliation payments

work to Accenture does not amount to transfer of undertaking. The finance is a service department of BA and

transfer of a part of the work of that department to Accenture cannot be construed as the transfer of

undertaking mentioned in section 25FF. It has also been stated that in the year 2008-2009 there was never

any restructuring but only a transfer of business from one place to another between BA Offices. Similarly in

the year 2014 there was no reorganization or restructuring of finance. It was merely a sourcing out of the

perennial work done with a view to reduce the no. of work force. While disputing the cadre of the post

offered to she has stated that there is no such LM Grade post in the binding settlement between the BA

employees union and BA. No pay scale or nature of duty for the said LM Grade Post was ever announced.

When it was announced that for the outsourcing the service of 10 employees in the finance department is not

required, no seniority list was published. The work performed by the claimant was perennial in nature and as

such the post held by her cannot be abolished. During the so called redeployment procedure the BA violated

its own policy and the workman was never given any option besides the 4 LM Posts in finance for which the

requisite details were never shared. No notice was given to the workman to exercise her option as per BA

redeployment policy. The management opened only 4 LM Grade vacancies when there were 10 affected

employees. It was within the knowledge of the claimant that the LM Grade is an unrecognized grade outside

the purview of the scale/cadre/category of the workman to which she belongs to. The salary details and other

connected benefits were never shared by the management despite request made by her verbally and through

email. The management had created pressure on her to opt for the redeployment to that post and participate in

the selection procedure keeping her in dark about the job profile salary etc attached to the post. She was only

called upon to fill up the form which was cryptic for having only 2 options accepted or not accepted. The

workman had every reason to entertain doubt on the action of the management and intimated that she would

prefer to continue in her current post. But the management without considering her submission immediately

terminated her service we.f 24^th April 2014 in gross violation of different provisions of Id Act. In the

replication the claimant has also stated that the work handled by the workman continues to be performed by

the other BA staff till date in the BA finance department. Hence, the claimant has stated that she was not a

surplus staff to be redeployed and in that regard unfair labour practice has been adopted by the management.

On these rival pleadings the following issues are framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

1. Whether the termination of the claimant /workman is illegal and unjustified? If so its effect?

2. Whether the claim statement is maintainable if so its effect?

3. To what relief the claimant/workman is entitled to.

During the hearing both claimant and the management had filed applications u/s 11(3) of the Id Act

seeking a direction from their adversary for production of documents. Both the petitions were disposed of

after hearing the objection and by giving liberty to the applicant for filing secondary evidence.

The claimant testified as the WW1 and filed a series of document which have been marked as

WW1/1 to WW1/21 and some papers marked as P1 to P9. The documents filed by the claimant workman

include her initial appointment letter as Accounts Clerk and the subsequent appointment letter dated

12.01.2010 appointing her as a Finance Assistant the letter of confirmation, the contract of appointment dated

12.01.2010 under which she qualifies to be a workman the document relating to organizational hierarchy the

memorandum of settlement between the management and the union the memorandum of settlement between

the management and the federation the service termination letter dated 23.04.2014. One email dated

09.04.2014 evidencing that the entire work done by the claimant was not transferred to Accenture. Several

email communications made between the claimant and her manager Sandeep Rai have been filed and marked

as exhibit WW1/14 to WW1/18.

Similarly the management examined the Regional Finance Manager British Airways Mr. Sandeep

Rai as MW1 who also proved several documents marked as M1to M17. These documents are the

redeployment role Preference form to be filled by the affected employees, the emails written to the individual

1140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

affected employees thanking them for their confirmation to participate in the selection process, several emails

written to the claimant on 17.04.2014 and reply to her email and emails extending the time line for

submission of the role preference and self assessment form etc. One Sumer Adlakha the Customer Service

Manager of BA testified as MW2. All the witnesses were cross examined thoroughly by their adversaries.

At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the claimant by pointing out to Para 6 of the claim

statement submitted that the claimant in the year 1996 was appointed as an accounts clerk. Though, she had

got two promotions before 2010, in the year 2010 she was reappointed in the post of accounts clerk and

appointment agreement to that affect was signed. Thus, it is stated that the claimant discharging the function

of account clerk and having no power of a manager or supervisor is a workman coming under the definition

2S of the ID Act and the objection of the management with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition

on that ground alone is liable to be rejected. He also argued that the case of the claimant is an example of

hostile discrimination and unfair labour practice meted by a mighty employer to the poor workman. The

claimant was never served with the notice required u/s 9A of the Id Act. She has been made a victim of

termination citing that the termination falls under the scope of section 25FFof the Act which is illegal. On the

other hand the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that the claimant in Para 4 of her evidence has

admitted that she was discharging the supervisory nature of work and thus cannot be termed as a workman

u/s2 (S) of the Id Act. Moreover, when no issue has been framed to adjudicate on the consequence of non

compliance of section 9A the claimant cannot take a plea in that respect. He also argued that the burden is

always on the claimant to prove the maintainability of the claim and the issue regarding non compliance of

section 9A having not been raised in the claim the same cannot be entertained. He also argued that in terms

of section 10 of ID Act the scope of the reference cannot be enlarged. He also argued that the workman was

paid all the termination benefit and the same having been accepted the claimant cannot dispute the

termination at this stage. By drawing the attention to the photocopy of the LinkedIn profile of the claimant

marked as WW1/M1 he submitted that the claimant since described herself in the LinkedIn profile as a

Finance Analyst and an accounting team leader she cannot take a back foot now to describe herself as a

workman. He also argued that the claimant has concealed about her gainful employment which were brought

out during cross examination. With regard to the claim of the claimant as a protected workman he submitted

that as per the document marked as WW1/18 this letter was drafted on 18^th April 2014 and received by the

management on 22^nd April 2014. Thus, there was no need of replying to the said letter or order of

recognition. He also argued that this letter of the union for recognition of the protected workman need to be

recognized within 15 days failing which it will be deemed to have been rejected. Drawing attention to the

Rule 61 (2) he argued that the said correspondence since received on 22^nd April 2014 just before one day of

the termination, the management cannot be found with fault for terminating the service of the protected

workman when the industrial dispute was pending. To support his argument he has relied upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P H Kalyani vs. Air France Calcutta (1964) 2SCR 104 wherein it

has been held that when the name of the protected workman of the Union was communicated to the

management and the later replied to that letter pointing out certain defects it cannot be held that the

recognition of protected workman was granted. He thereby submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the

benefit of a protected workman as the proposal for recognition was not accepted on the date of termination.

In the reply argument the Ld. Counsel for the workman submitted that at the time of alleged

termination the claimant was working as the Accounts Assistant and a mere description made in the LinkedIn

profile cannot upgrade him to the post of supervisor when no concrete evidence about the nature of work

done has been adduced by the management. When the management is the custodian of all the documents and

claims that the claimant was discharging a supervisory nature of work the same should have been proved by

the management. The Ld. A/R for the claimant focused his argument to the points that the notice u/s 9A was

never served in a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of law for which no formal issue need to be

framed. He also argued that the claimant was kept in dark in respect of the redeployment procedure and her

service was illegally terminated citing that the same was required for the transfer of undertaking in terms of

section 25FF of the Id Act.

FINDING

ISSUE NO.2

In the preliminary objection the management has disputed the maintainability of the claim on the

ground that the claimant is not a workman u/s 2(S) of the ID Act. By refereeing to Para 6 of the claim

statement wherein the claimant has described herself according to her position and the functions discharged

by her in the said post w.e.f 01.01.2010 the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that the claimant being

engaged in the work of leading the teams through the finance audit and imparting training, her nature of work

was supervisory and she cannot be termed as a workman. The responsibility and functions discharged by her

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1141

gives insight of the managerial and supervisory function and as such she is not a workman. To support his

contention he has relied upon the judgment of Aeroflot Russion Airlines vs. Mohan Kumar Sharma and

another decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WPC 5289 of 2010 wherein it has been held that

mere filing of affidavit by the claimant describing him as a workman cannot be regarded as sufficient

evidence for any court or tribunal to come to a conclusion that the respondent no. 1 is a workman. He thereby

submitted that in this case except the oral evidence and the affidavit filed by the claimant there is no other

evidence to presume that the claimant is a workman and the claim petition is maintainable. The Ld. A/R for

the claimant on the contrary argued that the appellant is a workman within the meaning of the expression

workman given u/s 2(S) of the Id Act and argued that in addition to her primary work as the finance Assistant

if the workman is sometimes asked to discharge the function of imparting training or leading a team during

the audit the same will not upgrade his status. In order to cease to be a workman he should have perform

exclusively supervisory or managerial duty. Citing the judgment of Arkal Goving Raj Rao vs. Cevageigy of

India Limited reported in 1985 AIR 985 he submitted that the nature of the primary work done is to be

considered. The taste to be employed is what was the primary basic or dominant nature of the duty

discharged by the claimant. A few extra duties would hardly be relevant to determine his status. The Ld. A/R

for the claimant has also placed reliance in the case of Shri S.K Maini vs. Carona Sahu Company Limited

and others reported in JT1994(3)SC151 and submitted that when an employee is employed to do a

particular type of work enumerated in the definition of the workman u/s 2(S) of the Id Act there is hardly any

scope treating him otherwise.

In the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company vs. Burmah shell

Management of staff association (1970)IILLJ590 the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the word

supervise and its derivates are not the words of precise import. The determinative factor is the main duty of

the concerned employee and not some works incidentally done. In this case no evidence has been adduced by

the management to show that the claimant was discharging any supervisory or managerial nature of work.

Her own description in the LinkedIn profile will not upgrade her to the post of Manager or supervisor or a

team leader as it is beyond acceptance that the same would prompt the management to assign a higher

designation or higher salary to her. Hence, it is concluded that the claimant is a workman and the claim

petition is maintainable. This issue is accordingly answered.

ISSUE No.1 and 3

These two issues being interdependant have been taken up for consideration together. The claimant

has challenged the action of the management as illegal and arbitrary on the grounds that she is a protected

workman and the management in gross violation of section 33(4) shouldn’t have terminated her service. It

has also been pleaded and argued that the claimant was not a surplus staff to be redeployed and the

outsourcing of the transactional financial processing to Accenture was only a high value added work and not

a transfer of undertaking falling under the ambit of Sec 25FF of the Id Act. The other challenge is that if at all

the management thought of restructuring of the business resulting in retrenchment of the workman a notice

u/s 9A of the Id Act should have been served by the employer on the employee as the same amounts to

change in condition of service. This stand of the claimant has been vehemently opposed by the management

on the ground that no issue in this regard has been framed and moreover, the management has a prerogative

of restructuring its business which will never amount to change in service condition of the employee making

it mandatory to serve a notice u/s 9A of the Id Act. Whereas the Ld. A/R for the claimant relied upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shankar Prasad

reported in (1999) 6SCC 275 wherein it was held that “Rationalization which was introduced had therefore

two effects first that some workers would become surplus and would face discharge and secondly, the other

workmen would have to carry more workload. The introduction of the rationalization scheme was therefore

clearly an alteration of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen”. It has also been held that “it

become obvious that if the proposed scheme of rationalization has a likelihood of rendering existing

workman surplus and liable to retrenchment then item No.10 schedule IV would squarely get attracted and

would require as a condition precedent to introduction of such a scheme a notice to be issued under section

9A by the management.” The counter argument by the management is that the action would not amount to

retrenchment but transfer of undertaking requiring payment of compensation u/s 25FF of the ID Act which

was complied by the management. No notice u/s 9A of the Act was required. But this submission and stand

of the management is not accepted since, the oral evidence adduced by the claimant and the management

witness so also documents which is the letter of termination filed by the claimant clearly shows that as a

consequence of finance team reorganization announcement in South Asia Region in 2014 all transactional

financial processing work was only outsourced to Accenture which can never be accepted as a transfer of

undertaking for which compensation is payable. The judgment of Marco Polo and Co. vs. Marco Polo and

Co. employees union relied upon by the management is not applicable as distinguishable on facts. For the

1142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lokmat Newspaper referred supra it is held that the

restructuring since had the impact of rendering the existing workman surplus compliance of the provision of

section 9A of the Id Act was mandatory and the management in this case had failed to comply the same. The

objection of the Ld. Counsel for the management that no issue to that effect since has been framed no

adjudication on the same cannot be held is not acceptable since, this is purely a question of law and framing

of issue is not necessary and the same can be decided as incidental to the main issue and dispute.

The other stand of the claimant is that the action of the management in terminating the service of the

claimant is in violation of section 33(3) and section 25(F)(G)(H) of the Id Act. She has described herself as

protected workman which has been strongly denied by the management. Besides the oral evidence the

workman has filed a documents which has been marked as WW1/18. This is a letter written by the British

Airways Employees Union on 18^th April 2014 to the management mentioning the name and designation of

the nominated protected workmen. This document has been challenged by the management on the ground

that the said letter correspondence was made on 18^th April 2014 when the restructuring and reorganization

plan of the finance department was announced and it was made known to the claimant that she is one among

the 10 impacted employees. The other challenge is that under Rule 61 of the Industrial Dispute Central Rules

1957 every registered Trade Union shall communicate to the employer before 30^th April every year the

names and addresses of the persons to be recognized as protected workman and the management shall within

15 days of receipt shall communicate to the union in writing the list of workmen recognized as protected

workman. The Ld. Counsel for the management thus argued that mere receipt of the letter sent by the union

two days before claimant’s termination will not designate her as a protected workman. In order to avail the

privilege she has to show that in the year 2013 she was declared as a protected workman which was valid till

30^th April 2014. There being no other evidence except exhibit WW1/18 it is held that the claimant was not a

protected workman on the date of termination of her service.

The other grievance of the claimant is that she was the senior most employee from among the 10

employees impacted for the outsourcing. But before termination of her service no seniority list was displayed

by the management. It has also be asserted that the post in which she was discharging the work of perennial

nature and after her termination one Mr. Atul Sarin is performing the same job. She has also stated that the

entire work done by her has not been transferred to Accenture. This evidence of the claimant has no way

been rebuted by the management.

Now the question comes whether the claimant was offered the avenues of redeployment. In the WS

and by examining two persons of the management as witnesses the management has asserted to prove that

outsourcing of the work to Accenture is a part of reorganization and that being a prerogative of the

management the redeployment of the surplus staff was expedient. The 10 surplus staff including the claimant

were called upon to participate in the process in accordance to the redeployment policy of the management.

Whereas other impacted employees participated and four of them were reemployed in different positions

within the management the claimant opted out of the same though several correspondences in this regard

were made with her. The case of the claimant is that the appellants plea of reorganization is not genuine nor

the statement with regard to surplus staff. But the admitted facts are that on 11.04.2014 Mr. Sandeep Rai

MW1 had invited the finance team including the workman for a meeting which was joined by the HR

Manager. In the said meeting the proposal of finance team reorganization was announced. It was informed

that as a consequence of this change all transactional financial processing work will be outsourced to

Accenture w.e.f 27.04.2014. The impacted employees were called to submit the Roll Preference Form on or

before 17^th April and it was also informed that the selection process will be held and the result will be

published on 22^nd -23^rd April. It is also admitted by both the parties and the witness examined by the

management that on 17.04.2014 the claimant had a verbal meeting with MW1 where she raised objection

about the recognized cadre LM Level posts for which they were asked to submit the form for redeployment.

Despite repeated demand the manager refused to give concrete answer and insisted that she should trust the

management. The claimant during her examination has filed the copies of the email communication between

her and the manager Sandeep Rai. Sandeep RAi during his examination as MW1 has countered the statement

of the claimant that she was not properly informed about the vacancy position and the benefits attached to the

same. MW1 has filed the copy of the redeployment role preference form exhibited as MW1/2. During his

examination the witness has stated that during the meeting held between him and the claimant on 17.04.2014

it was explained to the claimant that the salary structure of the grade of the new assignment has already been

explained to her including what would be her salary on the event, she is successful in the selection process.

The witness has also stated that the claimant was informed that the salary is an individual variant and never

published for such roles. The witness has filed and exhibited the emails communicated between him and the

claimant on 17.04.2014 and 21.04.2014. On the basis of this oral and documentary evidence the Ld. A/R for

the management argued that the claimant was called upon to submit the form by 4.00 P.M of 17.04.2014

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िून 11, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 21, 1944

1143

which was extended from time to time specially for the claimant Upto 10.00 A.M of 21.04.2014. On that day

another reminder email was also sent to her at 11.00 A.M. But the claimant remained adamant and did not

submit the form complete in all respect which forced the management to select the successful candidate

leading to termination of the service of the claimant as a surplus employee on account of reorganization.

The preference form marked as exhibit WW1/2 supports the stand of the claimant that she was only

called upon to tik either column expressing her wish to apply or not to apply for the new role. The form never

disclosed the job requirement, job responsibility the salary package and other benefits attached to the role.

Hence, she raised objection and demanded the detail information. The email communication between the

manager Sandeep Rai (MW1) and the claimant marked in a series of MW1/3 to MW1/17 nowhere shows that

the detail information sought by the claimant was made available to her. Not only that during this proceeding

the management has not produced the evidence with regard to the deployment policy, the duties and benefits

attached to the LM Grade Post offered to the claimant. Even though the claimant had called for the said

documents the management disputed the same as a result of which liberty was granted to the claimant for

adducing secondary evidence. But obviously the documents being in the possession of the management the

claimant has not adduced secondary evidence. Thus, from the totality of this evidence it is evidently clear

that the claimant was kept in darkness with regard to the job profile of the job offered to her and the benefits

attached thereto.

It is a settled position that there cannot be a selection process without letting the aspirants know the

prospects and the benefits of the post to be considered. Unless the same is made available to the

aspirants/candidate he cannot take a informed decision which is his legal right. As it is important for the

employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the candidate, in the same manner the

candidate has a right to obtain material information with regard to the post he is to compete. Unless the

candidate is informed about the same before he opts to participate it cannot be said that the selection

procedure was undertaken with fairness and transparency. In this case the action of the management in not

disclosing the details about the job in LM Grade which the claimant disputes as a post outside the recognized

grade the only oral evidence to the effect that it is a higher grade post than held by the claimant will not

suffice. In this aspect alone it can be safely concluded that the claimant was intentionally kept out of the

selection process by not informing her about the details of the job profile for which the selection was to be

undertaken and ultimately her service was terminated. In view of the evidence adduced it is also observed

that while terminating the service of the claimant no notice u/s 9A of the Id Act was served and the

provisions of section 25F, G and H were not complied which makes the termination of the service illegal and

the stand of the management that the termination of service falls within the ambit of section 25FF is not

accepted.

Now it is to be adjudicated as to what relief the claimant/workman is entitled to. During course of

argument the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that during cross examination the claimant has admitted

about her gainful employment as a designated partner of Soul Entertainment LLP. Hence her claim for

reinstatement back wages is not tenable. Be it’s stated here that the management has not pleaded about the

gainful employment of the claimant. But by relying upon the judgment of Managing Director, Balasaheb

Desai Sahakari S.K Ltd. vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, (2009)2SCC 288 and Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan and another vs. S. C Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363 the Ld. A/R for the management argued that

when the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back wages comes up, the employee has to

show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. When he places material in this

regard, the employer can bring on record the materials to rebutt the claim. In the instant case the claimant has

not placed any material on record in that regard. On the contrary she has admitted herself to be a designated

partner of Sole Entertainment LLP. Thus, for having no vacancy in the management he is neither entitled to

reinstatement nor the back wages.

But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later judgment i.e. Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior

Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013)10SCC324 have held that:-

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

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

or the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser

wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead

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

wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because

it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who

makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to

prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies

1144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2022/JYAISTHA 21, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was

getting the same or substantially similar emoluments”.

It is thus, a settled legal position that the workman when claims reinstatement or back wages the

employer has to plead and prove by way of positive averments about the gainful employment of the

claimant/employee. In this case the management has miserably failed to do so. It is worth mentioning that

mere pleading or laying some evidence about the gainful employment will not deprive the claimant of the

benefits unless it is proved that the benefit if at all the claimant is gaining from an employment post his

illegal termination is at par or more than the income he was having prior to his termination.

Thus, after hearing the argument and on perusal of the pleading and evidence it is held that the

claimant for the wrongful termination of service is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and

back wages as the evidence on record clearly proves that the nature of work discharged by the claimant was

perennial and the work done by her then are being discharged by some other employees in the finance

department of the management which again leads to a conclusion that there is a vacancy in which the

workman can be reinstated. Both the issues are accordingly answered in favour of the claimant/workman.

Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant. It is held that the service of the

claimant was unjustifiably and illegally terminated. She is held entitled to reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits thereof from the date of termination. The

management is directed to reinstate her into service within 3 months from the date of publication of this

award and settle her financial benefits within 2 months from the date of reinstatement failing which the

amount accrued shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of illegal termination 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.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, 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: 2022.06.16 12:29:57 +05'30'