7879 GI/2022

(2667)

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. 49]

नई दिल् ली, दिसम्बर 4—दिसम्बर 10, 2022, िजनवार/ अग्रिायण 13—अग्रिायण 19, 1944

No. 49]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 4—DECEMBER 10, 2022, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 13— AGRAHAYANA 19, 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

(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)

(केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड)

नई दिल् ली, 2 दिसंबर, 2022

का.आ. 1266.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उपजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलय जिसके 80 प्रजतित से

अजिक कमडचाररयों ने जिन्िी का कायड सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै:

1. केन्रीय वस्ट्तु एवं सेवाकर मंडल- भावनगर-2, प्लॉट नं.-09, जद्वतीय मंजिल, जसल्वर आकड जबलल्डंग

वाघावाड़ी रोड, भावनगर

2. केन्रीय माल एवं सेवाकर लेखा परीक्षा, चंडीगढ़, केन्रीय रािस्ट्व भवन, प्लॉट नं. 19, सेक्टर 17-सी,

चंडीगढ़-160017

3. सीमािुल्क (जनवारक) आयुक्त का कायाडलय, पााँचवीं मंजिल, कैथॉजलक सेंटर, ब्रॉडवे, कोजचन- 682031

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]

नीिाररका लसंि, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23122022-241321

CG-DL-W-23122022-241321

2668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2022

S.O. 1266.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official

Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under

Department of revenue where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

1. Central Goods and Services Tax Circle-Bhawnagar-2, Plot No.-09, 2nd Floor, Silver Arch Building

Waghwadi Road, Bhawnagar

2. Central Goods and Services Tax Audit, Chandigarh, Kendriya Rajasva Bhawan, Plot no. 19, Sector

17-C, Chandigarh-160017

3. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 5^th Floor, Catholic Centre, Broadway,

Cochin- 682031

[F. N. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2 DOR]

NIHARIKA SINGH, Director (OL)

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2022

का. आ. 1267.—राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की िारा 6

की उप-िारा (2) और िारा 7 की उप-िारा (1) के साथ परठत िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त

िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक के उप-प्रबंि जनिेिक

श्री िािी के. वी. (िन्म जतजथ: 30.5.1970) को पि का कायडभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से पांच वषड की अवजि के

जलए अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक (नाबाडड) में अध्यक्ष के पि पर

जनयुक्त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 7/2/2022-एसी]

प्रिांत कुमार गोयल, जनिेिक

(DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES)

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2022

S.O. 1267.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with

sub-section (2) thereof and sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shaji K.V. (DoB:

30.05.1970), Deputy Managing Director, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) as

Chairman, NABARD for a period of five years with effect from the taking over charge of the post or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 7/2/2022-AC]

PRASHANT KUMAR GOYAL, Director

रेल मंत्रालय

(रेलवे बोडड)

नई दिल् ली, 30 नवम् बर, 2022

का. आ. 1268.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडड), रािभाषा जनयम 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए

प्रयोग) के जनयम 10 के उपजनयम (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक

अजिकाररयों/कमडचाररयों ने लिंिी का कायडसाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िै:-

1. सातवीं वाजिनी, रेलवे सुरक्षा जविेष बल, मौला-अली, िैिराबाि-40.

2. मुख्य पररयोिना जनिेिक कायाडलय, केंरीय रेल जवद्युतीकरण संगठन, िानापुर, पटना-801105.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2669

3. मुख्य पररयोिना जनिेिक कायाडलय, केंरीय रेल जवद्युतीकरण संगठन, ियपुर, रािस्ट्थान-302006.

4. डेडीकेटेड फ्रेट कॉररडोर कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड, मेरठ यूजनट- 250002.

[फा. सं. लिंिी-2018/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1314710)]

डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, रािभाषा

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2022

S.O. 1268.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following

offices where 80% or more Officers/ Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. 7^th Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force, Maula-Ali, Hydrabad-40.

2. Chief Project Director office, Central Organisation for Railway Electrification, Danapur, Patna-

801105.

3. Chief Project Director office, Central Organisation for Railway Electrification, Jaipur, Rajasthan-

302006.

4. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd, Meerut Unit- 250002.

[F. No. Hindi-2018/O.L-1/12/1/(1314710)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director (O.L.)

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1269.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार बी बी एम बी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिको और उनके कमडकारों के बीच, अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट

औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय नं 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संिभड

सं. 38/2020) को प्रकाजित करती िै, िो केन्रीय सरकार को 07/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल.22013/01/2022.आई.आर (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन् र लसंि, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 1269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022

[No. L-22013/01/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

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

ID No. 38/2020

Registered on:-24.08.2020

Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Sh. Basant Singh Village-Bard, Post Office-Suhani Tehsil-Ghurmariwan Distt. Bilaspur

H.P

2670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

…….….…..Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-

160019.

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

.......…Respondents/Managements

Award

Passed On:- 31.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID-(17) 2019/B-IV/CHD dated 14.08.2020, under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Kartar

Singh S/o Sh. Basant Singh for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of

superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?

1. On receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman side as well as to the

respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is deemed to have been

delivered to the workman side as the same has not been returned undelivered.

2. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but, till date the workman

has not been able to file claim even none turned up on the dates of hearing in spite of several opportunities

afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on

merit.

3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his

cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a

‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.38/2020.

4 Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the

Act for publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1270.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

सं. 50/2020) को प्रकाजित करती िै, िो केन्रीय सरकार को 07/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल. 22013/01/2022.आई.आर (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन् र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 1270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2671

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

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

ID No. 50/2020

Registered on:-24.08.2020

Sh. Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh Village & Post Office-Gangloh Tehsil-Jhanjutta Distt. Bilaspur H.P.

…….….…..Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

.......…Respondents/Managements

Award

Passed On:- 25.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID(16)2019/B-IV/CHD, dated 14/08/2020, under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB is not accepting the demand of

Sh. Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh for deeming/considering him in continuous

service upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is

legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and

from which date?

1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute

for adjudication also directed the following:-

“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and also

forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of

the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.

2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the directions

of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman and,

therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the

respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred

above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as

undelivered.

3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of

several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the matter on merit.

4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a ‘No

Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.50/2020.

5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1271.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय

सरकार बी बी एम बी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिको और उनके कमडकारों के बीच, अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक

जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संिभड

सं. 18/2020) को प्रकाजित करती िै, िो केन्रीय सरकार को 07/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल. 22013/01/2022-आई.आर (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन् र लसंि, अवर सजचव

2672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 1271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.18/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022

[No L-22013/01/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

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

ID No.18/2020

Registered on:-02.07.2020

Smt. Mansa Devi Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Village-Ratkel, P.O. Sajaopiplu, Tehsil-Dharampur,

Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh

…….….…..Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-

160019.

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

.......…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:- 31.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID-8(6)2020/B-IV/CHD dated 01.07.2020, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of

Smt. Mansa Devi Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Lal for deeming/considering him in continuous

service upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is

legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and

from which date?

On receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman side as well as to the

respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is deemed to have been

delivered to the workman side as the same has not been returned undelivered.

Workman side has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but, till date the workman

has not been able to file claim even none turned up on the dates of hearing in spite of several opportunities

afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on

merit.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his

cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a

‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.18/2020.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act

for publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1272.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj जबलासपुर रायपुर क्षजत्रय ग्रामीण बैंक izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93/2009) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS ।

[सं. एल- 12012/217/2002-vkbZ vkj ch-1]

ए. के. यािव, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2673

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2022

S.O. 1272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bilaspur Raipur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen

[No. L-12012/217/2002– IR(B-1)]

A. K YADAV, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/2009

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav

Village & Post Pawni(City Para

Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

(modified as) Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank

Bilaspur (C.G.)

The Chairman

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

(Modified as) Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank (MP)

Bilaspur.

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 30-8-22)

As per letter dated 30/10/2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-12012/217/2002(IR(B-1).The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bilaspur(Raipur)Kshetriya Gramin

Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Badlu

Ram w.e.f. 24-3-2001 is justified?If not , what relief the applicant is entitled? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties

have filed their statement of claim/defence.

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed against permanent vacancy

of undersigned in Pawni Branch of the Management Bank. The then Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

on 6-3-1991. He worked there till 24-3-2001 continuously for 240 days and more in every year including the

year preceding the date of his termination i.e. 24-3-2001. The Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank merged

into Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Bilaspur on 30-6-2006. According to the workman, he was not given any notice

nor was paid any compensation, hence his termination is in violation of Section 25G and Section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act,1947, herein after referred to as the word “Act”. This is also the case of the workman

that his termination is in violation of Section 25N of the Act and Rule 76 of Industrial Dispute Rules.

Accordingly, he has prayed that holding his termination bad in law, he be entitled to be reinstated with back

wages and benefits. The case of the Management is mainly that the applicant is not a workman as defined

under Section 2(s) of the Act. He was never appointed as per Rules against any permanent vacancy as claimed

by him, rather he was engaged as a Daily Wager casual worker by the Bank and was paid on daily basis when

ever he was engaged according to work. The Management has denied the claim of the workman that he worked

for 245 days or more continuously in any year before his termination. According to the Management, his

termination is not bad in law. The management has accordingly requested that the reference be answered

against the workman.

2. During the proceedings, the workman absented himself. He did not lead any oral or documentary evidence.

The Management has filed affidavit of its witness Panchram Armo, Branch Manager.

3. The workman did not appear at the time of arguments also. He did not file any written arguments.

2674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I have heard arguments of Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management and have gone

through the record.

The Reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

The initial burden to prove his claim lies on the workman, in absence of any evidence oral or

documentary, it is held that the workman could not prove his continuous engagement as defined under

Section 25B of the Act. Hence his termination cannot be held bad in law. Accordingly, holding the action

of management in terminating the services of the workman justified in law and fact, the workman is held

entitled to no relief.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of Bilaspur(Raipur)Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the

services of Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Badlu Ram w.e.f. 24-3-2001 is held to be justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 30-8-2022

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1273.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्रीय

सरकार पज‍ चम रेलवे प्रबंि तंत्र के सबद्ध जनयोिको और उनके कमडकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक

जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण िबलपुर के पंचाट संिभड संख्या (5/2018) को izdkf'kr करती िै।

[सं. एल. 41012/23/2017-आई आर बी.1]

ए. के. यािव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2022

S.O. 1273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.5/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway

and their workmen

[No. L-41012/23/2017– IR(B-1)]

A.K YADAV, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/5/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Meherban Singh,

Aatmaj Mangal Niwasi Saalichowka,

Baabaikala Ward No.5

Basuriya Ward,

Tehsil Gadarwavada Zilla

Narsinghpur(M.P.)

…. Workman

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Jabalpur(M.P.)

… Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2675

AWARD

(Passed on 20-7-2022.)

As per letter dated 24/1/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-41012/23/2017(IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Kya mandal rail prabhandak, pachim Madhya rail, Jabvalpur M.P. ke prabhandan

dwara Shri Mehrban Singh Atmaj Mangal Bhutpurv Gangman ke sweayein denank

18-8-1989 se samapt kiye jaane ke karyavahi nyayuchhit hai?yadi nahi to sambhandit

karmachari kes anutosh na haqdar hai? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The workman

never appeared inspite of service of notice. He did not even file statement of claim.

The Management has filed the written statement of defence, wherein it has been pleaded that the

workman was removed from service on 18-8-1989 and he raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer in

the year 2017, after 28 years from the date of his removal. Thus his claim is barred by delays and latches. It

has further been pleaded that the workman was impleaded as Gangman in P.W.I. Bagratawa initially as casual

labour in 1969. He was regularized in service in the year 1971. He has been a habitual absentee and absented

himself unauthorizedly without any intimation or leave sanctioned on many occasion. He was left off from

charges by imposing lesser punishment. He absented himself willfully and unauthorisedly without any leave or

sanction from 6-10-1987 for which he was issued a charge sheet on 16-6-1988. He was served with a notice

asking him to file reply to the chargesheet but he did not file any reply. A Departmental inquiry was ordered.

The workman appeared and participated during the inquiry. He admitted his absence. Also he admitted that he

did not report to any of the Railway Doctor nor sent intimation to P.W.I. The Inquiry Officer submitted his

report holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authroity passed the impugned punishment of removal

from service w.e.f. 18-8-1989.

Since the workman never appeared, the reference proceeded ex-parte against him. The Management

filed affidavit of its witness with photocopy of inquiry papers.

I have heard ex-parte argument of ShriA.K.Shashi, Learned Counsel for the Management and have

perused the record.

The Reference is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.

The initial burden to prove his claim lies on the workman. In the case in hand, the workman never

appeared. He never filed any statement of claim to show what his case was. He never filed any oral or

documentary evidence in support, hence he has held to have failed to discharge this initial burden. On the other

hand, the Management witness has corroborated the case of the management in his affidavit filed as

Examination-in-Chief and has proved the inquiry papers. Perusal of the inquiry papers shows that principles of

natural justice were followed. The workman did participate during the inquiry, hence inquiry cannot be held

against law or fact. Secondly the act of willful and unauthorized absence is also proved from the inquiry

papers. Willful and unauthorized absence is misconduct inviting major punishment of removal, hence the

punishment also cannot be said to be excessive to the charge. Moreover the dispute has been first raised after 28

years of cause of action. The management has relied on judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs. Shivalinga (2002) I.LL.J S.C.457. “On this point, Hon’ble the Apex Court

has held the claim to be barred by latches when it was filed with unexplained delay of nine years.” This

judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court has been followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in

W.P.No.6232/2014 (W.C.L.Durgapur Vs. Union of India & Another) referred to from the side of the

management.

In the light of above discussion, holding the action of management justified in law and facts, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A.The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is legal and proper.

B.The workman is held entitled to no relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 30-8-2022

2676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1274.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj if’pe e/; jsyos izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 48/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !

[सं. एल-41012/10/2014- vkbZ vkj ch-1]

ए. के. यािव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2022

S.O. 1274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2014) of the Cent. Govt.I ndus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway

and their workmen.

[No. L-41012/10/2014– IR(B-1)

A.K YADAV, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/48/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ram Narayan Malviya

S/o Nanakram,

H.No.9, Bhagat singh Nagar,

Ward No.22,Yard Road,

Near Gwalior Baba Itarsi(MP)

….Workman

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager,

West Central Railway,

Habibganj,

Bhopal(M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17-10-2022.)

As per letter dated 30/5/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.l-41012/10/2014-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management OF Sr. DME(TRS), Electric Locoshed,

Itarsi in terminating the services of Shri Ram Narayan Malviya from 23-9-05

from the post of Chowkidar, Vandana Bhawan, Itarsi is justified or not?if not, to

what .”

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a Chowkidar

on 15-5-1996 on daily wages of Rs.250/-. He was posted at the Vandana Smriti Hall new Yard Itarsi. He

worked till 23-9-2005 when his services were terminated without any notice or compensation which is against

Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Accordingly he has prayed that he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.

3. The case of the management is mainly that he was deputed as a chowkidar on daily wages at Vandana

Smriti Hall who has no connection with the Management of Railways. It is run by an autonomous body and

self governed body of Railway employees and works for their welfare. This Committee which runs this

Vandana Smriti Hall engaged the workman as chowkidar on daily wages and removed him from services

when his services were found unsatisfactory. Hence there was never an employer employee relationship

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2677

between him and the management of Railways. Hence there is no question of termination of his services by

Railways. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

4. The workman has filed copy of his appointment letter dated 17-5-1996 , copy of removal order dated

23-9-2005, copy of order of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.20762/2012. Copies of various orders issued by

the Divisional Engineer, loco shed being member of Board of Vandana Smriti Hall regarding allotment of hall

to different railway employees for different purposes on different dates, all admitted by Management, hence

marked as Exhibit W1 to W7. The workman has examined himself and has been examined by Management.

5. The Management has examined its witness Aditya Legha and P.K.Ingla who has been cross-examined

by the workman.

6. I have heard arguments of Shri Ashok Shrivastav, learned counsel for the workman and Shri Gulab

Suhane, learned counsel for Management and have gone through the record.

7. On perusal of the record in the light of rival arguments, the following issues arises for consideration:-

1) Whether there is relationship of workman and employer between the parties i.e. the

applicant workman and management of Railways?”

8. Section 2G and Section 2S define employer and workman in Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which is as

follows:-

Section 2(S)-

“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or

reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any

proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has

been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that

dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not

include any such person-

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of

1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six

hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to

the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial

nature.]

(g) “employer” means,—

(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of

[the Central Government or a State Government], the authority prescribed in this

behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department;

(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the

chiefexecutive officer of that authority;

Pleading of parties have been dealt on this point earlier. Admitted is the fact that the workman was

issued appointment to work as a chowkidar at Vandana Smriti Hall and was removed by Vandana Smriti Hall

official. The management of Railways has filed the bye laws of Vandana Smriti Hall which is Exhibit M-3

which states that the name of the building will be Vandana Community Bhawan . It also provides that there

will be a Management Committee to manage the affairs of this building and also provides rules regarding its

maintenance and use. It is established from perusal of these Rules that Vandana Smriti Hall Committee is a

body distinct from Management of Railway that it is constituted for welfare of Railway employees and some

Railway officials who are on its Board. Since this Committee is distinct from Railways and the workman was

appointed by this Committee, there cannot be said to be any relation of employer and workman between the

parties in the case in hand. Hence the fact that the workman was determined by Management of Railways is

held not proved and the reference deserves to be answered accordingly.

10.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

2678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A.The action of the management “OF Sr. DME(TRS), Electric Locoshed, Itarsi in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Narayan Malviya from 23-9-05 from the post of Chowkidar, Vandana Bhawan,

Itarsi is held to be just and proper.

B.The workman is held entitled to no relief.

C.No order as to costs.

11. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 17-10-2022

नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम् बर, 2022

का.आ. 1275.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार मिाप्रबंिक (ओ एंड एम) एनटीपीसी, जबलासपुर (सी.िी.); अपर प्रबंिक और मानव संसािन

(प्रमुख), मैससड एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजनयररंग जलजमटेड, नोएडा (यू.पी); पररयोिना प्रबंिक, एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजनयररंग

जलजमटेड एनटीपीसी, जबलासपुर (सी.िी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती सतरूपा, द्वारा अध्यक्ष,

छत्तीसगढ़ कमडचारी मििूर एकता संघ, जबलासपुर, छत्तीसगढ़,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/56/2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/20/2017-आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2022

S.O. 1275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/56/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager (O & M) NTPC, Bilaspur (C.G.);The Additional Manager & HR (Head), M/s

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida (U.P);The Project Manager, Era Infra Engineering Ltd. NTPC, Bilaspur

(C.G) and Smt. Satrupa, Through The President, Chhattisgarh Employees Mazdoor Ekta Sangh, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30/10/2022.

[No. L- 42011/20/2017-IR(DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd.)

Smt. Satrupa,

C/o Shri Om Prakash Gangotri,

President, Chhattisgarh Kramchari

Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh - 495555

…..Workman

Versus

The General Manager (O & M)

NTPC, Seepat PO Ujjawal Nagar,

Bilaspur. C.G. - 495555

The Addl. Manager & HR (Head)

M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

C-56/41, Sector – 62,

Noida UP – 201301.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2679

The Project Manager,

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. NTPC,

Seepat Site, P.O. Ujjawal Nagar

Bilaspur. C.G. - 49555

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17^th day of October-2022)

As per letter dated 09/05/2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

Notification No. L-42011/20/2017 – IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part of M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd, a contractor working

under the principal employer at NTPC, Seepat site in terminating the workman namely

Smt. Satrupa w/o Shri Samaru and not paying the terminal benefits as espoused by the

president of the Chattisgarh Kramchari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur is legal and

justified as per the provisions of section 25 (F) of ID act? If not, what relief the above

named workman is entitled to?

2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties on addresses’

mention in the reference. Workman represented through her learned counsel Adv. Shri S.K.Saini. Management

No. 1 & 2 represented through their learned counsel Adv. Shri R.C.Shrivastava and Adv. Shri Pradeep Kumar

Pandey respectively. Many dates were given for filling of Statement of Claim. No Statement of Claim was

filed. The opposite parties also did not file any Written Statement of Defence.

3. Since the initial burden to prove its case is on the workman side in which she has failed. Hence the

reference deserves to be answered against her and is answered accordingly.

4. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 17-10-2022

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1276.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में

केन्रीय सरकार एमएमटीसी, नई दिल्ली; प्रोजमनेन्ट िाउस कीलपंग, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री प्रभाकर पोखररयाल, नई दिल्ली के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभड सं. 205/2019) को प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]

vk'kh"k dqekj ;kno, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2022

S.O. 1276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 205/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to the management of MMTC, New Delhi; Prominent House Keeping, New Delhi and

Shri Prabhakar Pokhriyal, S/o Shri C P Pokhriyal, New Delhi.

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

ASHISH KUMAR YADAV, 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.

2680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 205/2019

Date of Passing Award- 18.11.2022

Between:

Shri Prabhakar Pokhriyal,

S/o Shri C P Pokhriyal,

R/o House No. 36-A, 3^rd Floor, Cheema House,

Begampur, Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110017

…. Workman

Versus

1. MMTC,

Scope Complex, Core-I, 7 Industrial Area,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

…. Managements

2. Shri Arun D Rosary, CGM, MMTC,

Scope Complex, Core-I, 7 Industrial Area,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

3. Shri Girish Kumar Bhowal, Manager, MMTC,

Scope Complex, Core-I, 7 Industrial Area,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

4. Shri Puroshattam Kumar Jha, Care Taker, MMTC,

Scope Complex, Core-I, 7 Industrial Area,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

5. Prominent House Keeping,

F-67-68, 1^st Floor, Manish Global Mall,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.

Appearances:-

Shri S B Shelly …For the claimant

(A/R)

None for the management

…..For the Management

(A/R)

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2A by the claimant Shri Prabhakar Porkhriyal alleging illegal

termination of his service by respondent No.5 and advancing a claim of Rs. 272400/- towards unpaid salary etc.

The facts pleaded in short is that the claimant was working as a supervisor under management No.5 i.e

Prominent Housekeeping who had deployed his employees for the job of housekeeping in the office of MMTC

at Lodhi Road New Delhi. His job was to supervise the work of other persons employed by the contractor

prominent Housekeeping to execute the work of housekeeping. Respondent No.1 is the Principal Employer and

respondent no.2, 3 and 4 are the lower functionaries of management No.1. The respondent No.2 , 3 and 4 were

acting contrary to their responsibility and collecting a share from the remuneration paid to the employees

deployed by the contractor. The claimant had raised complaints in this regard with the higher authorities of

management No.1. This created a hostile atmosphere around the claimant. Though he was discharging his duty

with utmost sincerity, the respondent no.2, 3 and 4 in connivance with respondent No.5 with the sole intention

of harassing him transferred him from MMTC Scope Office to the office at Manesar Haryana Gurgaon by letter

dated 14.03.2019. The claimant being a physically handicap person and a low paid employee staying in a rented

house in Begampur Area New Delhi was unable to commute from Delhi to Manesar daily meeting the travelling

expenses. However, the claimant pursuant to the letter dated 14.03.2019 reported at Gurgaon office. But he was

not allowed to join there. In the transfer letter dated 14.03.2019 it was mentioned that his service in New Delhi

is no more required. For the non acceptance of joining in Gurgaon Office the claimants service stood terminated

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2681

w.e.f 14.03.2019. Finding no other way he raised the present dispute praying reinstatement into service and

payment of his wage from June 2018 till filing of the claim amounting to Rs. 272400/-. Before filing of this

claim the claimant had raised a dispute before the labour commissioner where the conciliation was taken up.

But for the adamant attitude of the management the conciliation failed. Hence, this proceeding.

Notice was served on all the managements. Management No.1, 2 ,3 and 4 though appeared and took

time for filing WS, later on abandoned the proceeding without filing WS. Management No.5 entered appearance

and filed an application praying rejection of the claim petition for the grounds stated therein. Subsequently

management No.5 neither filed WS nor moved the application filed for rejection of the claim. Thus, by order

dated 27^th April 2022 all the four managements were proceeded exparte and the application filed by M5 was

rejected as not pressed. Thereafter the claimant filed his affidavit.

In the affidavit the claimant has fully supported the averments made in the claim petition. In addition

to that he has filed the photocopies of his ESI Card, the representations made to the authorities and photocopies

of the complaint made by the claimant to NHRC and other authorities. He has also filed the copy of the dispute

raised before the Labour Commissioner alleging illegal termination of the service and the reply filed by the

MMTC to the said complaint. In the said reply the MMTC has denied its liability as the employer of the

claimant. However, the management No.5 had not appeared before the Labour Commissioner.

The evidence of the claimant since has not been disputed and the documents filed by him has remained

unchallenged and uncontroverted it is concluded that the claimant was subjected to unfair labour practice for the

illegal termination of his service without following the procedure of law laid u/s 25F of the Id Act since, the

documents filed by the claimant clearly proves that he had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year

preceding the termination of service pursuant to the letter dated 14.03.2019. On that account the claimant is

entitled to one month pay amounting to Rs. 13500/- as one month notice pay alongwith the arrear salary of Rs.

272400/- as claimed by him. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant. The management No.5 being the

employer of the claimant is directed to pay Rs. 272400/- towards the arrear salary and Rs. 13500/- equal to one

month pay in lieu of one month notice to the claimant. This amount shall be paid to the claimant by M5 i.e.

Prominent Housekeeping within two months from the date of publication of this award failing which the

amount accrued shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from 14.03.2019 and till the 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

िुजद्धपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1277.—bl ea=ky; dh fnukad : 15/11/2022 dh vf/klqpuk la ,y 12012/01/2021 vkbZ

vkj (ch 1) esa gS fuEukuqlkj la/kksu fd;k tkrk gS :-

iafDr nks (2) ea dh xbZ izfof"V;ks dks vokMZ “(lanHkZ 28/2001)” ds LFkku ij vokMZ “(lanHkZ 28/2021)”

i<k tk, !

[सं. 12012/01/2021- vkbZ vkj ch-1]

,- ds- ;kno] अवर सजचव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2022

S.O. 1277.—This Ministry’s Notification No.L-12012/01/2021- IR(B-I) dated 05/12/2022 is amended

as under:-

“the entries in line two(2) may be read as “Award(Ref.28/2021” instead of “Award (Ref.28/2001)” .

[No. L-12012/01/2021– IR(B-1]

A.K. YADAV, Under Secy.

2682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 28/2021

BETWEEN

Renu Sharma W/o Shri Susheel Kumar Sharma

R/o B5/407, Fourth Floor, Nandini Enclave, Phase-3, Avadh Vihar Yojna, Lucknow.

AND

1. The Managing Director & CEO

Axis Bank & Securities Ltd., Axis House

C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400025.

2. The HR Head, Axis Bank & Securities Ltd., Axis House

C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400025.

3. The Vice President, HR, Axis Bank & Securities Ltd., Axis House

C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400025.

4. The JGM (Legal and compliance), Axis Bank & Securities Ltd., Axis House

C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400025.

CORRIGENDUM

By award dated 05.08.2022, the complaint filed by the workman-lady, Smt. Renu Sharma W-

10, under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged contravention of the provisions

contained in the Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the opposite parties had been disposed of by

this Tribunal; wherein some typographical error has been committed on first page of the said award.

Therefore, following correction is being incorporated in the award dated 05.08.2022 of this

Tribunal:

“The I.D. No. on the first page of award dated 05.08.2022 the industrial dispute number, mentioned as

“28/2001” be read as “28/2021”.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1278.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीिाबाि, (िररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िंकर, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम

न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभड सं. 28/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल- 40012/71/2011 -आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. हिम ांशु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2022

S.O. 1278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2683

relation to The General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sector-15, Faridabad,(Haryana), and Shri

Shankar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

16.11.2022.

[No. L-40012/71/2011 -IR (DU)

D.K. HIMANSHU, 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. 28/2012

Date of Passing Award- 19.10.2022

Between:

Shri Shankar,

S/o Shri Heera Lal,

R/o House No. 180, Gali No.1,

Rahul Colony, NIT,

Faridabad

…. Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15, Faridabad

… Management

Appearances:-

Shri S.P Srivastava …For the claimant

(A/R)

Shri Deepak Thukral …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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and its workman/claimant

herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947

vide letter No. L-40012/71/2011 (IR(DU) dated 02/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following

effect.

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of Shri Shankar S/o Shri

Heera Lal, Ex-Cable Jointer w.e.f 23.08.2010, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

The claimant in the claim statement has stated that he had been working with the management BSNL

as Cable Joinder w.e.f 05.01.2003. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1700/- and the same was

increased from time to time and his last drawn salary per month was Rs. 3500/-. The workman had worked with

the management continuously for 7 years diligently leaving no scope of complaint. During this period he was

raising demand for nonpayment of wage as per the approved minimum wage rate, non extension of the benefits

like PF, ESI, paid leave, bonus, overtime etc. This caused annoyance to the management who was in search of

opportunity to terminate the service of the claimant. On 23/08/2010 when the claimant was on duty, the officials

of the management misbehaved him and informed about termination of his service without assigning any

reason. At the time of such termination no notice of termination, notice pay or termination compensation was

paid to the claimant in clear violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Being

aggrieved the claimant made efforts to meet the officials of BSNL and to ensure reinstatement in service. The

officials of BSNL did not listen to his grievance and finding no other way and for the arbitrary action of the

management he served a demand notice on 31.08.2010 by Registered Post with AD. In the month of August

when the management terminated his employment the remuneration for the said month was not even paid to

2684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

him. After receipt of the demand notice the management gave a reply denying all the contentions raised by the

claimant. Hence he raised a dispute before the labour commissioner where the management appeared but

refused to reinstate him. For the failure in conciliation the appropriate government referred the matter for

adjudication in terms of the reference. In the claim statement the claimant has thus, prayed for a direction to the

management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages alongwith all consequential

benefits. The claimant has also advanced a prayer for release of his withheld remuneration for the month of

August 2010 and to direct the management to extend all the service benefit like PF, ESI etc on reinstatement.

The claimant has also stated that the senior officers of BSNL for executing some urgent work used to take

imprest in which the normal procedure like bidding and inviting quotation etc are not followed. For execution of

the said urgent works persons like the claimants are engaged and paid out of the advance taken for those works.

The works discharged by the claimant and persons like him are of perennial in nature since, these persons use to

work as cable joinders, maintenance and upkeep of telephone exchanges, maintenance of telephone lines and

attend the faults reported by the customers.

The management BSNL filed the written statement rebutting the stand of the claimant. While denying

the employer and employee relationship between them the management has pleaded that the proceeding is not

maintainable. The specific stand of the management is that BSNL has enough Group D employees having no

occasion for engaging casual or daily wage temporary workers. If any petty work is to be undertaken usually the

same are given to the contractors selected through proper bidding process. The said contractor might have

engaged the claimant for execution of any such work but the same would not confer the right on the claimant to

be treated as an employee of BSNL. The other stand of the management is that the claimant, since was never

employed by the management the question of illegal termination by the management does not arise and the

management is under no obligation of providing the benefits of PF and ESI etc to the claimant. The

management has also denied the stand of the claimant that the senior officers of BSNL for execution of certain

urgent work use to take imprest (advanced against some urgent work for which normal procedure like bidding,

inviting quotation etc is not possible) and pay out of that amount to the concerned workman executing the work.

Thus, the management has prayed for dismissal of the wrong and incorrect claim advanced by the claimant,

claiming himself as an employee of BSNL.

On these rivals pleading the following issues are framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

As in terms of the reference.

During hearing the claimant filed an application seeking a direction to the management for production of record

in possession of the management. The documents sought by the claimant are:-

The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.

The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.

Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.

The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition

Act 1970.

The license issued by the licensing officer u/s 13 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act

1970 to the contractors engaged by BSNL.

List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.

Copy of the returns submitted by BSNL in respect of all such contractors to the Government

Authorities i.e ESIC and EPFO etc.

But the management did not produce the documents as called for except the copy of a contract

awarded to only one contractor, photocopy of the Board Resolution, the list of various Grade and structure of

employees applicable to the BSNL alongwith an affidavit sworn by AGM Legal stating that the remaining

documents are not within the custody of the management. Thus, the claimant by order dated 13.03.2019 passed

by this tribunal was given liberty of producing secondary evidence in respect of the documents sought for.

During hearing the claimant examined himself as WW1 but has not produced any document in support

of his employment with BSNL. On the basis of his oral statement the claimant has asserted to prove that he was

working for the management from 2003 to 2010 and during the undisputed point of time discharging various

duties assigned to him as an employee of BSNL. But the management BSNL while denying his relationship as

an employee illegally terminated his service. This witness was cross examined at length by the management. On

behalf of the management the AGM Legal Smt. Daisy Singh testified as MW1 and also produced some

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2685

documents which were marked as MW1/1 and MW1/2. These documents are nothing but authority letter issued

to the witness to depose. The witness was confronted with the secondary evidence produced by the claimant the

original of which have been filed in the connected case registered as ID No. 45/2012 and marked as WW1/M1,

WW1/M2, WW1/M3. The witness examined by the management admitted the contents of the said document.

These documents are in the nature of the circulars issued by the AGM of BSNL directing the subordinate

authorities to comply with the provisions of labour law strictly and to revise the wage of the temporary status

Mazdoor/causal labour. Exhibit WW1/M3 is the document filed by the claimant in ID 45/2012 and confronted

to the management witness. This is a reply given to the complaint made by the claimant demanding higher wage

wherein the claimant was intimated by the AGM that the Cable maintenance work is being done by the labourer

engaged through operation and maintenance tender for underground cable network in FBD SSA and all these

labour are contractors workers and are getting remuneration as per Haryana Government minimum wages

Rules.

At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the claimant strenuously argued that this is a typical case

of unfair labour practice meted to the workman. He was made to work as a contractual worker for 07 years.

When the job entrusted to him was of perennial nature, for the legitimate demand advanced by him with regard

to the service condition, the management took revenge and terminated his service. Now when the claimant is

fighting this litigation against the mighty employer, the later is trying to shed all the responsibility on the plea

that no employer and employee relationship exists between them. The management has gone to the extent of

saying that he is the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of daily

rated workers during the relevant time. But the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant as well

as the management clearly shows that the management was engaging contractors without being registered under

the Contract Labour Act and the contractors so engaged were never having registration under the Contract

Labour Act., Thus the contract if any between the management and the contractor were sham and intended to

camouflage the legal and legitimate rights of the claimant workman. Infact the claimant was working in the

premises of the management under its supervision and control and discharging perennial nature of work. But the

management in gross violation of provisions of Id Act, in a revenge full manner terminated his service which

amounts to unfair labour practice.

The counter reply of the Ld. A/R for the management was that the claimant has not produced any

documents showing employer and employee relationship between the parties though the burden for the same

heavily lies on the claimant. The claimant though had made a faint attempt of producing some documents to

make the tribunal infer such a relationship, failed in his attempt. His further argument is that the BSNL is a state

owned company having its own policy of recruitment. It has enough no. of Group D employees and as such

there was never any need for employing causal/daily wage workers. Sometimes for some petty work the

contractors are engaged through proper Bidding process and the said contractors engage their own manpower

for execution of the work. The manpower engaged by the contractor in no way can be treated as the employees

of BSNL management. He thereby submitted that the claim advanced by the claimant is false, baseless and

liable to be rejected.

FINDINGS

ISSUE No.1

This issue has been taken up for consideration at the first instance since it will have a considerable

influence on the decision of the other issues. It has been claimed by the workman that he had worked for BSNL

from 2003 to 2010 as a cable jointer/MDF and internet/gen operator till the year 2010 when his service was

illegally terminated. During this period he had worked continuously and diligently for the management. In the

oral evidence by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With regard

to the documentary evidence in support of the claim, the workman has not filed any document. But argument

was advanced by the claimant that the secondary evidence of the original documents filed in ID 45/2012, when

confronted to the management witness, she admitted the contents of the same. The said documents show that

during the period between 2003 to 2010 he was working as an employee of management BSNL and his name

appears in different papers created during that undisputed period of time. Serious objection was raised to the

admissibility of the said document by the management. The Ld. A/R for the management argued that the

documents which are the money receipts gate passes and complaint books are no way helpful in proving the

employer and employee relationship. The claimant as WW1 stated that he was working as a cable joinder for

the management at Faridabad. He was attending to the job of fault repair on the complaint of the customers. The

copy of the log book and the certificate of fault repair given by the customers which have been filed by the

claimant in ID No. 45/2012 and marked in series of H. These documents of the year 2003 to 2010 proves that

the claimant Shankar on behalf of Pali Exchange of BSNL at Faridabad was attending to the work in respect of

fixing the complaints and obtaining compliance report from the customers including the local MLA as one of

the customer.

2686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Ld. A/R for the management raised dispute to the relevancy of these documents in proving the

employer and employee relationship. Be its stated here that the plea of the management BSNL taken is that the

claimant was never employed by the management BSNL and he might have been engaged by the contractor

who was engaged for executing petty works. In the written statement the management had furnished the list of

such contractors engaged during the relevant period. The claimant during the hearing, made a prayer for

production of document relating to the contract awarded. But surprisingly the management produced incomplete

copy of the contract documents relating to engagement of security guards and housekeeping staff. No document

relating to engagement of cable joinder/MDF and internet/gen operator through contractor was ever filed though

the management witness MW1 during cross examination has categorically admitted that all the records relating

to the contractors working for BSNL are available in their office. She further stated that she cannot name the

contractor under whom the claimant was working or if he was at all working under any contractor.

The Ld. A/R for the claimant at this juncture disputed and challenged the credibility of the

management evidence on the ground that the management is guilty of suppressing material evidence. When all

the contracts related papers are available in the office of the management and when the claimant had demanded

production of the same, the management should have produced those documents to prove that no daily wager

are engaged directly by the BSNL and the work of cable jointing, maintenance of line and up keeping of the

exchanges are done through contractors. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Gopal Krishna Ji Ketkar vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and others (1968)AIR (SC)1413 and the case of State

Inspector of Police vs. Surya Shankaram Karri (2006)7SCC172, he submitted that for non production of

material document which could have thrown light on the dispute of employer employee relationship, the

management is guilty of suppressing valuable evidence and adverse inference is bound to be drawn against

them. To counter the stand of the management the Ld. A/R for the claimant argued that the stand about the

contractor taken by the management is false and fabricated. For that reason the papers relating to the award of

contract have been suppressed. He also submitted that if at all any paper relating to contract exists at the end of

the management the same is sham and intended to camouflage the right of the claimant.

The other argument is that the plea about the contract awarded to execute petty work as claimed by the

management is false since, the management despite the demand made by the claimant to show the registration

of BSNL under the CLRA failed to produce the same. The management though admitted about engagement of

contractors and furnished a list of the contractors in the WS, when called upon failed to justify if the said

contractors were having license for engagement of contract Labour and if the claimant was a labour engaged

through the said contractor. This argument of the Ld. A/R for the claimant sounds convincing.

The law of evidence provides that any document proposed to be proved should be produced in original

as primary evidence and the secondary evidence is permissible only when the original is proved to be lost or not

within the reach of the party relying on the same or the same cannot be produced without in ordinate delay and

difficulty. In this case admittedly the claimants are the poor workmen who have no link with the management

on account of their alleged retrenchment. In such a situation it cannot be insisted upon them to produce the

original document from the custody of the management. The management in this case was participating in the

proceeding when the document that is the photocopy of the attendance register was exhibited. Hence, this

tribunal feels it proper to accept the photocopies of the documents as secondary evidence.

The workman has asserted that he was working directly under the management having no intermediary

contractor. Though, in the written statement a reference has been made by the management about the contractor

engaged for executing petty work, as observed in the preceding paragraph the management has failed to prove

the same. The documents filed by the AGM testifying as MW1 which are in the nature of the contract awarded

to a contractor for supply of security guard or housekeeping staff has no connection with the claim of the

claimant. Though on the basis of these documents the A/R for the management emphatically argued that the

claimant was the employee of the contractor the same is not accepted as not proved. On the contrary the

claimant has confronted several photocopies of the log book for fault repair for maintenance of the gen. set the

certificates issued by the customers after the fault of their telephones and internet connection were attended and

fixed by the claimant to the management witness. All these documents created during the undisputed period of

time bear the name of the claimant. Hence, the tribunal as stated above has no hesitation in accepting the said

secondary evidence which to some extent throws light on the employer and employee relationship between the

parties. NO contrary evidence has been adduced by the management to disprove the said documents which in

turn becomes admissible to support the claim of the claimant. Thus, all these documents together with oral

evidence adduced by the claimant and the management witness clearly lead to conclusion that during the

relevant period between 2003 to 2010 the workman was the employee of the management, discharging

perennial nature of work and there existed a relationship of employer and employee between them.

Of course the Ld. A/R for the management challenged the credibility of the evidence adduced by the

claimant in proving the employer and employee relationship. But on behalf of the claimant reliance has been

placed in the case of Hussainbhai Calicut vs. the Alath Factory The zhill Union Kozhikode and others

(1978)AIR (SC) 1410 and in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. PO Labour Court VIII and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2687

others (2015)3CLR 363 Delhi High Court to argue that when a worker produces goods and services for the

employer and the employer has economic control over the workers subsistence, the presence of the intermediary

contractor has no value or consequence and it is required for the courts and tribunals to lift the veil or looking at

the conspectus of factors governing employment.

In this regard reliance can be placed in the case of BSNL vs. Bhurumal decided by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No. 10957 of 2013 where in by an award passed by the CGIT a diary

containing the details of the job undertaken by the workmen on different dates were accepted as evidence for

determining the employer employee relationship. The tribunal on the basis of the said documents have come to

hold that the entries in the diary legally prove that the workmen were working under the direct and

administrative control of the management and thus, they were the employees of the management. The Hon’ble

Apex Court while analyzing the reasons assigned by the Presiding Officer of CGIT came to hold that there is no

reason to disbelieve the diaries maintained during ordinary course of business and thereby discarded the

argument advanced by the of BSNL management that the diary being a self serving document cannot be relied

as evidence. In this case in the similar manner the workman has relied upon the entries made in the log book

showing the work and job discharged by him. This tribunal finds no reason of discarding the said log book. On

the contrary it is held that the entries in the said log book were made during an undisputed point of time and

clearly proves how during the relevant time period i.e. between 2003 to 2010, the workman was working under

the effective administrative control of the management which gives rise to a presumption of employer employee

relationship which has not been successfully rebutted by the management in this case. The plea of the

management that the claimant was the employee of the contractor in absence of proof is rejected. This issue is

accordingly answered in favour of the workman.

ISSUE No.2

The grievance of the claimant is that he had worked for the management for 07 years without being

paid the minimum wage. When he raised a genuine and lawful demand for the same the management got

annoyed and terminated his service w.e.f. 23.08.2010. The management had denied the alleged termination on

the ground that when there was no employer employee relationship the question of termination doesn’t arise.

The claimant examined as WW1 in his oral statement has stated that the management orally terminated his

service and at the time of termination neither any termination notice, notice pay, or termination compensation

was paid. Not only that no show-cause notice was served nor any Domestic Enquiry was conducted against him

before termination. The witness was cross-examined at length by the Ld. A/R for the management. But nothing

substantial has been elicited to discredit his testimony.

Now it is to be examined if the said act of termination and denial of service benefits by the

management is illegal. Be it stated here that the evidence of the claimant has not been controverted by the

management. While answering issue No.1 it has already been held that the workman was working for the

management and discharging his duty for the period between 2003 to 2010. In the case of ONGC vs. ONGC

contractual workers union reported in 2008 LLR page 801 it has been held that in order to ascertain the

status of the workman the period of work rendered by him is also taken into consideration. In this case the

workman has stated that he was the employee of the management for 07 years and the later illegally terminated

his service.

The law is well settled that when the workman successfully establishes his relationship as an employee

of the management it is to be seen if the termination was made illegally. Reference can be made to section 25-F

of the Act 1947 which precisely speaks that no workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous

service for not less than 1 year shall be retrenched unless and until the said workmen has been give one month

notice in writing, or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. In this case in the written statement the

management has taken a plea that no notice was required to be served since there was no employer employee

relationship. This gives an impression that no notice was served. Thereby the management has admitted non

compliance of the mandatory provision of section 25-F of the ID act. This act itself makes the order of

termination illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the moot question which remains to be replied is

what would be the relief that can be granted to the workmen once his termination is held to be illegal.

Way back in the year 1980 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma

and Others vs. CGIT Delhi had observed that

“Plain commonsense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the workman must

ordinarily lead to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It is as if the order was never been

made and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages. But there may be exceptional circumstance which

makes it impossible for the employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”

In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of

compensation in lieu of reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual

Worker Union reported in 2008 LLR 801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several

2688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

observations in different pronouncement which suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days of work or a

contractual worker is not entitled automatically to be regularized, came to hold that in appropriate cases

regularization can be ordered.

Here is a case were the workman has prayed for a relief of reinstatement simplicitor by the

management No.1. He has further stated that the work done by him is perennial in nature. While adducing

evidence the workman has successfully proved that for the relevant calendar year of his engagement he had

completed 240 days of work and there by duly discharged the burden put on him to prove that during a calendar

year he had discharged work for 240 days more(2006 SCC page 967, municipal counsel Sujanpur vs.

surinder kumar relied )

A question may come up regarding the regularization of casual or contractual employees against

regular vacancies in view of the restriction imposed in the case of Secretary of state karnatak vs. Uma devi

reported in 2006) 4 SCC Page1. In the said judgment the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

have held that the appointment of the contractual employees and their regularization in service is not an

automatic process. But the case of Uma devi referred supra came to be discussed in a later judgment by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari

Sangathana (2009) 8 SCC Page 556. In that judgment the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with

regard to the jurisdiction of the industrial court to give status wages and all other benefits of permanency to the

workman who had been serving for years as cleaners in the corporation in temporary capacity. Relying upon

Uma Devi a plea was raised that granting of permanent status to the casual workers/daily wager was not

sustainable in law. Repealing the aforesaid argument the supreme court in Para No. 32 and 33 of the judgment

of Maharashtra SRTC referred supra observed as under:-

“32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide

and affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status

and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer

under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is

established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive

as well as positive direction to an erring employer.

“33. The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial Labour Courts

provided therein were not at all under consideration in the case of Uma Devi1. As a matter of fact,

the issue like the present one pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered

or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees

as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of

depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as provided in Item 6 of

Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 of the Act did not fall

for adjudication or consideration before the constitution Bench”.

Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case Hari Nandan Prasad vs. employer I/R to

management of Food Corporation of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848, wherein the issue

was as to whether the Labour Court Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order regularization of the workman was

considered in the context of the provision of the Act and the decision of the constitution bench in the case of

Uma Devi and the Hon’ble Court came to hold that the powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court under the ID Act are quite wide. The Act deals with industrial Disputes, provides for conciliation,

adjudication, and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the enforcement of the award and

settlement. Not only that way back in the year 1950 in the case of Bharat Bank Limited vs. Employees of

Bharat Bank reported in (1950) LLJ 921 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:

“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal

is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and

privileges on either party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be

within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to the

contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights and obligations

between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”

In the above said background and on considering the different pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex

Court, while reverting to the facts of the present case, the grievance of the claimant is that he was

working as casual workers against the permanent vacancy and the nature of the duty discharged by him

was perennial in nature. But the management in order to deprive him of his right to be permanent and

regularization illegally terminated his service.

Hence, for the foregoing reasons it is concluded that the claimant/workman was subjected to unfair

labour practice by the management. There was a gross violation of the provision of Section 25-G of the ID Act.

He having discharged the duty perennial in nature, for more than 240 days in a calendar year, this tribunal while

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 10, 2022/अग्रिायण 19, 1944

2689

following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad referred supra feels it proper to

exercise its jurisdiction to order the regularization of the workman who was initially appointed as a casual

workers and continued to work for 07 years and also worked for more than 240 days in the calendar years

preceding to his termination. The issue is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. The management is directed to

reinstate the claimant into service with continuity thereof from the date of illegal termination and pay the arrear

salary for the intervening period between termination and reinstatement at the rate of 40% of the last drawn

wage. The management is further directed to release the unpaid salary of the claimant for the month of August

2010 at the rate of his last drawn salary and to extend the benefits of EPF and ESI etc alongwith other service

benefits like paid leave, bonus etc. on reinstatement. The management is further directed to give effect to the

direction given in this award within one month from the date of publication of the award failing which the

management shall be liable to pay the wage to the claimant at the rate of his last drawn wage from the date of

termination and till the reinstatement is made alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accrual and

till the payment is actually made. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as

required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1279.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री नेक राम, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-

श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभड सं. 27/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40012/70/2011-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. हिम ांशु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2022

S.O. 1279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sector-15, Faridabad, (Haryana), and Shri

Nek Ram, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

16.11.2022.

[No. L-40012/70/2011 -IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, 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. 27/2012

Date of Passing Award- 19.10.2022

Between:

Shri Nek Ram,

S/o Shri Lakhan Singh,

R/o House No. 710, Gali No.2,

2690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 10, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 19, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Parwatia Colony, 30 Feet Road, NIT,

Faridabad

…. Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15, Faridabad

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri S.P Srivastava

…For the claimant

(A/R)

Shri Deepak Thukral

…..For the Management

AWARD

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

existing between employer i.e. the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and its workman/claimant

herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947

vide letter No. L-40012/70/2011 (IR(DU) dated 02/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following

effect.

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of Shri Nek Ram S/o

Shri Lakhan Singh, Ex-Cable Jointer w.e.f 23.08.2010, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

The claimant in the claim statement has stated that he had been working with the management BSNL

as Cable Joinder w.e.f 01.03.1999. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1700/- and the same was

increased from time to time and his last drawn salary per month was Rs. 3500/-. The workman had worked with

the management continuously for 11 years diligently leaving no scope of complaint. During this period he was