8057 GI/2022
(2795)
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. 50]
नई दिल् ली, दिसम्बर 11—दिसम्बर 17, 2022, िजनवार/ अग्रिायण 20—अग्रिायण 26, 1944
No. 50] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 11—DECEMBER 17, 2022, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 20— AGRAHAYANA 26, 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)
जविेि मंत्रालय
(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2022
का. आ. 1306.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा
2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास नूर- सुल्तान मेेँ जवजपन राठी, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को
दिनांक 08 दिसम्बर 2022 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजिकृत
करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2022 (57)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी, उप सजचव (कांसुलर)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-29122022-241473
CG-DL-W-29122022-241473
2796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 8th December,2022
S.O. 1306.—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 Vipin Rathee, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Nur-Sultan
to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 08 December 2022.
[F. No.T.4330/01/2022 (57)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नई दिल् ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2022
का. आ. 1307.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास टोक्यो मेेँ सुब्रता िर, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को दिनांक
08 दिसम्बर 2022 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजिकृत
करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2022 (58)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी, उप सजचव (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 8th December,2022
S.O. 1307.—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 Subrata Dhar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Tokyo to
perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 08 December 2022.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2022 (58)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 1308.—केन् रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उपजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन
सावविजनक क्षेत्र के उपक्रम के जनम् नजलजखत कायावलयों, जिनके 80 या अजिक प्रजतित कमवचारी वृन् ि ने जिन् िी का
कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै:-
1. गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड,
बूस्ट्टर स्ट्टेिन, आईपीएस, राष्ट्रीय रािमागव
संख्या-27, पीओ– खडात, आबूरोड-
307026
2. गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड,
आईपीएस, मंिारामपुरा, जनवारू रोड,
ियपुर
3. गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड,
िीपीयू – गांिार, ग्राम – रोिाटंकाररया,
तालुका- आमोि, जिला भरूच – 392140
4. गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड,
इंटरमीजडएट पमम्पंग स्ट्टेिन समाख्याली,
270 दकमी. स्ट्टोन, एनएच–27, ग्रा. एवं
पो.-लाकजड़या,
तिसील
–भचाउ,
जिला – कच्छ – 370145
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2797
5. गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड,
भुवनेश्वर
कायावलय,
610-612,
उत्कल
जसग्नेचर, पिल, एनएच – 5, भुवनेश्वर -
751032
6. गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड,
वाराणसी कायावलय, ऊिाव भवन, गेल
सीएनिी मिर स्ट्टेिन के पास, भगवानपुर,
िरहुआ, ररंग रोड, वाराणसी - 221005
[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.]
िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उप जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1308.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official
purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public
Sector undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or
more percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-
1. GAIL (India) Limited,
Booster
Station,
IPS,
NH-27,
PO- Khadat, Aburoad -307026
2. GAIL (India) Limited,
IPS, Mansarampura, Niwaru Road, Jaipur
3. GAIL (India) Limited,
GPU
–
Gandhar,
village
-
Rozatankaria, Taluka - Amod, District
- Bharuch – 392140 (Gujrat)
4.
GAIL (India) Limited,
Intermediate Pumping Station Smaakhiali,
270
KM
Stone,
NH–27,
Village
&
Post – Lakadia, Tehsil – Bhachau, District –
Kutch – 370145
5. GAIL (India) Limited,
Bhubaneswar Office, 610-612, Utkal
Signature,
Palala,
NH
–
5,
Bhubaneswar - 751032
6. GAIL (India) Limited,
Varanasi Office, Urja Bhawan, Near GAIL
CNG Mother Station, Bhagwanpur, Harhua,
Ring Road, Varanasi- 221005
[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL]
SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)
कोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 1309.— केन्रीय सरकार, कोयला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास), अजिजनयम, 1957 (1957 का
20), (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 4 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार
के कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा िारी की गई अजिसूचना, संख्यांक का.आ. 2911(अ), तारीख 27 िून, 2022, िो भारत
के रािपत्र, असािारण, भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड (ii), तारीख 27 िून, 2022 में प्रकाजित की गई थी, उस
अजिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट पररक्षेत्र की भूजम में जिसका माप 38.20 िेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 94.39
एकड़ (लगभग) िै, कोयले का पूवेक्षण करने के अपने आिय की सूचना िी थी;
और, केन्रीय सरकार का यि समािान िो गया िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट उक्त
भूजम के भाग में कोयला अजभप्राप्य िै;
अतः, अब, केन्रीय सरकार उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णवत 38.20 िेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 94.39 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूजम में
या उस पर के सभी अजिकार का अिवन करने के अपने आिय की सूचना िेती िै।
2798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
रटप्पण 1 : इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक िारक संख्या एमसी/लैंड प्लान/ 22/8ए, तारीख 5
नवम्बर, 2022 को कलेक्टर, जिला पजश्चम बद्धवमान, पजश्चम बंगाल के कायावलय में या कोयला जनयंत्रक,
1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता – 700001 के कायावलय में या जनिेिक तकनीकी (पी एण्ड पी ),
ईस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, सांकतोजड़या, डाकघर दििेरगढ़, जिला पजश्चम बद्धवमान (पजश्चम बंगाल)
जपनकोड – 713333 के कायावलय में दकया िा सकता िै।
रटप्पण 2: उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 8 के उपबंिों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट दकया िाता िै, जिसमें जनम्नजलजखत उपबंि
िै :–
‘’8. अिवन की बाबत् आपजत्तयाेँ.- (1)कोई व्यजक्त िो दकसी भूजम में, जिसके बाबत् िारा 7 के अिीन अजिसूचना
िारी की गई िै, जितबद्ध िै, अजिसूचना के जनकाले िाने से तीस दिनों के भीतर सम्पूणव भूजम या उसके दकसी भाग या
ऐसी भूजम में या उस पर के दकन्िीं अजिकारों का अिवन दकए िाने के बारे में आपजत्त कर सकेगा।
स्ट्पष्टीकरण.- इस िारा के अंतगवत यि आपजत्त निीं मानी िायेगी, दक कोई व्यजक्त दकसी भूजम में कोयला
उत्पािन के जलए स्ट्वयं खनन संदक्रयाएेँ करना चािता िै और ऐसी संदक्रयाएेँ केन्रीय सरकार या दकसी अन्य व्यजक्त को
निीं करनी चाजिए।
(2) उपिारा (1) के अिीन प्रत्येक आपजत्त सक्षम अजिकारी को जलजखत रूप में की िाएगी और सक्षम
अजिकारी को या आपजत्तकताव को स्ट्वयं सुने िाने या जवजि व्यवासयी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर िेगा और ऐसी सभी
आपजत्तयों को सुनने के पश्चात और ऐसी अजतररक्त िाेँच यदि कोई िो, करने के पश्चात िो वि आवश्यक समझता िै,
वि या तो िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन अजिसूजचत भूजम के या ऐसी भूजम में या उस पर के अजिकारों के संबंि
में आपजत्तयों पर अपनी जसफाररिों और उसके द्वारा की गई कायवािी के अजभलेख सजित जवजभन्न ररपोटव केन्रीय
सरकार को उसके जवजनश्चय के जलए िेगा।
(3) इस िारा के प्रयोिनों के जलए वि व्यजक्त दकसी भूजम में जितबद्ध समझा िाएगा िो प्रजतकर में जित का
िावा करने का िकिार िोता यदि भूजम या दकसी ऐसी भूजम में या उस पर के अजिकार इस अजिजनयम के अिीन
अर्िवत कर जलए िाते िैं।”
रटप्पण 3 : केन्रीय सरकार ने कोयला जनयंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता – 700001 को, उक्त
अजिजनयम की िारा 3 के अिीन, अजिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. सं. 2520, तारीख 27 मई, 1983, िो
भारत के रािपत्र, भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड (ii), तारीख 11 िून, 1983 में प्रकाजित की गई थी,
सक्षम प्राजिकारी जनयुक्त दकया िै।
अनुसूची
मोिनपुर जवस्ट्तार फेज़ II ओपनकास्ट्ट पररयोिना
जिला- पजश्चम बद्धवमान, राज्य – पजश्चम बंगाल
[ रेखांक िारक संख्या एमसी/लैंड प्लान/ 22/8ए, तारीख 5 नवम्बर, 2022 ]
सभी अजिकार :
क्रम
सं.
मौिा/ग्राम
का नाम
ग्राम
संख्यांक
पटवारी िल्का /
िेएल संख्यांक
तिसील /
पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
जिला
क्षेत्र
िेक्टेयर में
रटप्पण
1.
पिाड़गोड़ा
सलानपुर
िेएल-64
सलानपुर
पजश्चम
बद्धवमान
25.14
भाग
2.
बोलकुण्डा
सलानपुर
िेएल-67
सलानपुर
पजश्चम
बद्धवमान
0.42
भाग
3.
पबवतपुर
सलानपुर
िेएल-66
सलानपुर
पजश्चम
बद्धवमान
12.64
भाग
कुल :
38.20
कुल क्षेत्र : 38.20 िेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 94.39 एकड़ (लगभग)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2799
1. ग्राम पिाड़गोड़ा में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक : 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300,
301, 302, 304, 308, 309, 310, 321, 322, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334,
335, 336, 337, 338/753, 338, 339, 340, 352/741, 363, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372,
373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 405, 406, 610, 611, 612,
613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630,
631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647,
648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664,
665, 666, 667, 694, 703, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716,
717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 728/738, 729, 730, 731,
732, 733, 737, 738, और 738/745.
2. ग्राम बोलकुण्डा में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक : 917, 918, 920 और 936.
3. ग्राम पबवतपुर में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक : 116, 118, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139,
140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,
158, 159, 160, 553, 554, 558/765, 558/766, 558/763, 558, 558/764, 559, 559/762,
559/761, 561, 563, 564, 565, 565/752, 567/760, 567/751, 567/757, 571, 578, 579,
580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 600, 608, 609, 610, 611/750,
611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 635,
751/759, 751/758 और 751/760.
सीमा वणवन :
रेखा क– ख : यि रेखा पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 251 पर जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘क’ से िुरू िोकर पजश्चम दििा की ओर
आगे बढ़ती िै और पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 249 के मबंिु ‘ख’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ख – ग: यि रेखा पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 249 के मबंिु ‘ख’ से िजक्षण दििा की ओर आगे बढ़ती िै और
मबंिु ‘ग’ ( पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट संख्या 708 के कोणीय मबंिु ) तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ग– घ: यि रेखा मबंिु ‘ग’ (पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 708 के कोणीय मबंिु) से िुरू िोकर पूवव दििा से आगे
बढ़ते हुए बोलकुण्डा मौिा से िोकर गुिरती िै और पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट संख्या 729 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘घ’ तक
पहुेँचती िै ।
रेखा घ –ड.: पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 729 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘घ’ से िुरू िोकर िजक्षण पूवी दििा की ओर आगे
बढ़ते हुए पबवतपुर मौिा से गुिरती िै और पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 563 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ड.’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ड. – च: यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा िेएल सं. 66 के प्लाट सं. 563 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ड.’ से िुरू िोकर उत्तर-पूवी
दििा की ओर आगे बढ़ती िै और पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 607 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘च’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा च – छ : यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 607 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘च’ से उत्तर-पजश्चमी दििा की ओर से िुरू
िोती िै और पबवतपुर और मोिनपुर मौिा की सांझा मौिा सीमा से िोकर गुिरती िै और पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं.
596 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘छ’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा छ – ि: यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 596 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘छ’ से िुरू िोकर िजक्षण-पजश्चमी दििा की
ओर आगे बढ़ती िै और पबवतपुर और मोिनपुर मौिा की सांझा मौिा सीमा से िोकर गुिरती िै और पबवतपुर मौिा
के प्लाट सं. 587 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ि’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ि – झ: यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 587 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ि’ से िुरू िोकर उत्तर दििा की ओर आगे
बढ़ती िै और पबवतपुर और मोिनपुर मौिा की सांझा मौिा सीमा से िोकर गुिरती िै और पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट
सं. 587 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘झ’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
2800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
रेखा झ – ञ: यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 587 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘झ’ से िुरू िोकर िजक्षण दििा की ओर आगे
बढ़ती िै और पबवतपुर और मोिनपुर मौिा की सांझा मौिा सीमा से िोकर गुिरते हुए पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट
सं. 587 और 585 के कोणीय मबंिु में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ञ’ तक पहुंचती िै।
रेखा ञ – ट : यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 587 और 585 के कोणीय मबंिु में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ञ’ से िुरू िोकर
उत्तर-पजश्चमी दििा की ओर आगे बढ़ते हुए पबवतपुर और मोिनपुर मौिा की सांझा मौिा सीमा से गुिरती िै और
पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 575 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ट’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ट – ठ: यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 575 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ट’ से िुरू िोकर िजक्षण-पजश्चमी दििा की ओर
आगे बढ़ती िै और पबवतपुर और मोिनपुर मौिा की सांझा मौिा सीमा से िोकर गुिरते हुए पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट
सं. 737 और 145 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ठ’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ठ – ड: यि रेखा पबवतपुर मौिा के प्लाट सं. 737 और 145 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ठ’ से िुरू िोकर उत्तर दििा की
ओर आगे बढ़ते हुए पिाड़गोड़ा और मोिनपुर के पबवतपुर की सांझा मौिा सीमा से िोकर गुिरती िै और पिाड़गोड़ा
मौिा के प्लाट सं. 604 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ड’ पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ड – ढ: यि रेखा पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 604 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ड’ से िुरू िोकर पजश्चम दििा की ओर आगे
बढ़ते हुए पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा से गुिरती िै और पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 362 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ढ’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
रेखा ढ– क: यि रेखा पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 362 में जस्ट्थत मबंिु ‘ढ’ से िुरू िोकर उत्तरी दििा की ओर आगे
बढ़ते िे पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा से िोकर गुिरती िै और पिाड़गोड़ा मौिा के प्लाट सं. 251 के मबंिु ‘क’ तक पहुेँचती िै।
[फा.सं. 43015/04/2022-एलएएण्डआईआर]
राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1309.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number
S.O.2911(E), dated the 27th June, 2022, issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in
the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 27th June, 2022, the Central
Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 38.20 hectares (approximately) or 94.39 acres
(approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;
And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands
specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the lands measuring 38.20 hectares
(approximately) or 94.39 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands as specified in the
Schedule appended hereto;
Note 1: The plan bearing number MC/Land Plan/22/8A, dated the 5th November, 2022 of the area covered by
this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Paschim Bardhaman,
West Bengal or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata -700001, or at
the office of the Director Technical (P & P), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office
Dishergarh, District- Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal) PIN Code- 713333.
Note 2 : Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-
“8. Objections to acquisition.- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a
notification under section 7 has been issued may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object
to the acquisition of the whole or of any part of the land or any rights in or over such land.
Explanation.- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he
himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations
should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.
(2) Every objection under sub section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and the
competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal
practitioner and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2801
thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section
(1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels
of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government, containing his
recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held him, for the decision of
that Government.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled
to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this
Act.”
Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700 001 has been appointed by the Central
Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number
S.O. 2520, dated the 27th May,1983, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section
(ii), dated the 11th June, 1983.
SCHEDULE
Mohanpur Expansion Phase II Opencast Project
District- Pashchim Burdwan, State-West Bengal
[ Plan bearing number MC/Land Plan/22/8A, dated the 5th November, 2022 ]
All Rights:
Sl.
No.
Name of
mouja/ village
Village
number
Patwari
halka/JL
number
Tahsil/
Police
Station
District
Area in
hectares
Remarks
1.
Pahargora
Salanpur
JL-64
Salanpur
Paschim
Bardhaman
25.14
Part
2.
Bolkunda
Salanpur
JL- 67
Salanpur
Paschim
Bardhaman
0.42
Part
3.
Parbatpur
Salanpur
JL-66
Salanpur
Paschim
Bardhaman
12.64
Part
Total :
38.20
Total area : 38.20 hectares (approximately) or 94.39 acres (approximately)
1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pahargora:
294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 304, 308, 309, 310, 321, 322, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331,
332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338/753, 338, 339, 340, 352/741, 363, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373,
374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 405, 406, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617,
618, 619, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639,
640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660,
661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 694, 703, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716,
717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 728/738, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 737, 738
and 738/745.
2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bolkunda:
917, 918, 920 and 936.
3. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Parbatpur:
116, 118, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153,
154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 553, 554, 558/765, 558/766, 558/763, 558, 558/764, 559, 559/762,
559/761, 561, 563, 564, 565, 565/752, 567/760, 567/751, 567/757, 571, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583,
584, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 600, 608, 609, 610, 611/750, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618,
619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 635, 751/759, 751/758 and 751/760.
Boundary description :
Line A-B:
The line start from point 'A' plot number 251 of Pahargora Mouza trends in west direction and
reaches at point 'B' of plot number 249 of Pahargora Mouza.
Line B-C:
The line start from point 'B' plot number 249 of Pahargora Mouza trends in south direction and
reaches at point number 'C' (corner point of plot number 708 of Pahargora Mouza).
2802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Line C-D:
The line start from point 'C' (corner point of plot number 708 of Pahargora Mouza) trends in east
direction passes through Bolkunda Mouza and reaches at point 'D' in plot number 729 of
Pahargora Mouza.
Line D-E:
The line start from point 'D' in plot number 729 of Pahargora Mouza trends in south east direction
passes through Parbatpur Mouza and reaches at point 'E' in plot number 563 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line E-F:
The line start from point 'E' plot number 563 of Parbatpur Mouza J L number 66 trends in north
east direction and reaches at point 'F' plot number 607 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line F-G:
The line start from point 'F' plot number 607 of Parabatpur Mouza in North West direction and
passes along common mouza boundary of Parbatpur and Mohanpur Mouza, reaches at point 'G'
plot number 596 of Parabatpur Mouza.
Line G-H:
The line start from point 'G' plot number 596 of Parbatpur Mouza trends in south west direction
and passes along common mouza boundary of Parbatput and Mohanpur Mouza reaches at point
'H' plot number 587 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line H-I:
The line start from point 'H' plot number 587 of Parbatpur Mouza trends in north direction and
passs along common mouza boundary of Parbatpur and Mohanpur Mouza meets at point 'I' plot
number 587 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line I-J:
The line start from point 'I' plot number 587 of Parbatpur Mouza trends in south direction and
passes along common mouza boundary of Parbatpur and Mohanpur Mouza meets at point 'J'
corner point of plot number 587 and 585 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line J-K:
The line start from point 'J' corner point of plot number 587 and 585 of Parbatpur Mouza trends in
North West direction passes along common mouza boundary of Parbatpur and Mohanpur Mouza
and meets at point 'K' plot number 575 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line K-L:
The line start from point 'K' plot number 575 of Partabpur Mouza trends in south west direction
and passes along common mouza boundary of Parbatpur and Mohanpur Mouza meets at point 'L'
plot number 737 and 145 of Parbatpur Mouza.
Line L-M:
The line start from point 'L' plot number 737 and 145 of Parbatpur Mouza trends in north
direction along common mouza boundary of Parbatpur of Pahargora and Mohanpur and meets at
point 'M' plot number 604 of Pahargora Mouza.
Line M-N:
The line start from point 'M' plot number 604 of Pahargora Mouza trends in West direction passes
through Pahargora mouza and meets at point 'N' plot number 362 of Pahargora Mouza.
Line N-A:
The line start from point 'N' plot number 362 of Pahargora Mouza trends in north direction passes
through of Pahargora mouza and meets at point number 'A' plot number 251 of Pahargora Mouza.
[F. No. 43015/04/2022-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director
सामाजिक न्याय और अजिकाररता मंत्रालय
(सामाजिक न्याय और अजिकाररता जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 1310.—भारत के राष्ट्रपजत द्वारा संजविान के अनुच्छेि 338B के तित स्ट्वयं में जनजित िजक्तयों का
प्रयोग करते हुए अपने िस्ट्ताक्षर एवं मोिर से 25 नवम्बर, 2022 को िारी दकए गए जनयुजक्त अजिपत्र के अनुसरण
में श्री िंसराि गंगाराम अिीर ने राष्ट्रीय जपछड़ा वगव आयोग (एनसीबीसी) में 2 दिसम्बर, 2022 से अध्यक्ष पि का
कायवभार संभाल जलया िै
[फा. सं . 12015/28/2021-बी सी-II]
आर. पी. मीणा, संयुक्त सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2803
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
(Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment)
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2022
S.O. 1310.—In pursuance of the Warrant of Appointment issued on the 25th November, 2022 by the
President of India under his hand and seal by virtue of powers vested in him under Clause (3) of Article 338B of
the Constitution, Shri Hansraj Gangaram Ahir has assumed charge of the post of Chairman in the National
Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) with effect from the date 2nd December, 2022.
[F. No. 12015/28/2021-BC-II]
R.P. MEENA, Jt. Secy.
सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1311.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत, चलजचत्र
अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, दिल्ली के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव
से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक् त करती िैं:
1. श्रीमती अचवना कंसल
2. श्रीमती मोजनका पंत
3. श्रीमती प्रवीण जसलोजनया
4. श्रीमती सररता तोमर
5. श्रीमती जिखा भारद्वाि
6. श्रीमती रेणु भल्ला
7. श्रीमती रंिना मुखोपाध्याय
8. श्रीमती रजश्म मसंि
9. श्री िुगेि बंसल
10. श्री अंिु गुप्ता
11. श्री स्ट्मृजत सािनी
12. श्री प्रज्ञा भात्री
13. श्रीमती जसमरन कपूर
14. श्रीमती आस्ट्था िमाव
15. श्रीमती जिनु मिािन
16. श्री अिीत मसंि
17. श्री नीरि अग्रवाल
18. श्री मिुर बग्गा
19. श्री रािीव मल्िोत्रा
20. श्रीमती डेज़ी गोयल
21. श्रीमती जनिा जतवारी
2804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22. श्रीमती रत्ना अरोड़ा
23. श्रीमती श्वेता कुजिक
24. श्रीमती अंिजल िवन
25. श्रीमती िाजलनी जत्रवेिी
26. श्रीमती सुनररका िमाव
27. श्रीमती पूनम िमाव
28. श्रीमती श्रुजत रंिना जमश्रा
29. श्रीमती गररमा भारद्वाि
30. श्रीमती स्ट्वाजत वांग्नू जतवारी
31. श्रीमती वाणी मािव
32. श्रीमती ईिा भारद्वाि
33. श्रीमती सुनीता मसंि
34. श्रीमती लीना मसंि
35. श्रीमती जिप्रा जत्रपाठी
36. श्रीमती अिाना बी चोपड़ा
37. श्रीमती समीक्षा िमाव
38. श्रीमती अदिजत िमाव गगव
39. श्रीमती वंिना गौड़
40. श्रीमती ऋचा गुप्ता
41. श्रीमती जवजि िमाव
42. श्रीमती दकरण कपूर
43. श्रीमती िीजप्त िमाव
44. श्रीमती रूजचका अग्रवाल
45. श्री संिीप ित्ता
46. श्री िीपेंर भारद्वाि
47. श्री रोजित जत्रपाठी
48. श्री नरेि िांजडल्य
49. श्री आिीष भावलकर
50. श्री सुिांिु टोंक
51. श्री कमलेि जमश्रा
52. श्री श्याम मजलक
53. सुश्री अनीता चौिरी
54. सुश्री रजश्म िैन
55. श्रीमती रंिना यािव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2805
56. श्री अंबरीि पाठक
57. श्री आदित्य नाथ उप्पल
58. श्रीमती भारती कुरठयाल
59. सुश्री िे जनजि
60. श्री िररओम कौजिक
61. श्री उत्तपल ित्ता
62. श्री प्रिांत रंिन
63. श्री मयंक चतुवेिी
64. सुश्री सौमी पांडे
65. श्री आिाि िैन
66. श्री अतुल अिोजलया
67. डॉ तजनमा अिोजलया
68. श्री अिोक आनंि
69. श्री उमेि कुमार िमाव
70. डॉ रूपाली मसंि
71. श्री मान बिािुर मसंि उफव मान मसंि
72. श्री आर. के. गुप्ता
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ (एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1311.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Delhi with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is
earlier:
1. Smt. Archana Kansal
2. Smt. Monika Pant
3. Smt. Praveen Sylonia
4. Smt. Sarita Tomar
5. Smt. Shikha Bhardwaj
6. Smt. Renu Bhalla
7. Smt. Ranjana Mukhopadhyaya
8. Smt. Rashmi Singh
9. Sh. Durgesh Bansal
10. Sh. Anju Gupta
11. Sh. Smriti Sahni
2806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. Sh. Pragya Bhatri
13. Smt. Simran Kapoor
14. Smt. Astha Sharma
15. Smt. Hinu Mahajan
16. Sh. Ajit Singh
17. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal
18. Sh. Madhur Bagga
19. Sh. Rajeev Malhotra
20. Smt. Daisy Goel
21. Smt. Nisha Tiwari
22. Smt. Ratna Arora
23. Smt. Shweta Kushik
24. Smt. Anjali Dhawan
25. Smt. Shalini Trivedi
26. Smt. Sunrika Sharma
27. Smt. Poonam Sharma
28. Smt. Shruti Ranjana Mishra
29. Smt. Garima Bhardwaj
30. Smt. Swati Wangnoo Tiwari
31. Smt. Vani Madhav
32. Smt. Isha Bhardwaj
33. Smt. Sunita Singh
34. Smt. Leena Singh
35. Smt Shipra Tripathi
36. Smt. Aahana B. Chopra
37. Smt. Samiksha Sharma
38. Smt. Aditi Sharma Garg
39. Smt. Vandana Gaur
40. Smt. Richa Gupta
41. Smt. Vidhi Sharma
42. Smt. Kiran Kapoor
43. Smt. Deepti Sharma
44. Smt. Rochika Aggarwal
45. Sh. Sundeep Dutta
46. Sh. Deependra Bhardwaj
47. Sh. Rohit Tripathi
48. Sh. Naresh Shandilya
49. Shri Ashish Bhavalkar
50. Shri Sudhanshu Tonk
51. Shri Kamlesh Mishra
52. Shri Shyam Malik
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2807
53. Ms. Anita Choudhary
54. Ms. Rashmi Jain
55. Smt. Ranjana Yadav
56. Shri Ambrish Pathak
57. Shri Aditya Nath Uppal
58. Smt. Bharati Kuthiyala
59. Ms. J Nidhi
60. Shri Hariom Kaushik
61. Shri Uttpal Dutta
62. Shri Prashant Ranjan
63. Shri Mayank Chaturvedi
64. Ms. Soumy Pandey
65. Shri Azad Jain
66. Shri Atul Adholiya
67. Dr. Tanima Adholiya
68. Shri Ashok Anand
69. Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma
70. Dr. Roopali Singh
71. Sh. Mann Bahadur Singh Alias Maann Singh
72. Sh. R.K Gupta
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1312.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत,
चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, बैंगलुरू के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल
प्रभाव से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक्त करती िैं:
1. श्री साई िाता वामिी
2. श्री अिोक बी एस
3. श्रीमती सौम्या िेमंथ
4. श्री िनंिय पिरायी
5. श्रीमती िजक्षणायनी भट्ट
6. श्रीमती ज्योजत मेनन
7. श्रीमती आिा िगिीि
8. श्री श्रीिर एच.सी
9. श्रीमती अचवना राव
10. श्री गणपजत भट्ट
2808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. श्री मिेि के भारद्वाि
12. श्रीमती नागलक्ष्मी
13. श्री सोमिेखर
14. श्री बीिी रजवकुमार
15. श्रीमती जनमवला अनवनाथी
16. श्रीमती बाला जवश्वनाथ
17. श्री िेमंथ
18. श्रीमती जवद्या रजविंकर
19. श्री गुरु नाथ के
20. श्री िीवी पद्मनाभ
21. श्रीमती मैत्री गौड़ा
22. श्री नागेि के गौड़ा
23. श्री चंरिेखर रेड्डी
24. श्री चंर एम
25. श्रीमती सौम्या
26. श्रीमती मंिूनाथ बीवी
27. श्रीमती अंिनेय गौड़ा
28. श्री िीएस िोबा
29. श्री सुरेि पोलपल्ली
30. श्री अरुण बानू एन
31. श्री एस जवनोि रेड्डी
32. श्रीमती संगीता कुमारी
33. श्री आरएस चंरिेखर
34. श्री आरएन िनुमंथप्पा
35. श्री आर ियिेव
36. श्रीमती प्रफुल्ल िोरपुर
37. श्री मिुसुिा वी
38. श्रीमती िेमलता एस
39. श्री नरजसम्िालु
40. श्री वी िररनाथी
41. श्री वैरामुडी
42. श्रीमती भारती आर
43. श्री एसटी कोडंिरमा
44. श्री आनंि तो
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2809
45. श्री िीपक कुमार एम
46. श्री अजभषेक मलंगर
47. श्री अजश्वन िसन
48. श्री जवियकृष्ण के.आर
49. श्री जचत्रिेखर
50. श्रीमती एमिे कुमािावल्ली
51. श्रीमती सुप्रीत िी िेट्टी
52. श्री नवीन एमिी
53. श्री ियिेवी मोिनचंि
54. श्री आलोक उसव
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021- डीओ (एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ अवर सजचव,
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1312.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Bengaluru with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders,
whichever is earlier:
1. Sh. Sai Data Vamshi
2. Sh. Ashok B.S.
3. Smt. Soumya Hemanth
4. Sh. Dhananjay Padrayee
5. Smt. Dakshayani Bhat
6. Smt. Jyothi Menon
7. Smt. Asha Jagadeesh
8. Sh. Sreedhar H.C.
9. Smt. Archana Rao
10. Sh. Ganapathi Bhat
11. Sh. Mahesh K Bharadwaj
12. Smt. Nagalakshmi
13. Sh. Somashekar
14. Sh. B.G. Ravikumar
15. Smt. Nirmala Arnarnath
16. Smt. Bala Vishwanath
17. Sh. Hemanth
18. Smt. Vidya Ravishankar
19. Sh. Gurunath. K
20. Sh. G.V Padmanabha
21. Smt. Maithri Gowda
2810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22. Sh. Nagesh K Gowda
23. Sh. Chandra Shekhar Reddy
24. Sh. Chandru M
25. Smt. Sowmya
26. Smt. Manjunath B V
27. Smt. Anjaneya Gowda
28. Sh. GS Shoba
29. Sh. Suresh Polepalli
30. Sh. Arun Banu N
31. Sh. S Vinod Reddy
32. Smt. Sangeetha Kumari
33. Sh. R.S Chandrashekhar
34. Sh. R N Hanumanthappa
35. Sh. R Jayadev
36. Smt. Prafulla Jorpur
37. Sh. Madhusuda V
38. Smt Hemalatha S
39. Sh. Narasimhalu
40. Sh. V Harinath
41. Sh. Vairamudi
42. Smt. Bharathi R
43. Sh. S T Kodandarama
44. Sh. Anand T
45. Sh. Deepak Kumar M
46. Sh. Abhishek lyengar
47. Sh. Ashwin Hassan
48. Sh. Vijayakrishna K R
49. Sh. Chithrashekar
50. Smt. M. J. Kumadavalli
51. Smt. Supreeth G Shetty
52. Sh. Naveen MG
53. Sh. Jayadev Mohanchand
54. Sh. Alok Urs
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ.1313.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत, चलजचत्र
अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, चेन्नई के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव
से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक्त करती िैं:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2811
1. श्री के. नेल्लैयाम्माल
2. श्री ए मिारािन
3. श्री श्री कला
4. श्रीमती एस िाजलनी
5. श्रीमती बी ियलक्ष्मी
6. श्रीमती गायत्री रघुराम
7. श्री फेफ्सी जिव
8. श्री के. िनंियंन
9. श्री चेन्नई जसवा
10. श्री वी. ििरथन
11. श्री रािरथुनाम
12. श्री िास पांजडयन
13. श्री एन जसद्धाथव
14. श्री एस. आजिम बािा
15. श्रीमती एम. सरला
16. श्रीमती अनीता वेंकट
17. श्री िुरई िंकरन
18. श्री सी िमवराि
19. श्रीमती एस कजवता
20. श्रीमती सरमा केवीएम
21. श्री को. वेंकटेिन
22. श्रीमती कुमारी कृष्णन
23. श्री एएनएस प्रसाि
24. श्री गुणिीलन आर
25. श्री नारायण जत्रपाठी
26. श्री एम िे क्लेरेंस
27. श्री वी ियरामन
28. श्री आर. सुंिररािन
29. श्री िीना (अजभनेता)
30. श्रीमती िेमा लता
31. श्रीमती जगररिा मनोरमा
32. श्री आर कल्याण सुंिरम
33. श्री केएस बालमुरुगन
34. श्री ओगाई नािरािन
35. श्रीमती एस रािा
36. श्री आर भारतजिमान
37. श्री पी. जिविजक्त
38. श्रीमती मिन लता
39. श्री एस. गोगुलान
40. श्री एम गोपाल मसंि
41. श्रीमती एम. प्रभा िेवी
42. श्री कनल कन्नान
2812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
43. श्री िी. अरुमुगम
44. श्री आर एम. सत्यमूर्तव
45. श्रीमती एस. अनीता बाई
46. श्रीमती पद्म जवियराघवन
47. श्री जिव अमुथराजिनी
48. डॉ ई. सुिा
49. श्रीमती संगीता
50. श्री मारीमुथु
51. श्री आर पनीर सेल्वम
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ(एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1313.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Chennai with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever
is earlier:
1. Sh. K. Nellaiyammal
2. Sh. A. Maharajan
3. Sh. Sri Kala
4. Smt. S Shalini
5. Smt. B Jayalekshmi
6. Smt. Gayathri Raghuram
7. Sh. Fefsi Siva
8. Sh. K. Dhananjeyan
9. Sh. Chennai Siva
10. Sh. V. Dhasarathan
11. Sh. Rajarathunam
12. Sh. Das Pandian
13. Sh. N. Siddharth
14. Sh. S. Ashim Basha
15. Smt. M. Sarala
16. Smt. Anitha Venkat
17. Sh. Durai Sankaran
18. Sh. C. Dharmaraj
19. Smt. S. Kavitha
20. Smt. Sarma KVM
21. Sh. Ko. Venkatesan
22. Smt. Kumari Krishnan
23. Sh. A.N.S Prasad
24. 5h. Gunaseelan R
25. Sh. Narayan Tripathi
26. Sh, M. J Clarance
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2813
27. Sh. V Jayaraman
28. Sh. R. Soundrarajan
29. Sh. Dheena (Actor)
30. Smt. Hema Latha
31. Smt. Girija Manorahan
32. Sh. R Kalyana Sundaram
33. Sh. KS Balamurugan
34. Sh. Ogai Nadarajan
35. Smt. S. Radha
36. Sh. R. Bharathshiman
37. Sh. P. Sivasakthi
38. Smt. Madhan Latha
39. Sh. S. Gogulan
40. Sh. M. Gopal Singh
41. Smt. M. Prabha Devi
42. Sh. Kanal Kannan
43. Sh. G. Arumugam
44. Sh. RM. Sathiyamoorthy
45. Smt. S. Anitha Bai
46. Smt. Padma Vijayaraghavan
47. Sh. Siva Amutharajini
48. Dr. E. Sudha
49. Smt. Sangeetha
50. Sh. Marimuthu
51. Sh. R. Panneer Selvam
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1314.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत,
चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, गुवािाटी के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल
प्रभाव से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक्त करती िैं:
1. श्रीमती नम्रता ित्ता
2. श्रीमती मृणालकांजत मेिी
3. श्रीमती मीता सेन
4. श्री भगवत प्रीतम ित्ता
5. श्रीमती नृपेन कजलता
6. श्री अमरज्योजत डेका
7. श्रीमती पूर्णवमा सैदकया
8. श्रीमती मंिुला बरुआ
9. श्री मनमठ बरुआि
2814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. श्री रुर ियंत भगवती
11. श्री जनमवल बेज़बरुआ
12. श्री नयन जनबावण बरुआ
13. श्री िीपक कुमार रॉय
14. श्री अजभिीत िमाव
15. श्री बनलता बैश्य
16. श्री िरत िास
17. श्री सुिील पांजडया
18. श्रीमती जनिा मिंत
19. श्री रिनीि िुआरा
20. श्री भूपेंर कमान
21. श्री प्रबीन कुमार कजलता
22. श्री रािीब ित्ता
23. श्रीमती प्रांिल के सैदकया
24. श्री गागी ित्ता
25. श्रीमती जस्ट्मता बमवन
26. श्री राम चरण भराली
27. श्री िैलेंर पांडे
28. श्रीमती जमताली सरमा
29. श्री भूपेन नाथो
30. श्रीमती नव ज्योजत कुंअर
31. श्रीमती सोनमोनी बोरो
32. डॉ िूरी सरमा
33. श्री अनुराग रुर
34. श्री िमागिु िमाव
35. श्रीमती अदिजत भुयान
36. श्री िेम चंरा डोले
37. श्रीमती रूमी भूयम
38. श्रीमती सुब्रता खिांची
39. श्री ियाल कृष्ण नाथ
40. श्री जसबानु बोरा
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ (एफसी))
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2815
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1314.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Guwahati with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders,
whichever is earlier:
1. Smt. Namrata Datta
2. Smt. Mrinalkanti Medhi
3. Smt. Mita Sen
4. Shri Bhagawat Pritam Dutta
5. Smt. Nripen Kalita
6. Shri Amarjyoti Deka
7. Smt. Purnima Saikia
8. Smt. Manjula Barua
9. Shri Manmath Baruah
10. Shri Rudra Jayanta Bhagawati
11. Shri Nirmal Bezbaruah
12. Shri Nayan Nirban Baruah
13. Shri Deepak Kumar Roy
14. Shri Abhijit Sharmah
15. Shri Banalata Baishya
16. Shri Sharat Das
17. Shri Sushil Pandiya
18. Smt. Nisha Mahanta
19. Shri Rajnish Duara
20. Shri Bhupender Kaman
21. Shri Prabin Kumar Kalita
22. Shri Rajib Dutta
23. Smt. Pranjal K. Saikia
24. Shri Gargee Dutta
25. Smt. Smita Barman
26. Shri Ram Charan Bharali
27. Shri Shailendra Pandey
28. Smt. Mitali Sarma
29. Shri Bhupen Nath
30. Smt. Naba Jyoti Konwar
31. Smt. Sonmoni Boro
32. Dr. Juri Sarma
33. Shri Anurag Rudra
34. Shri Hmangshu Sharma
35. Smt. Aditi Bhuyan
36. Shri Hem Chandra Doley
37. Smt. Rumi Bhuyam
38. Smt. Subrata Khajanchi
39. Shri Dayal Krishna Nath
40. Shri Sibanu Borah
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
2816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1315.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत,
चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, कोलकाता के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल
प्रभाव से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक् त करती िैं:-
1. श्री कािी मासूम अख्तर
2. डॉ अंिन िेव जबस्ट्वास
3. श्री सौजमक डे सरकार
4. श्री प्रणय रॉय
5. श्री सरबरी मुखिी
6. श्रीमती रीता घोषाल
7. श्री सुवेंिु भट्टाचायव
8. श्रीमती कंचना मोइत्रा
9. श्री राणािेब मिूमिार
10. श्री सुमन बनिी
11. श्री दकिोर कर
12. श्री संचारी िास
13. श्री सोमनाथ बनिी
14. श्री तरुणज्योजत जतवारी
15. श्री गौरव लामा
16. श्रीमती मौजमता सरकार
17. श्री समीर जमत्रा
18. श्री तामोघनो घोष
19. श्रीमती पाजपया अजिकारी
20. श्री सािान तालुकिार
21. श्री िेवािीष िाना
22. श्रीमती पायल भट्टाचायव
23. श्री प्रिीप कुमार घोष
24. श्रीमती रूपांिना जमत्रा
25. श्री अररिीत िलिर
26. श्री राकेि िास
27. श्री सुिीप बसु
28. श्री संिय िास
29. श्री मोिन चंर घोष
30. श्रीमती सुप्रीजत भर
31. श्रीमती अमनंदिता मैत्रा पॉल
32. श्रीमती मजल्लका रॉय
33. श्रीमती मौजमता रॉय
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2817
34. श्री अजमत डे
35. श्री सुिीप ित्ता
36. श्रीमती गौरी सेन गुप्ता
37. श्रीमती अंिना मजलक
38. श्रीमती जबभा चौिरी
39. डॉ सास्ट्वती मुखिी
40. श्रीमती िेबजमत्र चंिा भारद्वाि
41. श्री उत्तम राय
42. श्री पाथव सारथी चौिरी
43. श्री सारथी गुिा
44. श्रीमती माला ित्ता घोष
45. श्रीमती िेबिानी िलिर
46. श्रीमती पूिा बनिी
47. श्रीमती पाररिात चौिरी
48. श्री दिव्येंिु िास बाउल
49. श्रीमती िजयता िार चक्रवती
50. श्रीमती परजमता ित्ता
51. श्री नंि कुमार मसंि
52. श्री िेबािीष अय्यर
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ(एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1315.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Kolkata with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever
is earlier:
1. Shri Kaji Masum Akhtar
2. Dr. Anjan Dev Biswas
3. Shri Soumik De Sarkar
4. Shri Pranay Roy
5. Shri Sarbari Mukherjee
6. Smt. Rita Ghoshal
7. Shri Suvendu Bhattacharya
8. Smt. Kanchana Moitra
9. Shri Ranadeb Mazumdar
10. Shri Suman Banerjee
11. Shri Kishore Kar
12. Shri Sanchari Das
2818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. Shri Somnath Banerjee
14. Shri Tarunjyoti Tewari
15. Shri Gourav Lama
16. Smt. Moumita Sarkar
17. Shri Samir Mitra
18. Shri Tamoghno Ghosh
19. Smt. Papia Adhikari
20. Shri Sadhan Talukdar
21. Shri Devasish Jana
22. Smt. Payel Bhattacharya
23. Shri Pradip Kumar Ghosh
24. Smt. Rupanjana Mitra
25. Shri Arijit Halder
26. Shri Rakesh Das
27. Shri Sudip Basu
28. Shri Sanjoy Das
29. Shri Mohan Chandra Ghosh
30. Smt. Supriti Bhadra
31. Smt. Anindita Maitra Paul
32. Smt. Mallika Roy
33. Smt. Moumita Roy
34. Shri Amit Dey
35. Shri Sudip Dutta
36. Smt. Gouri Sen Gupta
37. Smt. Anjana Mullick
38. Smt. Bibha Chowdhury
39. Dr. Saswati Mukherjee
40. Smt. Debamitra Chanda Bhardwaj
41. Shri Uttam Ray
42. Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury
43. Shri Sarathi Guha
44. Smt. Mala Datta Ghosh
45. Smt. Debjani Halder
46. Smt. Pooja Banerjee
47. Smt. Parijat Chowdhury
48. Shri Divyendu Das Baul
49. Smt. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty
50. Smt. Paramita Dutta
51. Shri Nand Kumar Singh
52. Shri Debashish Aiyer
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2819
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1316.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत,
चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, मुंबई के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव
से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक् त करती िै:
1.
श्रीमती अनघा बेडेकर
2.
श्रीमती श्वेता मांिरेकर
3.
श्री मिेन्र जमलापचंि कानूनगो
4.
श्रीमती नीता वािपेयी
5.
श्रीमती जबमल बूटा
6.
श्रीमती िलाका सालवी
7.
श्री रािू लक्ष्मण अंबातर
8.
श्री प्रमोि कमलेि जमश्रा
9.
श्रीमती पल्लवी सप्रे
10.
श्रीमती अचवना मनंबालकर
11.
श्री दकसान मिािेव छडपडे
12.
श्री राहुल प्रल्िािराव कांबले
13.
श्रीमती पल्लवी चेतन तंिानकर
14.
श्री आदित्यनाथ िीनानाथ िुबे
15.
श्री उियप्रताप
16.
श्री रमाकांत गुप्ता
17.
श्री संजचत ििरथ यािव
18.
श्रीमती पूर्णवमा जविय वविाल
19.
श्रीमती गीतांिजल प्रल्िाििी
20.
श्री उमेि िरिचंर
21.
श्री मकरंि मोिन
22.
श्री राहुल अनंत वैद्य
23.
श्रीमती जमनाल श्याम
24.
श्री श्याम जिवािी थोम्ब्रे
25.
श्री संिय मिुकर
26.
श्रीमती सीमा मसंि
27.
श्रीमती पल्लवी सािनी िमाव
28.
श्रीमती जनजि िमाव
29.
श्री कुिल ईमानिार
30.
श्री योगेि कुलकणी
31.
श्री सुरेंर कुलकणी
32.
श्री िगिीि जनषाि
33.
श्री अरुण िेखर
34.
श्री अिीत गौड़
2820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
35.
श्री संिीप इंिुलकर
36.
श्री संिय वमाव
37.
श्री प्रकाि मेनन
38.
श्री नन्ि दकिोर पंत
39.
श्री ओंकार नाथ जमश्रा
40.
श्री पंकि िायसवाल
41.
सुश्री मैत्रेयी िोिी
42.
श्री मुकुंि मराठे
43.
सुश्री जबजनता बरोट
44.
डॉ आिा नैथानी ियामा
45.
सुश्री अनुरािा मसंि
46.
सुश्री कजवता जवभावरी
47.
श्री अजमत चव्िाण
48.
श्री कमलेि प्रफुल्ल िोिी
49.
श्री जगरिर िी मसंि
50.
श्री चेतन माथुर
51.
श्रीमती ज्योत्सना गगव
52.
श्री जवनोि गनात्रा
53.
श्री रािेंर मोिापात्रा
54.
श्रीमती रेबेका चांगदकिा सेमा
55.
श्री ज्ञान सिाय
56.
श्री जममलंि लेले
57.
श्रीमती आरती व्यास पटेल
58.
श्री वैिल िाि
59.
श्री उिीप टंडन
60.
श्री अरुणोिय िमाव
61.
श्रीमती चारु िोिी
62.
डॉ. िेवेंर कादफर
63.
श्री आकािादित्य लामा
64.
श्री सुररंिर कुमार
65.
श्री जनजि मसंघला
66.
श्री कुलिीप जसन्िा
67.
सुश्री अंदकता जतवारी
68.
श्रीमती सररता मसंि
69.
श्रीमती िुक्ला मसंि
70.
श्रीमती माला डे
71.
श्री ए.एम. तुराज़
72.
श्री िय जमश्रा
73.
श्रीमती जमताली नाग
74.
श्री जविय पांडे
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2821
75.
श्री िररिंकर सूफी
76.
श्री जववेक उपाध्याय:
77.
श्री िसमवंिर (बल्लू) सलूिा
78.
श्री ियेि मेस्त्री
79.
श्री िी.के. िेसाई
80.
श्री करनिीत ( दकट्टू ) सलूिा
81.
श्रीमती साजवत्री िमाव
82.
श्री रजव िंकर प्रसाि
83.
श्री बृि मोिन जवश्वकमाव
84.
श्री गौतम मुखिी
85.
श्री संिय भारटया
86.
श्री सजचन कौजिक
87.
श्री जविय िेट्टी
88.
श्री संिीर फ्लोरा
89.
श्रीमती दकरण डागर
90.
श्री पुनीत मसंि
91.
श्री अजमत कुमार
92.
श्रीमती वैभवी पवार
93.
श्री रमेि िमाव
94.
श्री िेवेंर मालवीय
95.
डॉ जववेक कुमार िुक्ला
96.
श्री गंगािर जिवलाल अग्रवाल
97.
श्री जनवृजत तुकाराम यािव
98.
सुश्री चांि सुल्ताना
99.
सुश्री जलजपका बोराि
100. सुश्री प्रज्ञा मसंि
101. सुश्री सयाली कुलकणी
102. श्रीमती उषा रजवचंरन
103. श्री गणेि अय्यर
104. श्री नरेि तल्ला
105. श्रीमती जसरीिा वी. राव
106. श्री रािाकृष्णन जपल्लै
107. श्री बसवा वी. मोगवीरा
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ(एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
2822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1316.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Mumbai with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever
is earlier:
1. Smt. Anagha Bedekar
2.
Smt. Shweta Manjrekar
3.
Shri Mahendra Milapchand Kanungo
4.
Smt. Nita Bajpai
5.
Smt. Bimal Bhuta
6.
Smt. Shalaka Salavi
7.
Shri Raju Laxman Ambator
8.
Shri Pramod Kamlesh Mishra
9.
Smt. Pallavi Sapre
10. Smt. Archana Nimbalkar
11. Shri Kisan Mahadeo Chdpade
12. Shri Rahul Pralhadrao Kamble
13. Smt. Pallavi Chetan Tamhankar
14. Shri Adityanath Dinanath Dubey
15. Shri Udaypratap
16. Shri Ramakant Gupta
17. Shri Sancheet Dasharath Yadav
18. Smt. Purnima Vijay Vavhal
19. Smt. Gitanjali PralhadJi
20. Shri Umesh Sharadchandra
21. Shri Makarand Mohan
22. Shri Rahul Anant Vaidya
23. Smt. Minal Shyam
24. Shri Shyam Shivaji Thombre
25. Shri Sanjay Madhukar
26. Smt. Seema Singh
27. Smt. Pallavi Sahney Sharma
28. Smt. Nidhi Sharma
29. Shri Kushal Imandar
30. Shri Yogesh Kulkarni
31. Shri Surendra Kulkarni
32. Shri Jagdish Nishad
33. Shri Arun Shekhar
34. Shri Ajit Goud
35. Shri Sandip Indulkar
36. Shri Sanjay Verma
37. Shri Prakash Menon
38. Shri Nand Kishore Pant
39. Shri Onkar Nath Mishra
40. Shri Pankaj Jaiswal
41. Sushri Maitreyi Joshi
42. Shri Mukund Marathe
43. Sushri Binita Barot
44. Dr. Asha Naithani Dayama
45. Sushri Anuradha Singh
46. Sushri Kavita Vibhavari
47. Shri Amit Chavan
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2823
48. Shri Kamlesh Praful Joshi
49. Shri Girdhar G Singh
50. Shri Chetan Mathur
51. Smt. Jyotsna Garg
52. Shri Vinod Ganatra
53. Shri Rajendra Mohapatra
54. Smt. Rebecca Changkija Sema
55. Shri Gyan Sahay
56. Shri Milind Lele
57. Smt. Aarti Vyas Patel
58. Shri Vaishal Shah
59. Shri Adeep Tandon
60. Shri Arunoday Sharma
61. Smt. Charu Joshi
62. Dr. Devendra Kafir
63. Shri Akashaditya Lama
64. Shri Surinder Kumar
65. Shri Nishi Singhla
66. Shri Kuldeep Sinha
67. Ms. Ankita Tiwari
68. Smt. Sarita Singh
69. Smt. Shukla Singh
70. Smt. Mala Dey
71. Shri A.M. Turaz
72. Shri Jay Mishra
73. Smt. Mitaali Nag
74. Shri Vijay Pande
75. Shri Harishankar Sufi
76. Shri Vevek Upadhyay
77. Shri Jaswinder (Ballu) Saluja
78. Shri Jayesh Mestry
79. Shri G. K. Desai
80. Shri Karanjeet (Kittu) Saluja
81. Smt. Savitri Sharma
82. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad
83. Shri Brij Mohan Vishwakarma
84. Shri Gautam Mukherjee
85. Shri Sanjay Bhatia
86. Shri Sachin Kaushik
87. Shri Vijay Shetty
88. Shri Sandhir Flora
89. Smt. Kiran Dagar
90. Shri Puneet Singh
91. Shri Amit Kumar
92. Smt. Vaibhavi Pawar
93. Shri Ramesh Sharma
94. Shri Devendra Malviya
95. Dr. Vivek Kumar Shukla
96. Shri Gangadhar Shivlal Agarwal
97. Shri Nivritti Tukaram Yadav
98. Ms. Chand Sultana
99. Ms. Lipika Borah
100. Ms. Pragya Singh
2824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
101. Ms. Sayali Kulkarni
102. Smt. Usha Ravichandran
103. Shri Ganesh Iyer
104. Shri Naresh Talla
105. Smt. Sirisha V. Rao
106. Shri Radhakrishnan Pillai
107. Shri Basava V. Mogaveera
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1317.—केंर सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत,
चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, जतरुवनंतपुरम के सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल
प्रभाव से िो साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनयुक् त करती िैं:-
1.
डॉ िॉिव ओनाक्कुर
2.
श्री सूयव कृष्णमूर्तव
3.
श्री जवियकृष्णन
4.
श्री आर. प्रिीप
5.
श्री साजिकामाला ( सािी कुमार िी)
6.
श्री कावलम िजिकुमार
7.
डॉ नयना आर.
8.
श्री एस. अजनल
9.
एडवोकेट स्ट्वप्नािीत
10. श्रीमती िलिा
11. श्रीमती अनु िोसेफ
12. श्री जववेक गोपन िी
13. श्रीमती उमा एम नायर
14. श्री संिीप कुमार वी.
15. श्री रािसेनन
16. श्री ियराि कैमल
17. श्री एस. ियिंकर
18. श्री सुवणवप्रसाि एम
19. श्री आनंि एस नायर
20. श्री कलािरनजपल्लई आर
21. श्री अिय थुंडाजथल
22. श्री सी. जिवनकुट्टी
23. श्री अनूप के
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2825
24. श्री के पी कैलासनाथन
25. श्री आर. अियकुमार
26. श्री अजनल कुमार के.एस.
27. श्री जलजबनराि एन
28. श्री नयन बी एस
29. श्री पी. गोपीनाथ
30. श्री रािन थारायील
31. श्री िी.एम. मिेि
32. श्री सी.सी. सुरेि
33. श्री जसवकुमार अमरुथकला
34. श्री िररि पी कत् याप्रथ
35. श्री एम एन सुंिर राि
36. श्री के.वी. रािेन् रन
37. श्री यिु जवियकृष्णन
38. श्री एम बी पद्मकुमार
39. श्री टी. ियचंरन
40. श्री श्रीवल्लभन बी
41. श्री जिजिल के
42. श्री मेजलला राििेखर
43. श्री रंिीलाल िामोिरन
44. श्रीमती भावना टी एम
45. श्री पी. श्रीकुमार
46. श्री संिीप सेनन
47. श्री जवियकृष्णन नायर
48. श्रीमती आिा नाथ िी एम
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ(एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2022
S.O. 1317.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central
Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification, Thiruvananthapuram with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier:
1. Dr. Gearge Onakkur
2. Shri Surya Krishnamoorthi
3. Shri Vijayakrishnan
4. Shri R. Pradeep
5. Shri Sajikamala (Saji Kumar G)
2826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. Shri Kavalam Sasikumar
7. Dr. Nayana R.
8. Shri S. Anil
9. Adv. Swapanajith
10. Smt. Jalaja
11. Smt. Anu Joseph
12. Shri Vivek Gopan G
13. Smt. Uma M Nair
14. Shri Sandeep Kumar V.
15. Shri Rajasenan
16. Shri Jayaraj Kaimal
17. Shri S. Jayasankar
18. Shri Suvarnaprasad M
19. Shri Anand S Nair
20. Shri Kaladharanpillai R
21. Shri Ajay Thundathil
22. Shri C. Sivankutty
23. Shri Anoop K
24. Shri K.P. Kailasanathan
25. Shri R. Ajayakumar
26. Shri Anil Kumar K.S.
27. Shri Libinraj N
28. Shri Nayan B S
29. Shri P. Gopinath
30. Shri Rajan Tharayil
31. Shri G.M. Mahesh
32. Shri C.C. Suresh
33. Shri Sivakumar Amruthakala
34. Shri Harish P Katayaprath
35. Shri M N Sunder Raj
36. Shri K.V. Rajendran
37. Shri Yadu Vijayakrishnan
38. Shri M B Padmakumar
39. Shri T. Jayachandran
40. Shri Sreevallabhan B
41. Shri Shijil K
42. Shri Melilaa Rajasekhar
43. Shri Renjilal Damodaran
44. Smt. Bhavana T.M.
45. Shri P. Sreekumar
46. Shri Sandip Senan
47. Shri Vijaykrishnan Nair
48. Smt. Asha Nath G.S.
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2827
नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2022
का.आ. 1318.—केंर सरकार, केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, कटक के संबंि में इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक
05.10.2018 की अजिसूचना संख्या एम-11019/3/2018-डीओ (एफसी) तथा दिनांक 13.10.2020 की
अजिसूचना संख्या एम-11019/4/2020-डीओ (एफसी) का अजिक्रमण करते हुए और चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम,
1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत, चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1)
द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, कटक के सलािकार
पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव से िो साल की अवजि या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, के जलए
जनयुक्त करती िैः
1. श्री भुबानंि जत्रपाठी
2. डॉ रवींर नारायण बेिरा
3. श्री रवीन्रनाथ सार
4. श्री जिव नारायण मसंि
5. श्री श्रीकांत िास
6. श्री लालतेन्िु बिु
7. श्री संिीब कुमार जमश्रा
8. श्री काननबाला पट्टनायक
9. श्री जनताईचरण नंिा
10. श्रीमती रजश्म रेखा िास
11. श्रीमती कल्पना पट्टनायक
12. श्रीमती अचवना जप्रयििवनी पलाई
13. श्री जनरंिन जमश्रा
14. डॉ. रािेश्वरी पैकराय
15. श्री िमतंर नायक
16. श्रीमती संगीता िाि
17. डॉ सुनीजत मुंड
18. श्री मिन मोिन प्रिान
19. श्री अजखला पटनायक
20. श्रीमती संगीता माझी
21. श्रीमती बंिना कुनुंगो
22. श्रीमती मनजस्ट्मता खुंरटया
23. श्री जितेि मिापात्र
24. श्रीमती अंजबका प्रसाि पांडा
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ(एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
2828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2022
S.O. 1318.—In supersession of this Ministry’s Notification No.M-11019/3/2018-DO(FC) dated
05.10.2018 and No.M-11019/4/2020-DO(FC) dated 13.10.2020 in respect of Central Board of Film
Certification, Cuttack and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,
1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of
the Central Board of Film Certification, Cuttack with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier:
1. Sh. Shri Bhubananda Tripathy
2. Dr. Rabindra Narayan Behera
3. Shri Rabindranath Sar
4. Shri Shiva Narayan Singh
5. Shri Srikanta Das
6. Shri Lalatendu Badu
7. Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Mishra
8. Shri Kananbala Pattanaik
9. Shri Nitai Charan Nanda
10. Smt. Rashmi Rekha Das
11. Smt. Kalpana Pattanaik
12. Smt. Archana Priyadarsani Palai
13. Shri Niranjan Mishra
14. Dr. Rajeshwari Paikaray
15. Shri Jatindra Nayak
16. Smt. Sangita Dash
17. Dr. Suniti Mund
18. Shri Madan Mohan Pradhan
19. Shri Akhila Pattanaik
20. Smt. Sangita Majhi
21. Smt. Bandana Kunungo
22. Smt. Manasmita Khuntia
23. Shri Hitesh Mohapatra
24. Smt. Ambika Prasad Panda
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2022
का.आ. 1319.— केंर सरकार, केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, िैिराबाि के संबंि में इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक
05.10.2018 की अजिसूचना संख्या एम-11019/3/2018-डीओ (एफसी) तथा दिनांक 13.10.2020 की
अजिसूचना संख्या एम-11019/4/2020-डीओ (एफसी) का अजिक्रमण करते हुए और चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम,
1983 के जनयम 7 और 8 के साथ परठत, चलजचत्र अजिजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1)
द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जनम्नजलजखत व्यजक्तयों को केंरीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, िैिराबाि के
सलािकार पैनल के सिस्ट्यों के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव से िो साल की अवजि या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, के
जलए जनयुक्त करती िैः
1. श्रीमती चेन्नामनेनी श्रवजन्थ
2. श्री उपेंर रेड्डी कोट्टम
3. श्रीमती एम. अपणाव गौड़
4. श्री ई. श्रीजनवास
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2829
5. श्रीमती सुिा वीरिेिबथुला
6. श्री बोद्िुपल्ली श्रीजनवास
7. श्री बी. राििेखर रेड्डी
8. श्री गुंडेती रमेि
9. श्रीमती वी. ियश्री
10. डॉ. िारुवु येलान्ना
11. श्री पी. रमेि
12. श्री आर. श्रीिर
13. श्रीमती नुकाला पद्मा रेड्डी
14. श्री डी. मल्लेि
15. श्री सोमा नरजसम्िा
16. श्री अनुगु सुिाकर रेड्डी
17. श्री चक्रवरथुला वेणुगोपाल
18. डॉ. बी सुनीता राममोिन रेड्डी
19. श्री कौमिी मजिपाल रेड्डी
20. श्रीमती वेलुगापुजन सररता राव
21. श्री ए नागेश्वर राव
22. श्री मती मारू रामा
23. श्रीमती िी प्रसन्ना
24. श्री न्यालकोंडा प्रसन्ना रेड्डी
25. श्री बोगा जवियभास्ट्कर
26. श्री एन. वेंकट नवीन
27. श्रीमती नीरादि जिमावती
28. श्री कृष्ण आदििेषु
29. श्री उपेंर गुप्ता
30. श्रीमती स्ट्वेता गोमवंिारािुलू
31. श्री वेंकट दकिोर बी
32. श्री लोजित कुमार ए
33. श्री श्रीजनवास बेिुगुम
34. श्री श्रीिर चाणुक्य वेमुरी
35. श्रीमती वामिी कृष्णा ए
36. डॉ. जिवािी वाडरेवु
37. श्री श्रीजनवास रेड्डी चौिरी
38. श्रीमती लक्ष्मी जिव नारायण वाजसरेड्डी
39. श्रीमती स्ट्वतंत्रत्र भारती वर्िवनीिी
40. श्रीमती मैजथली एपी
41. श्री मंगा िी
42. श्रीमती लक्ष्मी अन्नपूणाव
43. श्रीमती अनुषा टी
2830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
44. डॉ. दकरणमयी बोनाला
45. श्रीमती िीजप्त वािपेयी
46. श्री पवन कुमार चेगोम्मा
47. श्री दकिोर जतरुमला
[फा. सं. एम-11019/3/2021-डीओ(एफसी)]
मो. िाजिि िरीफ, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2022
S.O. 1319.—In supersession of this Ministry’s Notification No.M-11019/3/2018-DO(FC) dated
05.10.2018 and No.M-11019/4/2020-DO(FC) dated 13.10.2020 in respect of Central Board of Film
Certification, Hyderabad and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,
1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Panel of
the Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad with immediate effect for a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier:
1. Smt. Chennamaneni Sravanthi
2. Shri Upender Reddy Kottam
3. Smt. M. Aparna Goud
4. Shri E. Srinivas
5. Smt. Sudha Veeradeshabathula
6. Shri Boddupalli Srinivas
7. Shri B. Rajashekar Reddy
8. Shri Gundeti Ramesh
9. Smt. V. Jayasree
10. Dr. Daruvu Yellanna
11. Shri P. Ramesh
12. Shri R. Sridhar
13. Smt. Nookala Padma Reddy
14. Shri D. Mallesh
15. Shri Soma Narsimha
16. Shri Anugu Sudhakar Reddy
17. Shri Chakravarthula Venugopal
18. Dr. B. Sunitha Rammohan Reddy
19. Shri Kommidi Mahipal Reddy
20. Smt. Velugapuni Saritha Rao
21. Shri A. Nageshwar Rao
22. Snit. Marru Rama
23. Smt. G. Prasanna
24. Shri Nyalakonda Prasanna Reddy
25. Shri Boga Vijayabhaskar
26. Shri N. Venkata Naveen
27. Smt. Neeradi Hymavathi
28. Shri Krishna Adiseshu
29. Shri Upender Gupta
30. Sint. Swetha Govindarajulu
31. Shri Venkata Kishore. B
32. Shri Lohith Kumar. A
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2831
33. Shri Srinivas Bejugum
34. Shri Sridhar Chanukya Vemuri
35. Smt. Vamshee Krishna. A
36. Dr. Sivaji Vadrevu
37. Shri Srinivas Reddy. CH
38. Smt. Laxmi Siva Narayana Vasireddy
39. Smt. Swanthantra Bharathi Vardhineedi
40. Smt. Mythili. A.P.
41. Shri Manga. G
42. Smt. Laxmi Annapurna
43. Smt. Anusha. T
44. Dr. Kiranmai Bonala
45. Smt. Deepthi Vajpeye
46. Shri Pawan Kumar Chegomma
47. Shri Kishore Tirmuala
[F. No. M-11019/3/2021-DO(FC)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Under Secy.
श्रम औररोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1320.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
उप मंडल अजिकारी (टेलीग्राफ), बीएसएनएल, टेलीफोन एक्सचेंि, एनआर, पालनपुर (बीके); मुख्य मिाप्रबंिक,
िूरसंचार जवभाग, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, खानपुर, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात); मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार जिला,
िूरसंचार जवभाग, पालनपुर, पालनपुर (बी.के.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, एसोजसएिन ऑफ
रेलवे एंड पोस्ट्ट एम्प्लाइि, वस्त्रापुर, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 557/2004) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/11/2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/15/2003- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2022
S.O. 1320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 557/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraph), BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Palanpur (B.K.); The Chief
General Manager, Telecom Deptt., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat); The General
Manager, Telecom Distt. Telecom Deptt., Palanpur, Palanpur (B.K.), and The General Secretary, Association of
Railway and Post Employees, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 14/11/2022.
[No. L- 40012/15/2003- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
2832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated : 29.11.2022
Reference: (CGITA) No- 557/2004
1. The Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraph),
BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Nr. Bus Stand,
Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
2. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Deptt., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
3. The General Manager, Telecom Distt.,
Telecom Deptt., Palanpur Telecom District, Joravar Palace,
Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
…First Parties
V/s
The Org. Secretary,
The Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi
For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-40012/15/2003-IR(DU) dated 06.05.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Association of Railway & Post Employees, Ahmedabad
for reinstatement of Sh. Nenaji Hiraji Thakor, casual Labour by the management of
Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Palanpur, BSNL (Telecom Deptt.) is
proper and justified? If no, to what relief the concern workman is entitled for and
since when?”
1. The reference dates back to 06.05.2003.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on
05.04.2005 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 26.06.2007. The second party also
submitted the copy of the documents vide list Ex. 10 on 25.01.2017. Since then the second party has not been
leading evidence despite giving several opportunities.
2. Today on 29.11.2022, Shri Chintan Gohel Advocate for the second party is present and submitted an
application vide Ex.12 that the second party has not been in his contact and orally stated that tribunal may pass
order as it deem fit.
3. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the reference is finally disposed of in the absence of
the second party with the observation as under: “the demand of the Association of Railway & Post Employees,
Ahmedabad for reinstatement of Sh. Nenaji Hiraji Thakor, casual Labour by the management of Telecom
District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Palanpur, BSNL (Telecom Deptt.) is neither proper nor justified.”
4. Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for
publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2833
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1321.— औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,
केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ पोस्ट मास्टर जिरल, डी/ओ पोस्ट, िुजरात सर्किल, खािपुर,अहमदाबाद; उप-ररकॉडि
अगिकारी, आरएमएस, एएम गडिीजि, मेहसाणा, (िुजरात), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और महासगचि,
एसोगसएशि ऑफ रेलिे एंड पोस्ट एम्प्लाइज, िस्त्रापुर, अहमदाबाद (िुजरात), के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक
गििाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- अहमदाबाद पंचाट(संदर्ि संख्या 57/2011)
को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
14/11/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/16/2009-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2022
S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief Post Master General, D/o Post, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad; The Sub-Record
Officer, RMS, AM Division, Mehsana (Gujarat), and The General Secretary, Association of Railway and Post
Employees, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 14/11/2022.
[No. L-40012/16/2009-IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 30th November, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. : 57/2011
1. The Chief Post Master General,
D/o Post, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad - 380001
2. The Sub-Record Officer,
RMS, AM Division,
Mehsana (Gujarat)
… First Party / Employer
V
The General Secretary,
Association of Railway and Post Employees,
4, Duplex Apartment, Nehrupark, Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad - 380007
(For the workman Shri Nareshkumar Manilal Parmar) ….Second Party / Union / Workman
Advocate for the First Party / Employer
: Shri Kishan B. Chandel
Advocate for the Second Party / Workman
: Shri Chintan Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-40012/16/2009–IR(DU) dated 11.07.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in
the Schedule:
2834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Chief Post Master General,
Ahmedabad, in terminating the services of Shri Nareshkumar Manilal Parmar
w.e.f. 20.07.1998 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 11.07.2011. In the background of this reference, it is pertinent to mention
that, after considering the said dispute, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New
Delhi, declined adjudication on 05.05.2009. However, in compliance of order dated unknown passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 4864 of 2011, the Central
Government, vide order dated 11.07.2011, referred dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which was received
on 25.07.2011. My predecessor passed an award dated 29.04.2019 on merit with a finding that the second party
/ workman did not deserve any relief. The second party / workman filed R/Special Civil Application No. 2979
of 2020 against the impugned award dated 29.04.2019. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, vide order dated
23.06.2022, set aside the award with the observation that the impugned award is sans reasons and the case was
remanded with a direction to pass award afresh on merit after rehearing the parties, hence the present award.
2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party / workman submitted the statement of
claim dated 25.09.2012 alleging that he was appointed by the first party The Chief Post Master General, D/o
Post, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad and The Sub-Record Officer, RMS, AM Division, Mehsana,
hereinafter referred to as ‘first party’ on 27.05.1996 after inviting the names from employment exchange
Mehsana and inviting for interview vide letter dated 13.05.1996. Since 13.05.1996, he worked satisfactorily till
20.07.1998, the date on which his services were terminated without following the due procedure of law i.e.
without giving notice and notice pay. He has also alleged that after his termination, some other persons were
appointed. The first party has also adopted exploitative tactics to engage temporary staff continuously. The first
party is in the habit of engaging the workmen temporarily to deprive them the benefits of uniform, provident
fund, gratuity, bonus etc. He moved number of representations for re-employment but for no avail. The second
party / workman has prayed for reinstatement of service with back wages along with all consequential benefits.
3. The first party / employer, submitted written statement dated 26.11.2012, stating that the workman’s
submissions are totally false and no departmental procedure and recruitment formalities were carried out against
any post for the applicant. It is stated that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange at Sl. No.
27/40, vide letter no. CGN/104/96/907 dated 04.05.1996 in response to filling up the post of part time Water
Carrier cum Sweeper. He was called upon only to contact with SRO, Mehsana on 21.05.1996, vide SRO,
Mehsana’s letter dated 13.05.1996. After completing the recruitment process, the names of the selected
candidates were intimated to Employment Exchange by SRO, Mehsana vide letter dated 08.04.1997. The
applicant was neither selected nor appointed by SRO, Mehsana against the post for which his name was
sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is further stated that since no appointment order in favour of the
applicant was issued, the question of said termination dated 20.07.1998 does not arise. The applicant has
accordingly not served even for a day, hence prayed to reject the said claim.
4. The second party / workman has, through list Ex. 10, filed copy of initial complaint dated 24.06.2008,
letter by workman to Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Ahmedabad dated 15.07.2008 (Ex. 11), letter of
management dated 13.05.1996 (Ex. 12), letter dated 27.05.1996 (Ex. 13), letter dated nil issued by District
Employment Officer, Mehsana (Ex. 14), applications dated 01.02.2007 and 21.06.2001 sent by workman to
management, copy of appeal memo dated 05.04.2004 preferred by workman to management, workman’s
applications dated 21.06.2004 & 20.08.2001 addressed to ‘President of India’ and ‘management’ respectively,
management’s letters to workman dated 25.07.2001 (Ex. 15) & letter dated 10.06.2004 (Ex. 16), workman’s
letter dated 02.06.2009 along with acknowledgement addressed to management, workman’s application to
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Ahmedabad dated 05.01.2009 (Ex. 17), workman’s letter dated 12.01.2007
addressed to management and management’s letters dated 21.07.2004 (Ex. 18), 12.04.2004 (Ex. 19) &
25.06.2004 (Ex. 20). The second party / workman has orally deposed himself at Ex. 21.
5. The first party / employer has not filed any documentary evidence, however Shri Hardik B. Gadhavi,
Assistant Superintendent (H.Q.), Ahmedabad has been orally examined.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
7. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the workman moved an application dated 24.12.2013
(Ex. 8) requesting for the production of muster roll, seniority list and names of fresh persons recruited after his
termination on the ground, almost similar to those taken in his statement of claim. The first party / employer
also filed its reply in the form of affidavit dated 10.12.2014 (Ex. 9), stating that, as the workman was neither
appointed nor worked in the department, hence there was no occasion in respect of maintaining the said records.
8. After perusal of order sheets, it transpired that no order has yet been passed on Ex. 8 till date. As the
Ld. Counsels for both the parties argued their parts and entire evidence has been adduced in the case, hence the
order on aforesaid application (Ex. 8) deserves to be passed at this stage. The second party / workman has
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2835
himself stated in his statement of claim that the department is neither maintaining attendance register, wage
register nor issuing identity card, presence card and wage slip related to temporary staff. The workman, in his
cross-examination at Ex. 21, has further admitted that he did not qualify in the examination of postal
department. This statement of workman substantiates the stand taken by the first party / employer, whose
witness Shri Hardik B. Gadhavi has stated in his cross-examination, conducted at Ex. 22, that no record is
available in office regarding this workman. Hence, in the circumstances, the prayer of workman at Ex. 8 for
production of said documents cannot be accepted, hence declined.
9. The following points are now framed for the determination of this dispute:
1.
Point of determination no. 1: Whether the relationship of employer and employee
exists between the parties? If yes, whether the workman has worked for 240 days
during the calendar year preceding the said termination order dated 20.07.1998 and
whether the employer, at the time of said termination, engaged juniors by not giving
preference to the second party / workman?
2.
Point of determination no. 2: Whether the second party / workman is entitled for
any relief?
10.
The determination of point no. 1 : - The burden to prove this point lies on the workman. The claim of
the workman is that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange office, Mehsana Division and he
was called for interview by first party / employer on 13.05.1996 and was appointed in the department w.e.f.
27.05.1996. However, he claims to be working with the department since 13.05.1996 without any explanation
as to whether he was already working with the department before the said date of his appointment on
27.05.1996. This factual matrix in the statement of claim does not appeal to reason as to how a person appointed
on 27.05.1996 can be believed to have been working since 13.05.1996. Admittedly, the workman has neither
filed copy of the said appointment letter nor copy of the said termination order; rather the workman, in his
cross-examination at Ex. 21 stated that he was retrenched when the permanent workman joined in his place.
Even if for a moment, this statement of workman is accepted to be true (which is not his case), then even if he
was working as a temporary staff, he had to go after the appointment of a regular staff on the said post. The
second party / workman has himself admitted in his cross-examination that he did not qualify in the
examination of Postal Department. This statement of workman falsifies his own case, claiming to be an
employee appointed through the examination conducted by the department.
11.
The first party / department is a Central Government department and it is not the case of the said
workman that any of the officers of first party / department was biased with him in any manner. The first party /
department has replied that the names of the selected candidates were intimated to Employment Exchange,
Mehsana by the department / first party no. 2 vide letter no. 55 dated 08.04.1997.
12.
As far as aforesaid documents filed by workman is concerned, they all relate to the prayer for seeking
employment before first party / employer at various forums.
13.
Ld. Counsel for second party / workman has argued that the first party / department, vide letter dated
13.05.1996, informed the second party / workman to report and contact on 21.05.1996 at 12:00 Noon before
Sub-Record Officer, RMS, Mehsana but the first party / employer has not explained as to why he was called on
21.05.1996 and argued that this letter be treated that the workman was called for the said job of Water Carrier
cum Sweeper. He has further argued that an adverse inference be drawn against the first party / employer for not
producing the relevant documents like muster roll, wage register and seniority list. He has cited following case
law in support of his argument:
i. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar V Mohomed Haji Latif & ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413
ii. Shivam Construction Co. and ors. V Vijaya Bank, Ahmedabad and ors., AIR 1997
Guj. 24
iii. M/s Sriram Industrial Enterprise Ltd. V Mahak Singh & ors., 2007 SCC 94
iv. National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi V Jugal Kishore & ors., AIR 1988 SC
719
v. Superintendent Engineer V R. Chhanabhai Nathabhai, Order dated 04.03.2005 in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 202 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 6697 of
2001 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 221 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 1212 to
1231 of 2005
vi. R. M. Yellatti V Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 (1) SCALE 139 SC
2836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in afore-cited rulings have held
that even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party, the court may draw an adverse inference if he
withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts and issues.
14.
Ld. Counsel for first party has argued that the first party is a Department under Central Government
and has categorically denied the claim of workman to have ever been appointed as a peon, must be believed as
the workman has not discharged his burden to prove his claim.
15.
In view of the arguments advanced by the second party / workman, I have examined the said letter
dated 13.05.1996 (Ex. 12) written by first party / department in ‘Gujarati’ language and addressed to the
workman. The content of this letter merely speaks in respect of the workman to contact on 21.05.1996. It further
speaks only to contact in the Department during the said selection process for the said post sponsored by local
Employment Exchange. The content of this letter goes to show that the management intended to inform the
workman that his name has been sponsored by ‘Employment Exchange’. This call letter (Ex. 12) cannot be
made basis to believe that the workman was asked to join.
16.
The witness of first party / employer, Shri Hardik B. Gadhavi, who was cross-examined at Ex. 22, has,
in the second line of his cross-examination, categorically stated that the workman never served / worked under
him. However, the next sentence reads “he was engaged after calling name from Employment Exchange”. He,
as per this sentence, if read with entire statement of witness, has never intended to say that the workman was
engaged by the Department. In his subsequent statement, the witness has explained that his name was called
from Employment Exchange for doing the job of Water Carrier cum Sweeper but he was not selected for job
and also was not permitted to join. He further clarified that he (workman) was never engaged for the said job so
non-mentioning of “not” after “was” in the third line from the start point of cross-examination, is either a slip of
tongue or a clerical omission and deserves to be ignored. Para 4 of the written statement also has such omission
which also deserves to be ignored in the totality of facts stated in the written statement and the entire deposition
of the only witness of the first party.
17.
The claim of the workman is not substantiated by the evidence on record. In view of aforesaid
discussion, it cannot be said that the first party / employer ever withheld any document in his possession. The
facts of afore-cited case law are easily distinguishable and not applicable to the fact of the case in hand.
18.
On the basis of aforesaid reasons, it is concluded that there does not exist relationship of employer and
employee between the parties, hence, the second party cannot be equated as ‘workman’ as defined under
Section 2 (j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
19.
The workman has not named the junior persons in the statement of his claim who were allowed to
continue service. However the names of Shri B. M. Makwana, Shri P.N. Nachankar and Shri A.C. Thakore
were handwritten at Page 12 of typed written affidavit dated 19.04.2017 (Ex. 21) submitted by the workman in
his examination-in-chief only after the names were mentioned by first party in its reply / affidavit dated
25.08.2014 (Ex. 9) filed against the second party’s application (Ex. 8) for the production of document. In Ram
Gopal Saini V The Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur and ors., 2001 LLR 747 (Raj.), Hon’ble Rajasthan High
Court has held that the workman cannot succeed merely by mentioning the names of junior persons. He has to
prove that he worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding the said termination order dated 20.07.1998.
This fact is essentially to be proved by the evidence. In view of this dictum, the applicant / employee has failed
to prove aforesaid facts. This apart, the second party / employee is not entitled to any benefit under Section 25
(F), 25 (G) or 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the relationship of employer and employee has not
been proved as discussed above. The first point is accordingly decided against the applicant / said employee.
20.
The determination of point no. 2 : - This point relates to the relief. For the reasons recorded above,
the claim of second party / applicant does not stand. Hence point no. 2 is decided against the workman. The
reference is answered in negative. The applicant / employee is not entitled to any relief.
21.
The claim of the applicant / employee is rejected and the award is passed accordingly.
Let two copies of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1322.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार मुख्य अजभयंता (पजश्चम क्षेत्र), आकािवाणी और िूरििवन, मुंबई; अिीक्षक इंिीजनयर,
आकािवाणी, भारत सरकार, रािकोट (गुिरात), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष, सौराष्ट्र कमवचारी
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2837
संघ, रािकोट (गुिरात), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-
श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 1000/2004) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/11/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42012/107/95- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2022
S.O. 1322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1000/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief Engineer (West Zone),AIR & Doordarshan, Mumbai; The Supdt. Engineer, AIR,
Government of India, Rajkot (Gujarat), and The President, Saurashtra Employees Unio, Rajkot (Gujarat),
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/11/2022.
[No. L-42012/107/95- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th November, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No.: 1000/2004
(Old Reference (ITC) No.: 03/1996)
1. The Chief Engineer (West Zone),
AIR & Doordarshan, 101 M.K Road, Old CGO Building,
Bombay (Now Mumbai) - 400020
2. The Supdt. Engineer,
AIR, Government of India, Opp. Race course,
Rajkot (Gujarat) … Employer / First Party
V
The President,
Saurashtra Employees Union, Umesh Comercial Complex,
R. N. No. 213 & 214, 2nd Floor, Near Chaudhary High School,
Rajkot (Gujarat)
(For the workman Shri Nitinkumar R. Begtharia,
Engineering Assistant with first party no. 2) …Second Party Union / Workman
Advocate for the Employer / First Party: Shri Harsheel D. Shukla
Advocate for the Second Party union / workman: Shri Abhisst K. Thaker,
Shri M.G. Gopalani &
Shri Karan Vakil
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-42012/107/95-IR(DU) dated 27.12.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal, Rajkot in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule. The dispute was received in Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad on its creation at Ahmedabad.
2838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Supdt. Engineer, All India Radio, Rajkot in terminating the
services of Sh. Nitinkumar R. Begtharia, Engineering Assistant after having worked
from March 90 to 28th November 1991, w.e.f. 28th November 1991 by giving reason that
he was appointed on one of the reserved vacancy of Scheduled Tribe Community, valid
just and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled and what directions are
necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference is critically old one and dates back to the year 1995. At the very outset, it is pertinent to
mention that my predecessor passed an award dated 13.02.2006 (Ex. 41) on merit rejecting the claim of second
party / workman and upheld the impugned termination order of employer / first party as valid, just and legal. A
writ Petition/Special Civil Application No. 19335 of 2007 was filed by the aggrieved workman against the
impugned award before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, vide
order dated 27.04.2016 quashed and set aside the award dated 13.02.2006 and the case was remanded to this
Tribunal for deciding afresh on merit with a direction to provide opportunity to both the parties, within a period
of one and half year from the date of receipt of the order. The matter was placed before me for the very first
time on 18.10.2022 after taking over the charge of this Tribunal on 23.08.2022.
2. Consequent upon the service of notice, statement of claim dated 11.01.1996 (Ex. 2) was filed by the
applicant / workman in his personal capacity stating therein that he applied for the post of ‘Engineering
Assistant’ for ‘All India Radio’ (Western Zone) in accordance with an advertisement published in employment
news paper published by Central Employment Exchange, New Delhi dated 20.05.1989. After taking up written
test and interview, he was selected for the said post and was posted under respondent no. 2 / All India Radio,
Rajkot, vide his office order no. RAJ-1(1)90-S dated 15.03.1990. He underwent a course for Engineering
Assistant from 06.05.1991 to 31.05.1991 and passed the course successfully. Suddenly, respondent no. 2, vide
memo no. RAJ-21(NRB/91-S) dated 26.11.1991 asked the second party / workman to produce the certificate of
schedule tribe category, hereinafter referred to as, ‘ST’ though the applicant was selected and appointed against
the vacancy in general category. Accordingly, the applicant produced all required certificates to respondent no.
2, which were already submitted at the time of interview and appointment. Respondent no. 2, without
considering facts stated by the applicant, terminated the services of the applicant w.e.f. 28.11.1991 vide order
no. RAJ-21(NRB)/91-S dated 27.11.1991 which is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The second party / workman
raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Adipur on 16.01.1992 who
vide letter no. ALC/ADPR/95(1)/94 dated 28.03.1994 informed that he has no jurisdiction to intervene in the
matter stating therein that applicant is a Government employee. The applicant / workman has further stated that
neither any enquiry has been conducted nor sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to him, hence, the
termination order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and also against Article 311 (2)
of Constitution of India. He has also stated that the impugned order is also against Section 25 (F) and 25 (G) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the prescribed procedure has not been followed. He has further stated that his
ACRs were prepared in respect of general category post. He also submitted a certificate of his backward class
category. There was no mention of category in the appointment letter. Prayed to quash the impugned order and
place the workman in service with full back wages.
3. The employer filed written statement (Ex. 20) through Sushree Asha Shukla, Station Director, working
with first party no. 2, stating the claim of applicant being misconceived and untenable. It is further stated that
the second party / workman Nitinkumar R. Begtharia appeared in the written test and declared his caste as ‘ST’
on the ‘answer sheet’. No interview for the post was conducted. In written test, he scored 26 marks and did not
qualify for selection under general category. Only those general category candidates were offered appointment
who secured 58 marks. The applicant was selected as ‘ST’ candidate as the qualifying marks were relaxed to 21
% for ‘ST’ candidates. It is further stated that the applicant declared himself to be a member of ‘ST’ category in
the ‘attestation form’. There was a clear warning on the attestation form that in furnishing false information and
suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification and likely to render the candidate unfit for
employment. The applicant was given an offer of appointment dated 15.03.1990 under ‘ST’ category by the
answering employer and the applicant joined service on 23.03.1990. During completing the service records, it
was noticed that the applicant had declared in the ‘attestation form’ that he is a member of ‘ST’ but not
submitted any proof in the prescribed form. On reference, the recruiting authority, vide letter no. A-12919/1/91-
SIII/CEW dated 22.11.1991 confirmed that the applicant was selected for the said post in ‘ST’ category and his
case cannot be considered in any other category. Vide answering employer’s office memo no. RAJ-21(NRB)91-
S dated 26.11.1991, the applicant / workman was afforded an opportunity to submit proof of being member of
‘ST’. In response thereof, the applicant submitted that he does not belong to ‘ST’ category which proved that
the declaration made by the applicant in ‘answer sheet’ and ‘attestation form’ was wrong and false.
Accordingly, the services of applicant were terminated w.e.f. 28.11.1991 vide order no. RAJ-21(NRB)91-S
dated 27.11.1991. The applicant mis-represented his caste to obtain employment through unfair means and
deprived one ‘ST’ candidate from the employment. It is further stated that since the applicant had not completed
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2839
the probation period of two years, hence, neither any notice was required to be given nor any enquiry was
necessary. It is further stated that as a practice, the category in the appointment order is not mentioned, thus the
applicant is not entitled for any relief and prayed to reject the claim of applicant.
4. The applicant / workman has filed, through list Exh. 5, photocopies of advertisement dated 20.05.1989
as mark 1, offer of appointment dated 15.03.1990, employer’s letter dated 04.05.1989 and letter dated
31.07.1989 addressed to applicant for submission of application to registered employment exchange and to
carry out documentation respectively, all three papers as mark 2, letter (memo) dated 26.11.1991 issued by
respondent no. 2 and unsigned carbon copy of reply dated 27.11.1991 submitted by applicant workman as mark
3, letter dated 28.03.1994 issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Adipur Kutch as mark 4. The
applicant / workman has examined himself orally at Ex.15 and narrated his claim in brief.
5. The employer / first party has filed through list Ex. 21, photocopies of ‘attestation form’ dated
07.08.1989 as annexure R1, letter dated 14.11.1991 submitted by employer / first party no. 2 to first party no. 1
for verification of category of the applicant as annexure R2, letter dated 22.11.1991 sent on behalf of first party
no. 1 to employer / first party no. 2 seeking action against the applicant for mis-representation of his caste as
annexure R3, photocopy of the office memo issued by employer / first party no. 2 to the applicant seeking his
clarification as to whether he belongs to ‘ST’ community and to produce certificate thereof as annexure R4,
applicant’s explanation dated 27.11.1991 addressed to employer / first party no. 2 informing that he does not
belong to ‘ST’ category but to socially and educationally backward category and the order of termination dated
27.11.1991 passed over it as annexure R5 and advertisement published in ‘Central Employment Exchange’
dated 20.05.1989. The employer / first party has, through list Ex. 33, again filed photocopies of ‘attestation
form’ along with photocopies of merit list of said ‘Engineering Assistant’ examination of ‘ST’ category.
Shri Bachubhai, who is an ‘Administrative Officer’ in the office of first party no. 2, has been orally examined
vide Ex. 32. This witness, as secondary evidence, has repeated the contents of written statement submitted by
the employer / first party no. 2.
6. Perused records and heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties in respect of their detailed written
arguments.
7. The following points are framed for the determination of the dispute in hand:
Point No. 1: Whether the applicant / employee Shri Nitinkumar R. Begtharia is a ‘workman’ as defined
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Point No. 2: Whether the termination order dated 27.11.1991 is valid, just and legal? If not, to what
relief, the applicant is entitled to?
8. Determination of Point No. 1: The applicant / workman claims himself to be a workman under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, Ld. Counsel for the employer has submitted that during his cross-
examination at Ex. 15, the workman has stated that he is not a ‘workman’ under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
hence the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
The definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2 (s) and the definition of ‘Industry’ as defined
under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read as under:
“(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)
....
(ii)
....
(iii)
....
(iv)
.....................................................................................”
“(j) “Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and
includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen”.
9.
Now, it has to be seen as to whether the applicant’s employer ‘All India Radio’ is an
‘Industry’. Ld. Counsel for the employer / department has cited Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (erstwhile
Gujarat Electricity) V Geb Engineers’ Association (Gtd), 2016 (O) AIJEL-HC 235704. In the facts of relevant
case, the petitioner was engaged as Deputy Engineer in the pay of more than Rs.1600/- per month who was not
treated to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s). In the present case in hand, the applicant /
2840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman is said to have been appointed as Engineering Assistant. According to photocopy of offer of
appointment as mark 2 and filed with Ex. 5, the pay of applicant is shown as Rs.1400/- per month which is
much less than Rs.1600/- before the year 2010 amendment in Section 2 (s) IV of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Hence the fact of the case in hand can be easily distinguished from the facts of the afore-cited law. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in All India Radio V Santosh Kumar, AIR (1998) SC 941, after referring General Manager,
Telecom V A. Srinivasa Rao, (1997) 8 SCC 767 (3 judges bench), held that ratio of seven judges constitution
bench in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board V A. Rajapappa, AIR (1978) SC 548, hold the field and
held that ‘All India Radio’ and ‘Doordarshan’ are ‘Industries’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
10. I have also gone through the cross-examination of applicant employee at Ex. 15. He has categorically
answered in ‘Gujarati’ to the suggestion of employer / first party’s Ld. counsel whose ‘English’ translation is as
under ”It is not true that I am not included in the definition of workman.” This makes clear that the
workman never intended to state that he was not covered in the definition of ‘workman’. In view of aforesaid
authoritative pronouncements, the employer / first party ‘All India Radio’ is an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of
Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence the applicant is covered under the definition of ‘workman’
under Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This point is accordingly decided in favour of applicant /
workman.
11. Determination of Point no. 2: It is to be determined in this point of dispute that whether the
termination order dated 27.11.1991 passed on behalf of employer / first party no. 2 is valid, just and legal?
The main contention of the applicant / workman’s Ld. Counsel is that the workman was appointed in the
‘general category’ and not in the ‘ST’ category. It has further contended that before termination, neither any
notice to show cause was served upon him nor any enquiry was conducted before imposing such a major
penalty. The order of ‘termination’ has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The applicant’s Ld. Counsel has cited following judicial
pronouncements in support of his arguments:
i.
State of Haryana and anr. V Jagdish Chander, AIR 1995 SC 984
ii.
Radhey Shyam Gupta V U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & anr., AIR 1999 SC 609
iii.
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. etc. V Karunakar etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074
iv.
Avtar Singh, Police Constable V The Inspector General of Police, Punjab, (1968) SLR 131
v.
State of Gujarat V R.G. Teredesai and anr., (1970) 1 SCR 251
vi.
General Manager, Eastern Railway and anr. V Jawala Prasad Singh, (1970) II LLJ 279 SC
vii.
Uttar Pradesh Government V Sabir Hussain, (1975) Supp. SCR 354
viii.
Union of India and anr. V Tulsiram Patel and anr., (1985) Supp. 2 SCR 131
ix.
Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs and ors. V K.S. Mahalingam, (1986) 3 SCR
35
x.
Ram Chander V Union of India and ors. (1986) 3 SCR 103
xi.
Union of India and anr. V E. Bashyan, (1988) 3 SCC 209
xii.
Dipti Prakash Banerjee V Satvender Nath Bose, National Centre of Basis Sciences, Calcutta
and ors., AIR 1999 SC 983
xiii.
Shri D.K. Yadav V M/s J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 1993 (4) SLR 126 SC
xiv.
Awadh Bihari I. Shah V Union of India and ors. (photocopy of order dated 13.01.1993 passed
by C.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 120 of 1991)
12.
In the afore-cited judicial precedents, it has been generally held that the principles of natural
justice require that opportunity be given before recording finding adverse to officer’s conduct which
disentitles officers for any future employment. Hence Hon’ble Supreme Court has reminded that all quasi
judicial authorities have to ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice in all stages of enquiry.
13.
Ld. Counsel for the employer / first party has submitted that the applicant made mis-
representation and concealment of fact by not mentioning his actual ‘category’ in ‘attestation form’ and
‘answer sheet’. During the scrutiny, when the applicant was asked to furnish ‘ST’ certificate, he admittedly
informed that he belongs to ‘backward category’ and not to ‘ST’ category which he exhibited in ‘attestation
form’. He was on ‘probation’ and according to condition no. 9(ख) mentioned in the ‘attestation form’, his
appointment was cancelled and the workman was terminated and no enquiry was required to be conducted
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2841
in the circumstances. Ld. Counsel for employer / first party has cited following judicial pronouncements in
support of his argument:
i. Bank of India V Avinash D. Mandivikar, 2005 (1) 7 SCC 690
ii. Gujarat Industrial Development Corp. V Revabhai Maganbhai Patel, 2013 (3) GLH 367 (Guj.)
14.
It is an admitted fact that no enquiry has been conducted before termination of the applicant /
workman in the present case. Applicant / workman has referred Dipti Prakash Banerjee V Satvender Nath Bose,
National Centre of Basis Sciences, Calcutta and anr., AIR 1999 SC 983, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has
framed three points for consideration. The first point is relevant in the present case which reads as under:
“(1) In what circumstances, the termination of a probationer’s services can be said to be founded on
misconduct and in what circumstances could it be said that the allegations were only the motive?”
Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 held as under:
“If the findings were arrived at in enquiry as to misconduct behind the back of the officer or without a
regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as ‘founded’ on the allegations and
will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to
conduct an enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were
complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the
employer did not want to enquire into the truth of allegation because of delay in regular departmental
proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would
be a motive and not the foundation and simple order of termination would be valid.”
15.
In the case cited by employer and decided by Apex Court in Bank of India V Avinash D.
Mandivikar, (Supra), employee obtained employment in the service on the basis that he belonged to ‘ST’. Apex
Court held that when the clear finding of the scrutiny committee was that he did not belong to ‘ST’, the very
foundation of his appointment collapses and his appointment is no appointment in the eyes of law. There is
absolutely no justification for his claim in respect of post, he usurped, as the same was meant for reserved
candidate. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that a person who has a legitimate claim shall be deprived of the
benefits. On the other hand, a person who has obtained it by illegitimate means would continue to enjoy it
notwithstanding the clear finding that he does not even have a shadow of right even to be considered for
appointment. Hon’ble Apex court referred Bhaurao Dadgu Paralkar V State of Maharashtra and ors., 2005 7 JT
530, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the effect of fraud and held as follow:
“14.......Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii)
without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false'.
15. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti
Lal 2002 (1) SCC 100, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education 2003 (8)
SCC 311, Ram Chandra Singh's case (supra) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another 2004 (3)
SCC 1.
16. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (see Gowrishankar v.
Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust 1996 (3) SCC 310 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra).
17. “Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a
definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although
negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav's case (supra).
18. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. V/s Beasley 1956 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at pages 712 & 713, "No
judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud
unravels everything." In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known
to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.
19. These aspects were recently highlighted in the state of Andhra Pradesh & anr. V/s T. Suryachandr
Rao, 2005 (5) SCALE 621.”
Therefore, the foundation of the case in hand can also be covered under the aforesaid concept of ‘fraud’.
16. Similarly, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Industrial Development Corp. V Revabhai
Maganbhai Patel, (Supra), in the similar facts and circumstances, while interpreting Section 17-B of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred and applied the ratio of Bank of India V Avinash D. Mandivikar (Supra) and
observed as under: “The argument of Ld. Advocate for the respondent that the action of the petitioner
authorities is without following due procedure of law, though factually is right, will not take the case of
respondent any further, since the very foundation of the appointment now does not exist”.
2842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
The picture, which emerges on the basis of factual and legal background, depicts as under. The
employer / first party, vide its advertisement dated 20.05.1989, invited applications for recruitment on the post
of ‘Engineering Assistant’ in various categories. The applicant had applied in response to the said advertisement
and was appointed as ‘Engineering Assistant’ in the ‘ST’ category on the basis of his disclosure in the ‘answer
sheet’ and ‘attestation form’ on the post which was reserved for ‘ST’ candidate. Para 3 at Page 1 of the
‘attestation form’ which was signed by the applicant stipulated as under: “If the fact that false information has
been furnished or there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form, comes to notice
at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.” The ‘attestation form’
was signed by the applicant / workman on 08.01.1989. The applicant / workman has himself admitted in
response to the memo issued by the employer / first party no. 2 that he does not belong to ‘ST’ community but
to ‘backward class’ community. However the workman failed to score minimum marks in other categories also.
On the basis of response submitted by the applicant / workman, the employer / first party no. 2 passed order on
27.11.1991 to the effect of terminating the services of the applicant / workman w.e.f. 28.11.1991 with the
observation that he does not stand chance for selection among any other community. It is true that the employer
had not conducted any departmental enquiry against the applicant / workman. In my view, the facts of the
present case in hand are similar to the facts of Avinash D. Mandivikar (Supra) decided by Hon’ble Supreme
Court and Revabhai Maganbhai Patel (Supra) decided by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. Accordingly, the
applicant / workman had obtained appointment in service on the basis that he belonged to ‘ST’ and when it was
found that he did not belong to scheduled tribe, the very foundation of his appointment collapsed and his
appointment is no appointment in the eye of law and there can be no justification for his claim in respect of the
post, he usurped as the same was made for a reserved candidate in ‘ST’ category. Reliance placed by Ld.
Counsel for the applicant / workman on the afore-listed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court etc. may not take the case of applicant / workman any further in the present facts situation
in hand. Accordingly, the applicant’s appointment is no appointment in the eye of law, has no justification of
claim for the said post and the said ‘termination order’ be treated as cancellation of his appointment. He is also
not entitled to any benefit under Section 25 (F) and 25 (G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the claim of the applicant does not stand. The action of the Supdt.
Engineer, All India Radio, Rajkot in terminating the services of Sh. Nitinkumar R. Begtharia, Engineering
Assistant after having worked from March 90 to 28th November 1991, w.e.f. 28th November 19 91 by giving
reason that he was appointed on one of the reserved vacancy of Scheduled Tribe Community is valid, just and
legal and requires no interference. The point no. 2 is decided against the applicant / workman accordingly. The
applicant / workman is not entitled for any relief.
19. The award is passed accordingly.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1323.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार वररष्ठ डाक अिीक्षक, रांची, (झारखंड), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सुश्री प्रीजत कुमारी,कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2, िनबाि पंचाट
(संिभव सं. 27 of 2013) 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-40012/88/2012- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court-II, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ranchi,(Jharkhand), and Ms. Priti Kumari, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/88/2012- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2843
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. 27 OF 2013.
PARTIES:
:
Ms.Priti Kumari ,
Daily Wage Data Entry Operator,
D/O Sri Gobardhan Prasad Barai,
Upper Bazar, Raghunandan Lane Lohardaga,
Jharkhand-835302
Vs.
The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ranchi Division,
Ranchi, Jharkhand
Order No. L-40012/88/2012-IR(DU) dt. 21.012013
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Herself
On behalf of the Management
: Mr.C.Jha,, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry
: Post
Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th December, 2021
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-40012/88/2012-IR (DU) dt. 21.012013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of employment of Ms.Priti Kumari, Daily Wage
Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 23.09.2011 through verbal orders of the
management of Lohardaga GPO is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
she is entitled to? ”
1 On receipt of the Order No. L-40012/88/2012-IR(DU) dt. 21.012013 of the reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was
registered as Reference case No. 27 of 2013 on 07.02.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to
issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal
on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said
order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.
2. The order of Reference by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment in
endorsement to the parties raising the dispute following directives were given:
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete with 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 statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under
rule 10(b) of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules,1957.”
3. Despite the directive given as above the parties which raised the dispute did not file written
statement of claim. It was filed on behalf of the workman after several opportunities were granted. Since first
date of hearing on 06.05.2013 to 15.07.2021 the workwoman failed to file any documentary evidence in
support of her claim as her engagement in Daily Wage Date Entry Operator . The workwoman also failed to
appear or represent after 24.07.2015 despite opportunity given for hearing and filing of documents. Fresh
directive was issued on 15.07.2019 for filing of rejoinder on the next date of hearing. But the workman failed to
appear or represent for filing of rejoinder on the last date of hearing on 15.07.2021.
4. From the above it is apparent the workwoman has not only failed in filing any documents in support
of her claim but also showed unwillingness in pursuing her claim by remaining absent repeatedly on various
dates of hearing fixed or providing opportunity the workwoman as a matter of natural justice.
2844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. As such the workwoman concerned (Priti Kumari) in the instant reference No. 27/2013 does not
deserve any relief and so no relief is awarded by this Tribunal.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1324.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार प्रिाि िैज्ञागिक और प्रमुख, पूिी क्षेत्र आईसीएआर अिुसंिाि पररसर, अिुसंिाि केंर, पलांडू रांची; श्री
अजय कुमार ससंह, ठेकेदार दुकाि िंबर सी-92, जेपी माकेट, पीओ: िुिाि, रांची, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और
महासगचि, झारखंड जिरल कामिार यूगियि, िंिू टोली, रांची, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक न्द्यायागिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2, ििबाद के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 130 of 2013) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक
में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. एल-42011/84/2012- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 130 Of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court-II, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Principal Scientist & Head, ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre,
Palandu Ranchi; Shri Ajay Kumar Singh,Contractor Shop No. C-92, J.P Market,PO: Dhurwa, Ranchi, and The
General Secretary, Jharkhand General Kamgar Union, Gangu Toli, Ranchi , which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.12.2022.
[No.L-42011/84/2012-IR- (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, 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 130 OF 2013.
PARTIES:
: Sh. Anjani Kumar Pandey,
General Secretary,
Jharkhand General Kamgar Union,
Gangu Toli, RANCHI
Vs,
1) The Principal Scientist & Head,
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre,
Palandu Ranchi.
2) Shri Ajay Kumar Singh,
Contractor Shop No. C-92, J.P Market,
PO: Dhurwa, RANCHI
L-42011/84/2012-IR (DU) Dt. 06.12.2012
APPEARANCES
:
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
Mr.Anjani Kr.Pandey, Workman Himself .
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr.Y.N. Pathak Representative of the OP/Management
State: Jharkhand Industry : Agriculture
Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd June, 2022
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2845
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-42011/84/2012IR (DU) dt. 06.12.2012.
.
SCHEDULE
Whether the denial of Management for payment of 20% bonus to the workers is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to in terms of
money?”
1. The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
between employer,i.e. the management of ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region Research Centre,
Palandu, Ranchi and its 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. L42011/84/2012-IR (DU) dt. 06.12.2012 to this Tribunal
for adjudication to the following effect.
This order deals with the grievance of the claimants with regard to the non-payment of 20% Bonus as
they described the action unreasonably unjustified to the charge but do not contain list of claimants involved.
The subject matter of reference is predominately a policy- oriented action/decision of the Management to be
applicable and admissible to the claimants (workmen) or not is to be adjudicated.
2. In their written statement of the claim the Union General Kamgar Union represented by Anjani Kumar
Pandey set out the claims:
A) That most of the workmen involved in the case had been working under the OP/Management since
2001 whereas some from 2003, and rest of them since inception.
B) They had taken up the issue of 20% Bonus with RLC(C) Ranchi but upon failure the matter was
referred to appropriate government for forming Schedule.
C) Despite out protest against atrocities being committed by the Management it do not let them to be
absorbed permanently nor make their intention clear to bring us under the fold of Payment of Bonus
Act 1965.
D) Under the provision of Bonus Act 1965 a worker who has completed thirty days of work is entitled for
Bonus .But there is discrimination in payment of bonus which is being paid.
E) The claimants in the claim petition have thus prayed for an award directing the Management to make
the claimants payments 20% Bonus at par with the temporary workers of the OP/Management of
ICAR, Research Complex, Ranchi.
F) To fulfill the demand over Bonus they /Union (Claimants) took up the matter with Regional Labour
Commissioner (C) for 20 percent Bonus with for permanent absorption of the workmen. The
OP/management introduced Contractor Work System in 2009 amidst wide protest.
H) To the face of wide protest they were placed under the Contractor System as enforced by the
OP/Management and brought all of them under its fold to keep them away from being absorbed.
Under the Bonus Act, 1965 an worker who worked 30 days is entitled for Bonus and thus they claimed
to be have acquired entitlement for Bonus that the same ought to be paid
I) But the same did not happen and even RLC © also turned down the request .We all workmen had
been working since 2001.Since the days long back the matter suggested for Bonus @ 20 % for all the
workers. So we all seek direction to the Management to provide 20 % Bonus to all Workers to have
two squares of meal a day.
J) The claimants in the claim petition have thus prayed for an award directing the Management to make
the claimants payments 20% Bonus at par with the temporary workers of the OP/Management of
ICAR, Research Complex, Ranchi.
The claimant filed rejoinders reiterating the stand taken in the claim of petition.
3) The OP/Management(ICAR RCER,ResearchCentre,Ranchi-10) Principle Scientist and Head, CAR
Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Central Palandu, Ranchi filed written statement stating the
present Reference in itself is not maintainable either in facts or in law as the said union who sponsored the
matter does not have support of majority of the workmen
A) That the instant Reference is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the Contractor under whom the
workmen are employed has not been made a party.
2846 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
B) That there is no employer and employee relationship between the Management and the workmen
represented by the Union and thus the claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
C) That the Respondent is an institute of ICAR an Autonomous body of DARE, Government of India
under the Ministry of Agriculture.
D) That in accordance with government policy certain jobs/works are being outsourced to contractors and
farm jobs have been outsourced to Sri Ajay Kumar Singh,(contractor) who is employing workers as
per Respondent’ requirement.
E) That it is stated that in the job contract and work order it is responsibility of contractor to ensure
compliance with all labour laws which include minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act etc.
F) That it is stated that General Kamgar Union raised the dispute of non-payment of Bonus before the
Respondent No. 4 (Regional Labour Commissioner ,Ranchi
G) That the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C )Ranchi issued notice to the OP/Management along with
a copy of the application so submitted by the Respondent No. 2 for conciliation.
H) That the Management submitted its reply inter alia that there is no relationship of employer-employee
between the parties and that earlier also dispute raised by the General Kamgar Union was twice
rejected by Appropriate Government citing said reason. (Copy enclosed)
I)
That it is stated that existence of employer-employee relationship is sine qua non for referring an
Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
J)
That in view of aforesaid the workmen are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
4. Shri Ajay Kr. Singh, Contractor of Management No. 2 submits following facts as under:
a) That as it is stated appearance of the contractor has been made being party to the Reference with that
the said dispute referred by the Central Government exists between the Management of ICAR
Research Complex for Eastern Region and their workmen.
b) It is further stated that a copy of the aforesaid notification has been endorsed to Shri Ajay Kumar
Singh, Contractor which has been received by him as such appeared before this Hon’ble Tribunal .
c) That at the outset it is stated that instant Industrial dispute as referred by the Central Government, exist
between the Management of ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region and their workmen. Neither the
answering contractor, has been made party to the dispute nor was any demand ever raised by the union or
the workmen before him. As such the instant proceeding cannot continue against the answering
contractor.
d) That in fact the Union raised its demand of 20% Bonus before the RLC(C), Ranchi who initiated
conciliation proceeding and issued notice upon the Management (ICAR
Research Complex for Eastern Region) enclosing therewith the letter of demand inviting comments
within two weeks.
e) That as the Management forwarded the said notice to the contractor inviting his comments. Accordingly
the contractor also submitted his comments to the management as asked for.
f) That without prejudice to the aforesaid objection, following facts are stated for consideration and for the
purpose of adjudication:
(i)
That the contractor had been engaged time to time as one of the contractors by the Management for
supply of unskilled Agricultural Labourers.
(ii) That the Management invited tender for file operation (JOB Contract) for different types of work at
ICAR-RCER, Research Center, Ranchi vide Tender Notice dt. 13.08.2021. The tender of the contractor
dt. 13.08.2011was approved and communicated to him.
(iii) That after approval of the aforesaid tender there was an agreement between the management and the
answering contractor
(iv) That upon execution of agreement on the terms and conditions post approval the Contractor was only
obliged to pay the Minimum Wages, EPF contribution @ 13.61 and ESI Contribution @ 4.75 to the
Labours engaged by him including Income Tax.
(v) That it is further stated the management used to issue work order every month and contractors are
required to execute their work in accordance with the said work order. In practice the Management only
required manpower to execute their work.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2847
(vi) In compliance to the aforesaid work orders the contractor supplied labourers as would appear from the
attendance –cum- wage Register,
(vii). That similarly every month the work orders are issued by the Management and accordingly the contractor
deploy the workers on need basis.
(viii) That on combined reading of the Work Order, attendance Register and Payment vouchers it will appear
that there is no scope for the contractor to save more than his service charge. Rather it will appear that the
contractor sustained loss in most of the months.
(ix). That it is worth mentioning that the demand of the Union contains list of 29 workers. Out of those 29
workers only 8 workers were deployed by the answering contractor, which is evident from the
attendance-cum-wage Registers for remaining workers whose names are listed, the answering contractor
is not in a position to state their whereabouts.
(x). In another important fact the contractor stated that except the eight workers none of workers whose names
are appearing in the list attached to the letter of demand have ever worked under the answering contractor.
(xi). That in the facts and circumstances the demands made by the Union are untenable as against Shri Ajay
Kumar Singh, Contractor.
5. Hearing in the matter proceeded with evidence from few of the workers; Management side and Contractor
were also recorded.
6. However on perusal of Reference from the Government it was found that the Reference was made in
general manner as following;
“Whether the denial of Management for payment of 20% bonus to the workers is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to in terms of money?”
But the list of the workers for whom adjudication was to be done by the Tribunal with the above
Reference was not forwarded by the Government .As such it was not prudent to proceed with such a Reference
without the list of the workmen for whom the Reference has been made to the Tribunal for adjudication because
the Award under such circumstances would become an Award for unknown workmen for whom dispute has
been raised. Further, disputes with plethora of grievances and subsequently a number of Industrial Disputes
regarding the workmen involved in such blanket Reference. Award can be passed only for payment of bonus as
per claim/demand to the concerned workers only and it cannot be passed for unknown persons in the name of
the union only.
7. Therefore, it was decided that let the concerned workmen file their claim through concerned Union and
its leader with details of employment as claimed along with the period claimed to have worked, the wages paid
to the concerned period of claim, etc. as required to claim for bonus and then subsequent reply after verification
by the Management and/ or the contractor, (Opposite Parties to the dispute raised by the Union).
8. During the proceeding on 22.01.2020 the workmen side was directed to file written argument in the
matter with documents in support of the points and facts mentioned in the Written Argument to substantiate
the claim from workmen side as the Management and Concerned Contractor have already filed Written
Argument and served upon the workmen side. The Union leader present during the proceeding prayed for time
and accordingly the matter was fixed for subsequent hearing on 29.04.2020.The Covid-2019 pandemic had
spreaded and lockdown was imposed by the Union Government and State Government for a long period
subsequently and so the next hearing was undertaken on 28.01.2021 duly sending the notice to all side for
hearing.
9. During hearing on 28.01.2021 and in presence of all respective sides the Union leader was explained
about shortcoming in the Reference and it was directed to file claim by the concerned workers with details
required for adjudication of the reference made to the Tribunal and serving copy of such claims to the
management and concerned contractor for filing their counter reply. The Union leader present in the hearing
prayed for time to file claim from the concerned workmen and the same was allowed.
10. The next hearing was held on 20.07.2021 after due notice to all concerned. None appeared for the
workmen nor could any claim could be filed from workmen side. As such another opportunity was provided to
the workmen side for filing the details of claim.
11. The case was accordingly heard on 20.09.2021 after issuing notice for hearing in advance to all
concerned. The workmen side again failed to represent and file their claim. In the above circumstances when
the workmen side failed repeatedly to represent and file their claim by the concerned workmen the matter was
closed for hearing and reserved for Award.
2848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. The wait was made for some more time for workmen side to file their claim but no claim filed by the
workmen side for considerable period .The concerned file was called for, examined and considered for passing
of the Award based on the facts, submissions and documents available on record.
13. On perusal of documents filed by Management side (ICAR Research Institute Plandu Ranchi) the
communications dtt. 13.01.2012 and 17.01.2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment it was found that the appropriate Government has rejected the dispute raised by Shri Anjani
Kumar Pandey, General Secretary, Jharkhand General Kamgar Union, Gangu Toli, Ranchi with the observation
that “the workmen are covered under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition Rules, 1970).Hence the dispute
does not exist under the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947”. Copies of these two communications are reproduced
below for ready reference.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. L-42011/194/2011-IR(DU)
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya
New Delhi ,Dated: 17/01/2012
To,
1.The Principle Scientist & Head, ICAR
Research Complex for Eastern Region Research
Centre, Plandu
RANCHI,Jharkhand
Jharkhand
2. Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey,
Jharkhand General Kamgar Union,
Gangu Toli, RANCHI,Jharkhand
Jharkhand
Subject :ID over regularization of Shri Sukra Kachhap and 16 others of Awla Farm under the Complex for
Eastern Region Research Centre, Ranchi
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. 1(07)/2011-RLC (R ) dated . from the
RLC(RANCHI) received in this Ministry on 12/10/2011 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima
facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:
“The workmen have been employed by the contractor, who has been given a contract by the Management of
ICAR. The Union ailed to submit any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the workmen are
directly employed by the management of ICAR. There is no direct employer-employee relation in this case. The
workmen are covered under contract Labour (Relation & Abolition) Rules, 1970.Hence the dispute does not
exist under I.D. Act., 1947.”
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-illegible
(Ramesh Singh)
Desk Officer
T.No. -23473150
Email
Copy to
i)
Regional Labour Commissioner(Central),RANCHI
ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central),RANCHI
iii) Guard file
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2849
iv) C,R.Section
Sd/-illegible
(Ramesh Singh)
Desk Officer
T.No. -23473150
Email
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::
No. L-42011/193/2011-IR(DU)
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya
New Delhi ,Dated: 17/01/2012
To,
1. The Principle Scientist & Head, ICAR
Research Complex for Eastern Region Research
Centre, Plandu
RANCHI
2. Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey,
Jharkhand General Kamgar Union,
Gangu Toli, RANCHI
Subject :ID over regularization of Shri Kishor Munda and 41 others of Churu Farm under the ICAR Complex
for Eastern Region Research Centre, Ranchi
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the Failure f Conciliation Report No. 01(06)/2011-RLC (R ) dated 19/09/2011
from the RLC(RANCHI) received in this Ministry on 11/10/2011 on the above mentioned subject and to say
that, prima facie,this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:
“The workmen have been employed by the contractor, who has been given a contract by the Management of
ICAR. The Union ailed to submit any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the workmen are
directly employed by the management of ICAR.There is no direct employer-employee relation in this case. The
workmen are covered under contract Labour (Relation & Abolition) Rules, 1970.Hence the dispute does not
exist under I.D. Act.,1947.”
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-illegible
(Ramesh Singh)
Desk Officer
T.No. -23473150
Email
Copy to
v) Regional Labour Commissioner(Central),RANCHI
vi) Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central),RANCHI
vii) Guard file
viii) C,R.Section
Sd/-illegible
(Ramesh Singh)
Desk Officer
T.No. -23473150
Email
2850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
14. Through the above referred communications from Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment it has been decided by the appropriate Government that the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947 does
not apply in respect of the workmen engaged through the Contractor by the Management (Principal Scientist
and Head ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region Ranchi Centre,Plandu Ranchi ).Once the matter on
regularization of the same set of workmen employed through the Contractor cannot be covered under the
Industrial Dispute Act ,1947 for the purpose of regularization then the same set of workmen engaged by the
Contractor cannot be covered under the Industrial Dispute Act ,1947 for the purpose of Bonus also (Ratio of
decision applied) .
15. Based on the above findings following are derived:
i)
The workmen represented through authorized Union/Union Leader have failed to file their
specific claim for the individual workers involved in the Reference made by Ministry of
Labour & Employment, Government of India, Reference No. 130/2013 (Instant Case) despite
several opportunities provided.
ii)
The Industrial Dispute Act., 1947 do not apply to the workmen employed by the Contractor as
per the decision communicated by Government of India (Supra).
16. Based on the above findings this Tribunal is of the view that the workmen engaged by the Contractor for
working in the premises of subject Management (ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region ,Research
Centre ,Plandu Ranchi) do not qualify to get relief under the Industrial Dispute Act.,1947 in the instant
Reference Case and so no relief is awarded.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1325.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मैससव गैरीसन इंिीजनयसव और 5 अन्य, सैन्य इंिीजनयररंग सेवाएं, आईएनएस रािाली, अरक्कोणम, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री एम. िॉिव ,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-चेन्नई के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 327/2001) 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-14012 /28/2000- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 327/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court ,Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Garrison Engineers & 5 Others, Military Engineering Services, INS Rajali, Arakkonam ,and Shri
M. George,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L-14012 /28/2000- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID 327/2001
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 04.08.2022
Sri M. George
27, Cheyyar Road
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2851
Griglespet, Ambedkar Nagar
Arakkonam-631002 …1st Party/Petitioner
Vs.
M/s Garrison Engineers & 5 Others
Military Engineering Services
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002 …2nd Party/Respondents
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Advocates, M/s Balan & Haridas
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
Advocate, Sri R. Kumar
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-14012 /28 /2000
/IR(DU) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS
Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the services of Sri M. George who has been
engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG Sets
w.e.f.02.08.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
A little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that after registration of the dispute as per
the reference, the case was registered as ID No. 327/2001. The case was disposed of by the then Presiding
Officer on 24.08.2004. The Claim Petition was dismissed. The Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 24.08.2004
of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras vide WP No. 259/2017. It reveals since
many of the Petitioners under the same Respondent have challenged for redressal of their grievance in different
Writ Petitions, the Hon’ble High Court has taken up all the Writ Petitions and passed the Common Order on
18.09.2017 by setting aside the order of the Tribunal dtd. 24.08.2004 and remitted back all the cases including
the instant case for re-trial and early disposal. The Respondent also approached the Hon’ble High Court in WP
No. 30888 and 30889 of 2016 and WMP No. 26759 and 26760 of 2016 and 628-631 of 20-17 which were also
disposed of by the Hon’ble Court on the same day i.e. 18.09.2017 directing the Tribunal to take up the case for
early disposal.
3.
Accordingly, in compliance to the direction of the Hon’ble Court and after receipt of the records,
necessary order was passed for issuance of fresh notices vide order dtd. 28.01.2019. Since then, the case simply
lingered to such an extent till 11.11.2021 intervening 24 adjournments. On 11.11.2021 both parties were
present. The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has no instruction as well as he was informed
regarding the death of the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel sought for time to ascertain the correctness of the
information of death of the Petitioner. Time is accordingly allowed. The Learned Counsel was afforded with
several adjournments for the same purpose on his request till 26.05.2022 intervening 10 adjournments. The
Learned Counsel files a memo to decline to proceed with the ID case due to no instruction. However, in the
interest of justice the Tribunal suo-moto afforded adjournments granting liberty to the Counsel for the Petitioner
to file the Death Certificate of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Death Certificate of the Petitioner issued by the
Competent Authority vide dtd. 20.03.2018 was produced by the Learned Counsel. For the interest of justice,
further adjournments were suo-moto given to the Learned Counsel to produce Legal Heir Certificate. The
Learned Counsel also submitted that he has taken all effective steps to contact the Legal Heirs intended to be
substitute in the place of deceased Petitioner. Despite his sincere efforts, none on behalf of the deceased
Petitioner contacted him to proceed with the case. The Learned Counsel also made communication in the
address of the deceased Petitioner for this purpose which was returned un-served as Dead. Not a single scrap of
document / petition is received from any corner claiming for substitution in the place of deceased Petitioner.
The Learned Counsel at this juncture filed “No Instruction Memo”.
4.
In the fact and circumstance since the Petitioner expired leaving no Legal Heir for Substitution, it
deems fit to close the proceeding. Thus, the case is liable for dismissal in accordance to Law.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
2852 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The ID case stands dismissed
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1326.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार पोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, मडंडीगुल प्रिान डाकघर, मडंडीगुल; उप-जवभागीय जनरीक्षक (पी) नाथम उप-मंडल, नाथम,
मडंडीगुल; वररष्ठ अिीक्षक, डाकघर मडंडीगुल जडवीिन मडंडीगुल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री के.एम.
िाहुल िमीि,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-चेन्नई
के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 55/2017) 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-40012/15/2016- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court ,Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Post Master, Dindigul Head Post Office, Dindigul; The Sub-Divisional Inspector (P) Natham Sub-Division,
Natham, Dindigul; The Senior Superintendent of Post Office Dindigul Division Dindigul and Shri K.M. Shahul
Hameed,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/15/2016- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
Thursday, the 30th June, 2022
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
ID 55/2017
BETWEEN
Sri K.M. Shahul Hameed
S/o Mohamed Yusuf
No. 1/54, Vathipatti Village & Post –Natham Taluk
Dindigul District-624401 …1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Post Master …2nd Party/1st Respondent
Dindigul Head Post Office
Dindigul-624001
2.
The Sub-Divisional Inspector (P)
Natham Sub-Division
Natham
Dindigul-624401
…2nd Party/2nd Respondent
3.
The Senior Superintendent of Post Office
Dindigul Division
Dindigul-624001 …2nd Party/3rd Respondent
Appearance:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2853
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Advocates, M/s R. Malaichamy and Associates
For the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondent
:
Advocate, Sri P. Murali Krishnan
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/15/2016-IR
(DU) dtd. 09.05.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul
Division, Dindigul-624001 in stopping / removing Sri K.M. Shahul Hameed
from the service of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master/Mail Deliverer with
effect from 09.09.2015 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference dtd. 09.05.2017 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 55/2017 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance and hearing.
3.
The brief facts of the Applicant’s case is that in view of a arranged local appointment by Third
Respondent, the Branch Post Master at Vathipatti Branch Office of Natham, appointed the Petitioner as an
outsider in the place of one Sri M.H. Ghani, a permanent incumbent of the post of Branch Post Master (BPM)
who remained on leave from 01.06.1996 to 15.09.2011. The Petitioner while was working as such, the
Competent Authority added additional duties of BPM and Mail Deliverer (MD). The Petitioner carried on with
the job with utmost care and devotion to duty for the above period. Since the said permanent incumbent again
proceeded on long leave, the Petitioner was once engaged as an outsider at his place from 16.05.2014 with an
intermittent break till 08.09.2015. The Petitioner requested for his absorption as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) in
the Office of the Branch Post Master. But such request was turned down and he was denied duties from
09.09.2015.
4.
With this backdrop, the Petitioner submits that he had completed 3 years as BPM and MD at Vattipatti
Branch Office. The Third Respondent is liable to absorb the Petitioner on any of the posts as BPM or MD either
at Vattipatti Post Office or against any clear vacant post as much as the Petitioner has completed more than 240
days of work in the Calendar Year. But the benefit of absorption was denied to him. At the same time, the
Department of the Respondents used to engage outsiders without abiding the rules. The action of the
Respondents in refusing the employment to the Petitioner is illegal, unjustified, unconstitutional and contrary to
the principle of natural justice. The action of the Respondent removing the Petitioner without any prior notice
amounts to violation of Section-25F of the ID Act. Finding no other way out, the Petitioner raised the dispute
before the Conciliation Officer, the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Madurai. Since the dispute could not
be resolved, the Conciliation Failure Report was sent to the Appropriate Government resulting in reference.
5.
Despite of 17 adjournments though afforded, all the Respondents did not enter appearance resulting in
setting them ex-parte vide this Tribunal’s Order dtd. 05.08.2019. In view of the facts supra, the following issues
are settled:
1. If the Petitioner/Claimant Sri K.M. Shahul Hameed was engaged by the Third Respondent in two
spells i.e. for the period from 01.06.1996 till 05.09.2011 and from 06.05.2014 to 08.09.2015 in
place of Sri M.H. Ghani, a permanent incumbent who was on leave?
2. Whether the denial to do duty by the Petitioner from 09.09.2015 by the Respondents is illegal and
arbitrary?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for his reinstatement with continuity of
service, backwages and all other attendant benefits?
6.
The Petitioner adduced evidence as WW1 and produced 16 nos. of documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W16. Needless to say, the Respondents are set ex-parte.
Point No. 1 & 2
7.
Since both the issues are inter-linked inter-alia are taken up together.
The admitted fact remains that the Petitioner was engaged by the Third Respondent as a local
arrangement in the place of one Sri M.H. Ghani, a permanent incumbent who was on leave from 01.06.1996 to
15.09.2011. The Petitioner in his Claim Statement as well as in his Evidence has categorically stated to have
been directed for additional work of a Branch Post Master and Mail Deliverer beyond to his duties as per
engagement against the post lying vacant of Sri M.H. Ghani. In support of the fact of his engagement, the
Petitioner though filed some documents under Ext.W1 to Ext.W8, it reveals those are haphazardly filed and
2854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
there is no document for the missing period. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner failed to produce any
document showing his engagement as claimed from 1996 onwards till 30.07.1998 and from 2002 to 2011. In the
peculiar circumstance, even if it is accepted for a while for the sake of argument that the Petitioner was engaged
for the period from 01.06.1996 to 05.09.2011 during the first spell, the Petitioner was engaged as an outsider in
the place of Sri M.H. Ghani who remained absent unauthorizedly and on medical grounds. Besides, it reveals
that the Petitioner was paid with due remuneration and allowances for the period he worked for the Respondent.
It is quite difficult on the part of the Tribunal to cogently link up the missing period to give any relief to the
claim so far as the first spell of work is concerned.
8.
So far as the claim of the Petitioner for the second spell of work i.e. 06.05.2014 to 08.09.2015 is
concerned, the documents under Ext.W9 to Ext.W12 are taken note of. These documents under Exhibits are
found to be the extracts of Acquaintance Roll for the period of May 2014 (Ext.W9), month of September 2014
(Ext.W10), month of October 2014 (Ext.W11) and month of July 2015 (Ext.W12) Undoubtedly, these
documents i.e. Ext.W9 to Ext.W12 while speaks about the engagement of the Petitioner for the period 0-
6.05.2014 to July, 2015, it also speaks that the Petitioner was engaged as an outsider under the Respondent. The
Petitioner in that capacity of an employee as an outsider was disbursed with some payments 05.05.2015 towards
drawal of DA and allowance in view of the aforesaid Exhibits W9 to W12. The materials available on these
documents nowhere whispers the continuity of service of the Petitioner as claimed till 09.09.2015 in any
capacity under the Respondents. The documents under Ext.W13 to Ext.W16 needs no discussion sine those are
copy of 2A Application and documents relating to Conciliation Proceedings.
9.
Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner was not issued with any Appointment Order not any Order of
Termination. In this context, it needs mention that the documents filed by the Petitioner when as self-
explanatory with regard to the condition and job profile of the engagement of the Petitioner by the Third
Respondent for the aforesaid period, he himself has admitted to have been engaged as an outsider. Besides, the
Petitioner failed to adduce any oral evidence through any of his witness who might have any acquaintance with
the case of the Petitioner. The denial of job to the Petitioner since not been supported with any convincing oral
evidence or through any document, such plea cannot be accepted in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, there
is no deviation on the part of Respondent so far as the ID Act is concerned.
The issue is answered against the Petitioner.
Point No. 3
10.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs under Point No. 1 and 2 since the Petitioner was
never appointed by the Respondent but engaged in absence of an employee, Sri M.H. Ghani on payment basis
that too during the first spell as per the Exhibits W1 to W8. Besides, the Petitioner in his Claim Statement
averred that he was assigned with the additional charge of BPM and MD during the first spell, but this part of
his averment has not been supported with any documents nor corroborated by any Witness on his behalf.
11.
It reveals that the Petitioner was simply engaged by the Respondent for the second spell and paid with
remuneration as an outsider. Since, the fact of engagement as outsider is admitted by the Petitioner and
supported with relevant documents i.e. Ext.W9 to Ext.W12, the engagement of the Petitioner cannot be
considered to be a Casual or Temporary Employee under the Respondent. Since the Petitioner was not
appointed as against a Casual/Contractual/Temporary/Permanent post, no occasion arose on the part of the
Respondent to issue with any Appointment Order or Order of Termination but the Petitioner was engaged as an
outsider. Such engagement of Petitioner in no way makes him eligible to the entitlements as sought for.
In the result, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for.
The reference is answered against the Petitioner.
The ID stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1327.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार fMIVh vfllVsUV] ,MtwVsUV tujy QkWj dek.Mj gSMDokVZl] 340] bafMisUMsUV esdsukbZt fczxsM] ds@vk 56
,ihvks;dek.MsUV ¼gSMDokVZl½ 340] bafMisUMsUV esdsdukbZt fczxsM] ds@vk 56 ,ihvks; 3- fMQasl ,MfefuLVsªfVo
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2855
lSdzsVjh] fefuLVjh vkWQ fMQsal] dsUnz ljdkj]ubZ fnYyh] के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और vtesj ftyk
vlaxfBr Jfed la?k] xqtZj Vhyk] uxjk] vtesj ¼jkt-½, ckcr~, Jh 'kSrku flag के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय-ियपुरके पंचाट (संिभव सं. 19/2016) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.12.2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-14011/25/2015- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Deputy Assistant, Adjutant General to Commander Headquarters, 340th Independent Mechanized Brigade,
K/A 56 APO ;The Commandent (Headquarters), 340 Independent Mechanized Brigade, K/A 56 APO; The
Defence administrative Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Central Government New Delhi , and Ajmer District
Unorganized Labour Union, Gurjar Tila Nagra Ajmer, (Rajasthan), regarding Shri Shaitan Singh, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.12.2022.
[No. L- 14011/25/2015- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 19@2016
Reference No. L-14011/25/2015-IR (DU)
Dated: 15.02.2016
vtesj ftyk vlaxfBr Jfed la?k] 306/34]
xqtZj Vhyk] uxjk]
vtesj ¼jkt0½ ckcr~ Je fookn Jh 'kSrku flag
iq= Jh xksih flag jkor tfj;s JfedA
…izkFkhZ
1- fMIVh vfllVsUV] ,MtwVsUV tujy QkWj dek.Mj gSMDokVZl] 340] bafMisUMsUV esdsukbZt fczxsM]
ds@vk 56 ,ihvksA
2- dek.MsUV ¼gSMDokVZl½ 340] bafMisUMsUV esdsdukbZt fczxsM] ds@vk 56 ,ihvksA
3- fMQasl ,MfefuLVsªfVo lSdzsVjh] fefuLVjh vkWQ fMQsal]
dsUnz ljdkj] lsuk Hkou] ubZ fnYyh& 110001 ….vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
vizkFkhZ la- 1 dh rjQ ls % Jh lqjsUnz flag ¼ukyksV½ vf/koDrkA
vizkFkhZ la- 2 o 3 dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
2856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CGIT-19/2016
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 15-02-2016 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd
fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
? ’’
2- fnukad 08-01-2018 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk fd Jfed 'kSrku flag
jkor dh fu;qfDr foi{khx.k ds v/khu 01-08-2003 dks 1500@& :- ekfld osru ij ekSf[kd vkns’k ls dh
xbZA mls ;g v’oklu fn;k x;k fd mls fu;fer :Ik ls ekyh ds in ij fu;qDr dj fn;k tk;sxkA izkFkhZ
us 01-08-2003 ls 30-06-2005 rd 1 o"kZ 11 ekg yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA 30-06-2005 dks vizkFkhZ la- 1 us izkFkhZ
dks ukSdjh ls ekSf[kd vkns’k ls gVk fn;kA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru dk
Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,e½ ¼,Q½ ¼ch½ o ¼Mh½ dk mYya?ku gSA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls
gVkus ds mijkar mlds LFkku ij izse pan dksyh vkSj vYyknhu dks fu;qDr dj fn;k x;kA rRi’pkr izkFkhZ
vtesj ls ckgj pyk x;k vkSj okfil vkus ij ;g fookn izLrqr fd;kA vr% lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls
Jfed 'kSrku flag dks foxr ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa ysus dk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkosaA
3- foi{kh la- 1 us oknksRrj esa izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq;s ;g dgk fd Hkkjrh; lsuk dksbZ
m|ksx ugha gSa vkSj izdj.k 11 o"kZ fcyaEc ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us ,d vkSj izdj.k 88@2015 bUgha
vk/kkjksa ij vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k blfy;s
foi{kh vkSj izkFkhZ ds chp deZdkj vkSj fu;ksDrk dk laca/k ugha gSA vkSj ;g fookn Hkh vkS|ksfxd fookn dh
ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrkA dk;Z dh miyC/krk ij izkFkhZ dk;Z dks iwjk dj Hkqxrku izkIr dj ysrk Fkk ftldk
dksbZ vfHkys[k ugha j[kk tkrkA izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k
tk;saA
4- foi{kh la- 2 o 3 ds vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k muds tckc dk volj cUn dj fn;k x;kA
5- fnukad 05-09-2019 ls izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mlds i{k izLrqrhdj.k ds fy, dksbZ Hkh mifLFkr ugha
gqvkA 31-03-2022 dks izkFkhZ dh yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s izkFkhZ dh lk{; dk volj lekIr dj
fn;k x;kA bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh la- 1 }kjk Hkh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA vr% lk{; foi{kh Hkh
cUn dj nh xbZA
6- fnukad 19-07-2022 dks esusa foi{kh la- 1 ds ekSf[kd rdZ lqus vkSj i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
mudk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS blfy;s okn fujLr
fd;k tkosaA esusa bl rdZ ij fopkj fd;kA
7- ;gkW ;g myys[k fd;k tkuk vko’;d gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼,½ ds vUrxZr ,d
ifjokn fnukad 16-12-2015 dks bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA rnqijkar izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr
ifjokn ij leqfpr ljdkj }kjk ;g fookn 15-02-2016 dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2 ¼,½ ds
vUrxZr bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA blfy;s fnukad 23-08-2017 dks izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr futh okn
vUrxZr /kkjk 2 ¼,½] ftls CGIT- 88@2015 ij iathc} fd;k x;k Fkk dks Ik’pkrorhZ lanfHkZr fookn la-
19@2016 ds lkFk fuLrkfjr djus gsrq layXu djus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj bu nksuks gh
izdj.kksa dk bl vf/kdj.k }kjk U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tk jgk gSA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2857
8- izkFkhZ dks vius lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr djuk Fkk fd foi{kh izac/ku }kjk deZdkj Jh 'kSrku flag iq=
Jh xksyh flag jkor dh fnukad 30-06-2005 ls ekSf[kd vkns’k }kjk dh xbZ lsok lekfIr voS/k gSA bl rF;
dks izekf.kr djus gsrq izkFkhZ i{k us dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gSA vkSj izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr Hkh
ugha gqvk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl vf/kdj.k dk ;g vf/ker gS fd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g
izekf.kr ugha gks ik;k gS fd deZdkj Jh 'kSrku flag jkor foi{kh izac/ku ds v/khu fu;ksftr deZpkjh gks]
rFkk dfFkr :Ik ls 30-06-2005 ls Jh 'kSrku flag jkor dh dh xbZ lsok lekfIr voS/k ,oa vuqfpr gksA
blfy;s lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
9- Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr ,oa izkFkhZ i{k }kjk futh :Ik ls izLrqr ifjokn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u blh
izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA vf/kfu.kZ; dh ,d izfr izdj.k la- CGIT- 88@2015 esa layXu dh tkosA
10- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa
izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1328.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री जोिेंर पासिाि,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 34/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/77/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2012) 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
Jogender Paswan,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/77/2011- 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. 34/2012
Date of Passing Award- 18.10.2022
Between:
Shri Jogender Paswan,
S/o Shri Pyare Paswan,
R/o House No. 6478, Gali No. 34,
Sector-23, Sanjay Colony,
Faridabad
…. Workman
Versus
2858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-40012/77/2011 (IR(DU) dated 05/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of
Shri Jogender Paswan S/o Shri Pyare Paswan, 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 04.05.1989. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 700/- and the same was
increased from time to time and his last drawn salary per month was Rs. 2700/-. The workman had worked with
the management continuously for 21 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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2859
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 and produced only one document which have
been marked as WW1/1 which is a gate pass issued in the name of the claimant Jogender Paswan. On the basis
of this document and his oral statement the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the
management from 1989 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 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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the claimant 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 21 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
denying that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of
daily rated workers. 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 where never having registration under the Contract Labour Act.,
2860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 1989 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as WW1/1. This document though slender in evidentiary value have been relied upon by the
claimant to show that during the period between 1989 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 are no way helpful in proving the employer and
employee relationship. The claimant as MW1 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 1989 to 2010 proves that the claimant
Jogender Paswan 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.
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 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 thus, 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2861
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 claimant has stated that the plea of 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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 disproves the said documents which is 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 1989 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
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 1989 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.
2862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUE No.2
The grievance of the claimant is that he had worked for the management for 21 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 1989 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 21 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2863
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
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 21 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 answerred 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.
2864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1329.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिकs, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री सलीम, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 02/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/55/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2012) 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
Salim, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L-40012/55/2011- 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. 02/2012
Date of Passing Award- 31.10.2022
Between:
Shri Salim,
S/o Shri Amirudin,
R/o House No. 94, Street No.1, Padam Nagar, Nahar Par,
Tigaon Road, Old 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-40012/55/2011 (IR(DU) dated 02/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2865
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of
Shri Salim S/o Shri Amirudin, 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 02.03.2006. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 2500/- 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 04 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
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
3. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
4. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
2866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 2006 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
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 04 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2867
from 2006 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 2006 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 2006 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Salim 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.
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
2868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 2006 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
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 2006 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 04 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 2006 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 04 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2869
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
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
2870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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 04 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1330.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री गिक्रमजीत,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 03/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/56/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2012) 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
Vikramajeet,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/56/2011- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2871
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. 03/2012
Date of Passing Award- 31.10.2022
Between:
Shri Vikramajeet,
S/o Shri Meba Lal,
R/o House No. 250, Gali No.2, Central Green,
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-40012/56/2011 (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 Vikramajeet S/o Shri Meba 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 01.09.1998. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1500/- 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 12 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
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.
2872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
1.
Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2.
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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition
Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 1998 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2873
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 12 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 1998 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 1998 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 1998 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Vikramajeet 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.
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
2874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1998 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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2875
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 1998 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 12 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 1998 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 12 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
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.
2876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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 12 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2877
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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1331.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री गििोद कुमार,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 45/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/37/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2012) 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
Vinod Kumar,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/37/2011- 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. 45/2012
Date of Passing Award- 21.10.2022
Between:
Shri Vinod Kumar,
S/o Shri Suresh Chand,
R/o House No. DB-941, Near Manav Seva School,
Rathi Street, 27 Feet Road,
Dabua Colony, NIT,
Faridabad-
…Workman
2878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-40012/37/2011 (IR(DU) dated 13/01/2012 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the contract awarded by GM BSNL, Faridabad is a sham contract
in nature? Whether action taken by the management in terminating the
service of Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Chand, ex-cable jointer, W.e.f
23/08/2010 is just fair & legal? What relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?”
The claimant in the claim statement has stated that he had been working with the management BSNL
as Cable Jointer/MDF and internet/Generator operator w.e.f 01.01.2000. Initially his remuneration per month
was Rs. 1650/- and the same was increased from time to time and his last drawn salary per month was Rs.
3000/-. The workman had worked with the management continuously for ten 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2879
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 and produced the documents which have been
marked in a series of document No.1 A to L containing various pages. The documents could not be exhibited
being photocopies. These documents include various gate passes, challans, fault repair reports, money receipts
and Gen Set repair reports containing the name of the claimant. In addition to this the claimant has also filed the
photocopies of the complaint log book and the log book maintained for the Gen. Set, wherein in the remark
column the name of the claimant and other workers standing in the same footing appears. On the basis of these
documents the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the management from 2000 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.
Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some 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 and those documents were marked as WW1/M1,
WW1/M2 and 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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the claimant 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 10 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
2880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
denying that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of
daily rated workers. 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 where 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 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 2000 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as A to L. These are the documents though slender in evidentiary value have been relied
upon by the claimant to show that during the period between 2000 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 gate pass, log book, money receipts etc. are no way
helpful in proving the employer and employee relationship. The claimant as PW1 stated that he was working as
a cable jointer 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 have been
filed by the claimant and marked in series of H. These documents of the year 2006 to 2010 proves that the
claimant Vinod Kumar 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. Not only that the claimant has also filed several other documents which are the Gate Passes
issued to the claimant by BSNL in the year 2008 and 2009, the vouchers showing payment the delivery challan
fault repair report of the Gen. Sets and all these documents contain the name of the claimant as an employee of
BSNL office at Faridabad.
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 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 thus, 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 jointer/MDF and internet/gen operator 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2881
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 claimant has stated that the plea of 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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 extendt
throws light on the employer and employee relationship between the parties. No contrary evidence has been
adduced by the management to disproves the said documents which is 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 2000 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 Thezhill Union Kozhikode and others
(1978)AIR (SC) 1410 and in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. PO Labour Court VIII and
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
2882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
clearly proves how during the relevant time period i.e. between 2000 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 10 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 2000 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 10 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2883
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 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 10 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
2884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
PARNITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1332.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और
श्री िकचंद, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2
िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 08/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/61/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2012) 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
Nakchand,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L-40012/61/2011- 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. 08/2012
Date of Passing Award- 21.10.2022
Between:
Shri Nakchand,
S/o Shri Ram Tirath,
R/o House No. 155, Gali No.1,
Rahul Colony, Central Green,
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)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2885
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-40012/61/2011 (IR(DU) dated 05/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of
Shri Nakchand S/o Shri Ram Tirath, 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 01.07.2002. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1600/- 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 ten 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
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 and produced the documents which have been
marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/6. These documents include various gate passes issued in the name of the
claimant. On the basis of these documents the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the
management from 2002 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some 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 and those
documents were marked as WW1/M1, WW1/M2 and 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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the
claimant 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 8 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 denying
that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of daily rated
workers. 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 where 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 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2887
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 2002 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as WW1/1 to WW1/6. These are the documents though slender in evidentiary value have
been relied upon by the claimant to show that during the period between 2002 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 gate pass are no way helpful in proving the
employer and employee relationship. The claimant as PW1 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 2006 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Nack Chand 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.
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 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 thus, 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 jointer/MDF and internet/gen operator 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 claimant has stated that the plea of 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.
2888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 extend throws
light on the employer and employee relationship between the parties. NO contrary evidence has been adduced
by the management to disproves the said documents which is 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 2002 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 Thezhill Union Kozhikode and others
(1978)AIR (SC) 1410 and in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. PO Labour Court VIII and
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 2002 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 10 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 2002 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 10 years and the later illegally terminated
his service.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2889
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
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
2890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 8 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1333.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा) ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री गिजेंर कुमार,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 67/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/43/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2891
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2012) 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
Vijender Kumar,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/43/2011 - 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. 67/2012
Date of Passing Award- 20.10.2022
Between:
Shri Vijender Kumar,
S/o Shri Nannu Ram,
R/o Village- Deha Gaon,
Naharpar,
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-40012/43/2011 (IR(DU) dated 25/01/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the
following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Faridabad in terminating the
services of Shri Vijender Kumar S/o Shri Nannu Ram, 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 20.03.2006. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1400/- and the same was
increased from time to time and his last drawn salary per month was Rs. 3000/-. The workman had worked with
the management continuously for 04 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
2892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2893
working for the management from 2006 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
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 04 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 2006 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 2006 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 2006 to 2010 proves that
2894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the claimant Vijender Kumar 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.
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 2006 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2895
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
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 2006 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 04 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 2006 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 04 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
2896 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2897
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
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 04 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, 11 नवम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1334.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री मोहम्पमद हसीि,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 31/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/74/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1334 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2012) 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
Mohd. Hasin,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/74/2011- 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.
2898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 31/2012
Date of Passing Award- 20.10.2022
Between:
Shri Mohd. Hasin,
S/o Shri Malikdin,
R/o House No. 66,
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-40012/74/2011 (IR(DU) dated 05/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services
of Shri Mohd. Hasin S/o Shri Malikdin, 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 03.04.1997. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1400/- 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 13 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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2899
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 1997 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
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
2900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 13 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 1997 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 1997 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 1997 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Mohd. Hasin 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.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2901
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 1997 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
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
2902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1997 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 13 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 1997 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 13 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 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2903
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
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 13 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.
2904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1335.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा) ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री मोहम्पमद हसीि,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि संख्या 31/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को
प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/74/2011-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1335.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2012) of the Centsral 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
Mohd. Hasin,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022
[No. L-40012/74/2011- 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. 31/2012
Date of Passing Award- 20.10.2022
Between:
Shri Mohd. Hasin,
S/o Shri Malikdin,
R/o House No. 66,
Rahul Colony, NIT,
Faridabad
…. Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2905
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-40012/74/2011 (IR(DU) dated 05/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services
of Shri Mohd. Hasin S/o Shri Malikdin, 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 03.04.1997. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1400/- 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 13 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
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.
2906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
1.
Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2.
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:-
1.
The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2.
The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3.
Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4.
The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act
1970.
5.
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.
6.
List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7.
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 1997 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
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 13 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2907
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 1997 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 1997 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 1997 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Mohd. Hasin 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.
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.
2908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1997 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
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 1997 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 13 years without being
paid the minimum wage. When he raised a genuine and lawful demand for the same the management got
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2909
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 1997 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 13 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
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
2910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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 13 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2911
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1336.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री िरेंर कुमार, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 56/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/33/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2012) 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
Narender Kumar,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/33/2011- 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. 56/2012
Date of Passing Award- 11.10.2022
Between:
Shri Narender Kumar,
S/o Shri Jhokhu,
R/o House No. 242, Gali No.2,
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)
2912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-40012/33/2011 (IR(DU) dated 17/01/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the
following effect.
“Whether the contract awarded by G M BSNL, Faridabad is a sham in
nature? Whether action taken by the management in terminating the
service of Shri Narender Kumar S/o Shri Jhokhu, Ex-Cable Jointer w.e.f
23.08.2010, is just fair and legal? If not to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
The claimant in the claim statement has stated that he had been working with the management BSNL
as Cable Joinder w.e.f 10.03.1998. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1500/- 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 12 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
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
1.
Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2.
As in terms of the reference.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2913
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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act
1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 and produced only one document which have
been marked as WW1/1 which is a gate pass issued in the name of the claimant Narender Kumar. On the basis
of this document and his oral statement the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the
management from 1998 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some 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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the claimant 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 12 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
denying that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of
daily rated workers. 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 where 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
2914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 1998 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as WW1/1. This document though slender in evidentiary value have been relied upon by the
claimant to show that during the period between 1998 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 are no way helpful in proving the employer and
employee relationship. The claimant as MW1 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 1998 to 2010 proves that the claimant
Narender Kumar 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.
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 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 thus, 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 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 claimant has stated that the plea of 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2915
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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 disproves the said documents which is 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 1998 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
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 1998 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 12 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.
2916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 1998 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 12 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2917
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
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 12 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1337.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,
केन्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री जिदीश, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-
सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 61/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को
प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/36/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
2918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2012) 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
Jagdish,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L-40012/36/2011- 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. 61/2012
Date of Passing Award- 12.10.2022
Between:
Shri Jagdish,
S/o Shri Shyam Bahadur,
R/o House No. RC-79,
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 claimant
(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-40012/36/2011 (IR(DU) dated 25/01/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of
Shri Jagdish S/o Shri Shyam Bahadur, 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 05.01.2004. 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. 3200/-. The workman had worked with
the management continuously for six 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2919
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
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
1.
Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2.
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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition
Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. Copy of the returns submitted by BSNL in respect of all such contractors to the Government
Authorities i.e ESIC and EPFO etc.
2920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 and produced the documents which have been
marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/6. These documents include various gate passes issued in the name of the
claimant. On the basis of these documents the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the
management from 2004 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some 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 and those
documents were marked as WW1/M1, WW1/M2 and 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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the
claimant 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 6 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 denying
that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of daily rated
workers. 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 where 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 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 2004 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as WW1/1 to WW1/6. These are the documents though slender in evidentiary value have
been relied upon by the claimant to show that during the period between 2004 to 2010 he was working as an
employee of management BSNL and his name appears in different papers created during that undisputed period
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2921
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 gate pass are no way helpful in proving the
employer and employee relationship. The claimant as PW1 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 2004 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Jagdish 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.
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 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 thus, 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 jointer/MDF and internet/gen operator 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 claimant has stated that the plea of 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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 extend throws
2922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
light on the employer and employee relationship between the parties. NO contrary evidence has been adduced
by the management to disproves the said documents which is 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 2004 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 Thezhill Union Kozhikode and others
(1978)AIR (SC) 1410 and in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. PO Labour Court VIII and
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 2004 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 6 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 2004 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 6 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2923
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
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
2924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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 6 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1338.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा) ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री मुन्ना लाल,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 38/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/81/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2012) 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
Munna Lal,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/81/2011- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2925
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. 38/2012
Date of Passing Award- 10.10.2022
Between:
Shri Munna Lal,
S/o Shri Ram Tirath,
R/o House No. 116, 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-40012/81/2011 (IR(DU) dated 05/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the
services of Shri Munna Lal S/o Shri Ram Tirath, 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 01.03.1998. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1500/- 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 22 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
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
2926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition
Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 and produced only one document which have
been marked as WW1/1 which is a gate pass issued in the name of the claimant Munna Lal on 14.05.2010. On
the basis of this document and his oral statement the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the
management from 1998 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some 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,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2927
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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the claimant 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 10 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
denying that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of
daily rated workers. 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 where 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 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 1998 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as WW1/1. This document though slender in evidentiary value have been relied upon by the
claimant to show that during the period between 1998 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 are no way helpful in proving the employer and
employee relationship. The claimant as MW1 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 2006 to 2010 proves that the claimant Munna
Lal 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.
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 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 thus, made a prayer for production of
document relating to the contract awarded. But surprisingly the management produced incomplete copy of the
2928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract documents relating to engagement of security guards and housekeeping staff. No document relating to
engagement of cable joinder/MDF and internet/gen operator 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 claimant has stated that the plea of 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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 extendt
throws light on the employer and employee relationship between the parties. NO contrary evidence has been
adduced by the management to disproves the said documents which is 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 1996 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
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2929
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 2000 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 22 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 2000 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 10 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
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.
2930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2931
workers and continued to work for 15 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1339.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,
केन्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री सुर्ाष,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 04/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/57/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2012) 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
Subhash,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L-40012/57/2011- 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. 04/2012
Date of Passing Award- 11/10/2022
Between:
Shri Subhash,
S/o Shri Nand Lal,
R/o House No. 842,
Rahul Colony, NIT,
Faridabad
…. Workman
2932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-40012/57/2011 (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 Subhash S/o Shri Nand 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 10.01.2006. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 2500/- 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 4 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
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,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2933
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 and produced the documents which have been
marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/2. These documents include various gate passes issued in the name of the
claimant. On the basis of these documents the claimant has asserted to prove that he was working for the
management from 2006 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some 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 and those
documents were marked as WW1/M1, WW1/M2 and 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. WW1/M3 is another document filed by the
claimant 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 8 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 denying
that he was the employee of the contractor when there was no contract prevalent for engagement of daily rated
workers. 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 where 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
2934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 2006 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 adduced by the claimant as WW1 he has fully supported the statement of claim filed by him. With
regard to the documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim the workman has relied upon the series of
documents marked as WW1/1 to WW1/2. These are the documents though slender in evidentiary value have
been relied upon by the claimant to show that during the period between 2006 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 gate pass are no way helpful in proving the
employer and employee relationship. The claimant as PW1 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 2006 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Subhash 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.
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 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 thus, 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 jointer/MDF and internet/gen operator 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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2935
The claimant has stated that the plea of 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. On the contrary the claimant has filed
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.
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 extend throws
light on the employer and employee relationship between the parties. NO contrary evidence has been adduced
by the management to disproves the said documents which is 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 2006 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 Thezhill Union Kozhikode and others
(1978)AIR (SC) 1410 and in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. PO Labour Court VIII and
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 2006 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 4 years without being paid
the minimum wage. When he raised a genuine and lawful demand for the same the management got annoyed
2936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 2006 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 10 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2937
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 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 4 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
2938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1340.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री संत लाल,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 60/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/34/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2012) 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 Sant Lal,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/34/2011- 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. 60/2012
Date of Passing Award- 31.10.2022
Between:
Shri Sant Lal,
S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal,
R/o House No. 258, Gali No.3,
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-40012/34/2011 (IR(DU) dated 25.01.2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services
of Shri Sant Lal S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal, Ex-Cable Jointer w.e.f 23.08.2010,
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2939
The claimant in the claim statement has stated that he had been working with the management
BSNL as Cable Joinder w.e.f 01.03.2001. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1500/- 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 09 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
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
2940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 2001 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some
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 09 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 2001 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2941
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 2001 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 2001 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Sant Lal 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.
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
2942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 2001 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
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 2001 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 09 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 2001 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 09 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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2943
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
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
2944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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 09 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1341.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, र्ारत संचार गििम गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-15, फरीदाबाद, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री ककशि शमाि,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 09/2012) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/62/2011- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2012) 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
Kishan Sharma,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 40012/62/2011- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2945
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. 09/2012
Date of Passing Award- 31.10.2022
Between:
Shri Kishan Sharma,
S/o Shri Harish Chand Sharma,
R/o House No. 175, 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-40012/62/2011 (IR(DU) dated 05/12/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in terminating the services of Shri
Kishan Sharma S/o Shri Harish Chand Sharma, 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 10.06.2002. Initially his remuneration per month was Rs. 1600/- 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 08 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
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
2946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
2. 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:-
1. The paper relating to the contract if any entered between the BSNL and the contractors.
2. The original board resolution authorizing the person who has signed the WS.
3. Various grade and structure of employee applicable to the BSNL.
4. The original registration issued to the BSNL u/s 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and
Abolition Act 1970.
5. 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.
6. List of licensed contractors working for BSNL in the year 2010.
7. 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 2002 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. Nishi Bhalla testified as MW1 and also produced some
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2947
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 08 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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 to 2010 proves that
the claimant Kishan Sharma 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.
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
2948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 2002 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
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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2949
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 2002 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 08 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 2002 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 08 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
observations in different pronouncement which suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days of work or a
2950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2951
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
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 08 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, 11 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1342.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार एिसीपीएस, एिटीपीसी गलगमटेड, िौतम बुद्ध ििर (उ.प्र.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री
बििारी लाल,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई
कदल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्ि सं. 105/2011) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/80/2010-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2022
S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/2011) 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, NCPS, NTPC Ltd, Gautam Buddh Nagar (U.P) and Shri Banwari Lal,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.11.2022.
[No. L- 42011/80/2010 - 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. 105/2011
Date of Passing Award- 09.11.2022
Between:
Shri Banwari Lal,
S/o Shri Khyali Ram,
C/o Village & Post Office:-
Khan Alampur, Aligarh U.P
…. Workman
2952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The General Manager,
NCPS, NTPC Ltd.,
Mechanical Maintenance Department,
Vidyut Nagar, Dadri,
Gautam Buddh Nagar (U.P)
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri B K Prasad
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rajesh Mahindru
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 NCPS, NTPC 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 1947 vide letter
No. L-42011/80/2010 (IR(DU) dated 12/10/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the Management of NTPC, Dadri, in terminating the
services of workman Shri Banwari Lal, w.e.f 18/04/1994 is illegal and
unjustified. If so to what relief he is entitled to?”
As per the claim statement the claimant was working as the permanent employee with the management in
the post of helper since 10.09.1991. With an unblemished track record and no scope was ever given by him for
raising any complaint by the employer. On 18.04.1994 when he reported for a duty the management did not
allow him to perform the duty and no reason was assigned for such refusal. When he demanded a written order
of termination of service the same was not given. On 29.04.1994 the claimant gave a written request to the
management to allow him to perform duty. Neither he was allowed to perform duty nor any reply to his letter
was given. The claimant for sometime visited the office of the management with request to allow him to
perform the duty but his request was never accepted. He has further stated in the claim petition that the
management illegally and unjustifiably terminated his service. Before the termination no domestic inquiry was
conducted. No termination notice or notice pay was paid to him. From 10.09.1991 to 17.04.1994 he had worked
continuously for the management NTPC and in the preceding year of termination of his service had worked for
240 days or more. Thereby the claimant challenged the termination as illegal. Since, the management did not
pay any heed to his request for reinstatement he raised a dispute before labour commissioner Ghaziabad and on
failure of conciliation the appropriate government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication on the
legality and justification of the termination of his service.
Being noticed the management NTPC appeared and filed written statement challenging the stand of the
claimant. At the outset it has been pleaded that the claim is barred by limitation for being raised 18 years after
the alleged termination. It has also been stated that NTPC is a government of India Enterprise and never
engages contract workers directly. For execution of certain work the contract are awarded to the contractors
who engage their own men to execute the contract and make payment to them in accordance to the Contract
Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970. So far as this claimant is concerned he was engaged by one of the
contractor M/s Bachhil Sons and his service was terminated by the said contractor. The claimant Banwari Lal
had raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad which was registered as CP No.
467/1994. In that dispute the claimant had added M/s NTPC Dadri and M/s Bachhil and Sons as opposite party.
Having realized the mistake he withdrew the matter and filed another application which was registered as CP
No. 814 of 1994. In the subsequent application the claimant cleverly deleted the name of the contractor. The
Assistant Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad took up the matter for conciliation and since the attempt failed the
matter was referred to the Labour Court No. 1 Ghaziabad where it was registered as ADJ Case no. 133 of 1996.
The management NTPC filed written statement challenging the jurisdiction of that court. Ultimately the labour
court disposed of the matter for want of jurisdiction and appropriate government again referred the matter to
this tribunal in a mechanical manner for adjudication on the justification of the alleged termination.
The management NTPC has further stated that there is no employer and employee relationship between
the claimant and NTPC and the claimant was never appointed nor terminated by NTPC. He was infact the
employee of the contractor M/s Bachhil and Sons and the claimant has made some false allegation that he was
working for the management and the later refused to take him on duty since 18.04.1994. The management has
denied the stand of the claimant that he asked for a written order of termination and had sent a written request to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2953
take him back to service. The strong stand of the management is that it being a Government of India Enterprise
has its own procedure of recruitment and never engages temporary or contractual employees. The eligible
contractor is given the contract to execute a specific work and the persons engaged by the said contractor are
not the employees of the NTPC and for that reason the claim petition is false and not maintainable. The
claimant filed replication denying the stand taken by the management.
On these rival pleadings the following issues are framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1. Whether delay of 18 years in making reference order frustrates claim of Shri Banwari Lal?
2. Whether there existed any relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
3. As in terms of reference.
The claimant examined himself as WW1 and proved the number of documents which have
been marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/75. These documents include the claim filed before the
labour commissioner a number of gate passes issued by NTPC for entry of the claimant to the premises
of the management material issue slips reflecting the name of the claimant Banwari Lal the circular
with regard to the pay revision of the employees of NTPC the document marked as WW1/17 to
WW1/23 which are vouchers with regard to repair and maintenance of the machineries in which at
some places the name of the claimant is reflected the order passed by the Labour Court Ghaziabad a
number of photocopies of the attendance register of NTPC in which the name of the claimant appears.
Similarly the management examined one Anil Kumar Chawla, DGM HR NTPC as MW1 one
Umesh Kumar DGM HR as MW2 and one Kalyan Singh Bachhil as MW3 who was summoned as a
witness by the tribunal. The management has filed the registration certificate of the management for
engagement of contractors as MW2/2 a letter written by the contractor Bachhil and sons describing the
claimant as its employee which has been marked as MW1/1 in addition to the same the management
has also filed the photocopies of the contract awarded to the M/s Bachhil and sons and the annual
contract labour report submitted by NTPC to the registering and licensing officer in which the name of
the claimant doesn’t find place. The management has also filed a list of the contractors engaged at
different point of time.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that in view of the
denial of employer and employee relationship by the management, heavy burden lies on the claimant
to prove the employer and employee relationship. Not only that the burden also lies on him to prove
that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year of alleged termination making it
obligatory for the employer a comply with the provisions of section 25F of the Id Act. He further
submitted that in this case the claimant has miserably failed to discharge any of the burdens. Moreover
NTPC is a government of India Enterprise and never engages contractual or temporary workers. It has
been registered under the Contract Labour (R & A) Act and for execution of certain work it engages
contractors and files annual return of the contractual workers or contractors engaged. The said
contractor in order to execute the work awarded engages his own men and receives payment from
NTPC by raising bills. The persons so engaged though work in the premises of NTPC are no way
related to NTPC as its employees. The claim as advanced by the claimant if would be allowed, the
same shall amount to a back door entry and shall stand opposed to the policy of public employment.
The Ld. A/R for the management thus argued for dismissal of the claim.
On behalf of the claimant emphasis has been given on the documents filed and exhibited as
WW1/1 to WW1/77. These documents are all photocopies of the vouchers material receipt order, gate
passes and attendance register. The Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted that the claimant is a poor
worker fighting the litigation against the mighty employer. All the original documents are in
possession of the management and the application filed by the claimant seeking indulgence of the
Tribunal for production of the documents could not yield in result as the management denied the
possession of the same. Mr. B K Prasad the Ld. A/R for the claimant argued that all these documents
were created during an undisputed point of time and bear the letter head of NTPC. Hence those
documents cannot be viewed with suspicion. Citing the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Hussain Bhai vs. The Alath Factory Tezhilali Union and others AIR 1978 SC 1410 and
in the case of International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers
Union and another 2009(13) SCC 374 he submitted that the presence of intermediate contractors with
whom the workers had immediate or direct relationship is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil
or looking at the conspectus of factors governing the employment the tribunal finds that the real
employer is the management and not the intermediate contractor. He thus, argued that the tribunal has
2954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to carefully examine the documentary evidence on record and dislodge the stand taken by the
management.
On the other hand the Ld. A/R for the management while placing reliance in the case of
workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Limited vs. State of Tamilnadu AIR 2004 SC
1639 submitted that in the said judgment it has been held that the person who sets up a plea of
existence of relationship of employer and employee the burden would be on him to prove the same. He
also argued citing the judgment of Ashok Kumar vs. State Decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in WPC No. 9438-42 of 2004 that when no reference is made to the Labour Court for determining
whether the contract was sham or camouflage, the Labour Court cannot enter into this issue. His
argument that mere filing of affidavit or self serving statement by the claimant will not suffice in the
matter of discharging the burden has been supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited vs. Moh. Rafi (2009)-II SCC 522.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
Admittedly this dispute has been raised 18 years after the alleged termination of service of the
claimant. The Ld. A/R for the management while drawing attention to the provisions of section 2A of
the ID Act submitted that any application challenging the dismissal invoking the provision of section
2A(2) is required to be filed before expiry of 3 years from the date of such discharge dismissal or
retrenchment. Though, no time limit has been prescribed for raising a dispute u/s 2A(1), the same
should have been raised within a reasonable time period. In this case the dispute before this tribunal
came up after 18 years and as such it is hopelessly barred by time and on that ground alone need to be
dismissed. In reply the Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted that when the statute does not prescribe any
limitation it will be prejudicial to the claimant to interpret the matter in a manner not provided under
the statute.
Admittedly the claimant soon after his alleged termination had raised the dispute before the
Labour Commissioner where conciliation was held. On failure of conciliation the matter was referred
to the Labour Court Ghaziabad. The management since raised dispute with regard to the jurisdiction of
that court, an order was passed dismissing the prayer for want of jurisdiction and thereafter the
appropriate government referred the matter to this tribunal. Thus, an unreasonable delay occurred
before the matter came to be listed here. For the circumstances it cannot be held that the delay in
bringing the litigation for adjudication is attributable to the claimant and the claim is liable to be
dismissed. The objection raised by the management with regard to the limitation is not accepted and
this issue is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.
ISSUE No.2.
This is the most important issue for adjudication in this proceeding. In order to decide
whether the service of the claimant was terminated illegally by the management, it is to be decided at
the first instance if the claimant was working as a helper in the management from 10.09.1991 to
18.04.1994 and there exists any employer and employee relationship between them. The claimant has
pleaded and laid evidence that he was working as a helper in the premises of the management and
attending the works assigned to him. To support the same he has filed photocopies of the several gate
passes issued by NTPC for his entry into the premises of the management and material issue slips
reflecting his name, photocopies of the attendance register etc. the management took a stand that the
claimant had never worked in the premises of the management but was serving as a person employed
by the contractor to whom the contract was awarded. The management has examined MW3 the
contractor through whom the claimant was employed. Not only that the management has also produced
the copies of the contracts executed between it and different contractors and the return filed under the
Contract Labour Act. Thus, from the evidence on facts, it is to be ascertained if at all the claimant was
working as a helper for the management. The claimant as WW1has fully supported the averments of
the claim statement and added that during this period he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
The Ld. A/R for the management raised dispute on the admissibility of the documents filed by the
claimant to prove the employer and employee relationship between the parties. He also pointed out to
the evidence of the claimant recorded during cross examination wherein the claimant has admitted that
he was not enrolled in the Employment Exchange. He has also admitted that no employee no. was
issued by the management to him as in the case of the permanent employees of NTPC. He has also
admitted that no pay slip or permanent identity card containing permanent employee No. was ever
issued to him. The Ld. A/R for the management pointed out that in the cross examination the claimant
has admitted in clear terms that he was working with contractor Bachhil and sons and does not have
any proof to show that any salary was ever paid to him by NTPC. The Ld. A/R for the management
while pointing to the evidence of the management witnesses submitted that an application was filed by
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2955
the claimant for a direction to the management for production of original documents in possession of
the management which could have thrown light on the issue. But the management denied to have
possession of the documents leading to filing of secondary evidence. He also argued that the
documents like attendance register, gate pass etc were created during an undisputed point of time and
as such those cannot be brushed aside.
In this case the attendance register filed by the claimant shows that against some of the
employees the employee code Nos. have been mentioned but as against the name of the claimant
which finds place at the bottom of the page there is no mention of the employee no. Taking advantage
of the same the Ld. A/R for the management argued that the attendance register has been manipulated
and the photocopies have been taken to mislead this tribunal.
The law is well settled that the burden of proving employer and employee relationship always
rests on the person who asserts the same. In the case of Ram Singh and others vs. Union Territory
of Chandigarh and others reported in (2004)1SCC page 126 it has been held that for determination
of employer and employee relationship the factors to be considered inter alia are (i) control (ii)
integration (iii) power of appointment and dismissal (iv) liability to pay remuneration (v) liability to
organize the work (vi) nature of mutual obligation etc. The factual matrix of the present dispute as
evident from the oral and documentary evidence is that no advertisement was issued for the
appointment of the claimant nor any appointment letter was issued. Similarly there is no document
available on record to presume that the management was exercising control for integration of the work
allegedly done by the claimant. There is also no material on record that the claimant was getting
monthly remuneration like other employees of the management and he was signing the attendance
register in acknowledgment of his daily attendance of duty. The attendance register filed by the
claimant lacks credibility since though a photocopy the same do not contain any impression of the seal
of the management or signature of any of its employees. It appears to be a self serving document
wherein only the name of the claimant finds place without the employee no. or other details. The
documents like gate pass, only proves the entry of the claimant to the premises of NTPC but not his
status as an employee of the later. The mutual obligation in the nature of deducting PF subscription and
extension of other benefits is no way evident from documents filed by the parties. Production of the
photocopies of the gate pass, only proves that he was carrying out some work assigned to him in the
premises of the management for which as stated by the management witness that the contracts were
being awarded to the contractors who was engaging his own men to execute the work. This finds
support from the statement of the claimant elicited during cross examination that no appointment letter,
salary slip was ever issued and he was engaged through the contractor. On behalf of the management
the contractor has been examined as MW3 and a letter written by him to the management
acknowledging the claimant as a person employed by him has been filed as MW1/1. Thus, from the
totality of the evidence it is held that the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the
employer and employee relationship which is accepted in view of the stand taken by the management
that the later being a Government of India enterprise never engages contractual workers. This issue is
accordingly decided against the claimant.
ISSUE No.3
The grievance of the claimant is that he had worked for the management for 3 years but the
management without following the procedure laid down under law illegally terminated his service. The law is
again 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 25F of the
ID Act which precisely speaks that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continues service for
not less than one year shall be retrenched unless and until the said workman has been given one month notice in
writing, or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. In this case in the written statement the management has
taken stand that no one month notice, notice pay, or compensation was required to be paid since, there was no
employer and employee relationship. The claimant has alleged non compliance of the mandatory provision of
section 25F of the Id Act and the management has admitted non compliance of the same. But for the decision
arrived while deciding issue No.1 and considering the fact that there exists no employer and employee
relationship between the parties it cannot be held that the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the
management and at the time of termination the provisions of section 25F were not complied. This issue is also
decided against the claimant.
In view of the findings arrived in respect of issue No.2 and 3 holding that the claimant was not an
employee of the management and his service was not illegally terminated it is held that the claimant is not
entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is dismissed on contest. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate
government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
2956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1343.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj यूनाइटेड वेस्ट्टनव बैंक जलजमटेड izca/k तंत्रz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 104/2007) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/161/2006-vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2022
S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 104/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The United Western
Bank Ltd, and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/161/2006– IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/104/2007
Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Pramod Kumar Khadse,
22, Jyoti Nagar, Khandwa(MP)
Khandwa(MP)
…..Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Manager,
The United Western Bank Ltd.,
172/4, Raviwar Peth,
Shrivaji Circle,
Satara(Maharashtra)-415 001
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 19-7-22) .)
As per letter dated 10/10/2007 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-12012/161-2006-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Assistant General Manager, the United
Western Bank Ltd. Satara in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar
Khadse w.e.f. 3-2-05 is justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2957
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a clerk by the
management in Khandwa Branch of the Bank after a telephonic interview on 16-9-2002. His services were
terminated by the Bank Management on 3-2-2005 without giving him any prior notice or compensation. He has
continuously worked during the period for more than 240 days in every year including the year preceding the
date of his termination. He has been discharging duties of clerk which included preparation of draft, entries in
register, preparation of pay slips and making entries in the pay slip registers, making entries in the transfer
scroll, preparing draft advises, writing cheque books, updating the ledger and saving account and many other
works allotted to him from time to time by the Management. The workman has further alleged that the
workman engaged after him were continued in service but his services were discontinued. According to the
workman, this action of management is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as the word Act). Accordingly the workman has prayed for his reinstatement
with all back wages and benefits holding his termination against law. The workman has filed photocopy
documents admitted by the Management marked as Exhibit W-1 to W-5.
3. According to the management, the United Western Bank Ltd. Has now merged with IDBI Bank. The
workman was engaged by the erstwhile United Western Bank Ltd. purely on casual and intermittent basis not
following the proper selection process as per rules and procedures. The United Western Bank has since been
amalgamated with the IDBI Bank with notification of Ministry of Finance Deportment of Economic Affairs
dated 30-9-2006. The Management admits that the workman was engaged as a casual clerk in Khandwa Branch
of United Western Bank for the period 16-9-2002 to 30-11-2002 but without approval of Competent Authority.
The Management has denied the claim of the workman that he worked continuously for more than 240 days in
any year including the year preceding the date of his termination. Accordingly the Management has prayed that
the reference be answered against the workman.
4. The workman has examined himself as witness and has been cross-examined. The Management filed
affidavit of three witnesses. It could not produce any one witness for cross-examination. I have heard
arguments of Advocate Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the workman and Shri R.K.Soni, learned
counsel for the Management. I have gone through the record as well.
5. The following issue arises for determination in the case in hand, on perusal of record, in the light of
rival arguments:-
(1) Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days
and more in every year including the year preceding the date of his termination.?
(2) Whether the termination of the workman is against Section 25F and 25G of the Act?
(3) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief.?
6. ISSUE NO.1:-
Before proceeding, Section 25B of the Act is being reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that
period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may
be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or
a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the
workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of
clause (1) for a period
of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in
continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman,
during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i)
one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a
mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six
months, if the
workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the
employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed
below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
7. The case of the workman is that he was appointed by management of United Western Bank Ltd on
16-9-2002 as a clerk and has been discharging his duties as a clerk till 3-2-2005 when his services terminated.
The Management has taken a case that firstly he was a casual worker. Secondly he was appointed against rules
without following any recruitment process and that he never completed 240 days in continuous service in any
year including the year preceding the date of his termination.
2958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. The workman has filed Exhibit W1 to W5, these are photocopy documents of Bank admitted by the
management. Exhibit W-1 is the application by Bank customer given to the Bank for initiation of advise with
respect to draft on date 6-11-2003. There is a direction of Management to the workman to issue duplicate
advise. Exhibit W-2 is another application of 5-8-2004 filed by the customer before the Bank for initial advise
in respect of the draft. The Bank Manager has made endorsement to the workman to issue the duplication.
Exhibit W-3, W-4, and W-5 are the supplementary pay bills regarding the workman for the month of February-
March-April-2003 showing his salary basic Rs.2020/- + Dearness Allowance. This documents has also been
admitted by the management. These documents corroborate the case of the workman and his affidavit on oath
in the form of Examination-in-Chief that firstly he was engaged by the Management and secondly he worked
in the year 2003-04. The workman further states in his statement on oath that he has continuously worked for
more than 240 days in every year. He has been cross-examined by Management. There is nothing in his cross-
examination to discredit him on this point. He has further proved Exhibit W-6, an application by a customer
sent to Manager requesting to close his account wherein the Manager has made an endorsement to the
workman. Exhibit W-7, W-8, W-9, W-10 and W-11 are applications by different account holders filed before
the bank either for issuing of cheque book or closing an account in which the Management has directed the
workman to do the needful. These documents raised from 7-5-2004 to 22-11-2004. On the other hand, though
the Management has filed affidavit of three witnesses as their examination-in-chief but has failed to produce
any of them for cross-examination, hence their affidavit cannot be read in evidence in support of Management.
In these facts and circumstances, the case of the workman appears more probable and it is held proved that the
workman was firstly engaged by the management and has completed 240 days or more in continuous service of
management in every year including the date of his termination. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
9. ISSUE NO.2:-
According to the workman, his dis-engagement is violative of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. These
two provisions are being reproduced as follows:-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given
one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for
every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment,
who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of
workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer
and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be
recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
10.
It is the case of the workman that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation.
The management does not specifically dispute this allegation nor is there any evidence to rebut this allegation of
workman. The workman has corroborated his this allegation in his evidence, hence his termination is held bad
in law being violative of Section 25 G of the Act.
11.
As regards the second ground i.e. violation of Section 25G, there is no evidence produced by the
workman with regard to the fact that an employee junior to him has been continued in service, where as he has
been terminated, hence the termination of service of workman is held not in violation of Section 25G of the Act.
Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
12.
ISSUE NO.3:-
In the light of the findings recorded above, the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled
to. The workman was engaged by earlier management though the new Management has under taken all the
liabilities of the earlier Management in the amalgamation scheme. Learned counsel for the workman has
referred to decision of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in Sanjay Kumar Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat (2010) 3 MPLJ 457. IN this case, holding the termination of workman in violation of Section 25F
the workman was held entitled to reinstatement to 50% back wages.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2959
In another case Superintendent Engineer Twad Board Vs. M. Natesan(2019)6 SCC 509 holding the
termination of workman in violation of Section 25F of the Act. He was reinstated with 50% back wages.
The Management has referred to judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Dayalal and Others , AIR(2011) SC 1193 in support of his arguments that since the
Management has changed , the workman the workman being a daily wager and was not appointed as per rules
and procedures of recruitment, his reinstatement will not meet the ends of justice as it will deprive some
suitable candidates from employment.
The Management has further referred to decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of
India and Others Vs. IImo Devi and Others AIR( 2021) SC 4855 and Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Others Vs. Umadevi and Others , AIR(2006) SC 1806 on this point.
13. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in the decision referred to above, I am of the
considered view that reinstatement of the workman will not be a proper relief to be granted to him in the
light of the facts and circumstances, in the case in hand. Rather a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) as full and final settlement of all the claims of the workman including the cost of
litigation will meets the ends of justice . Accordingly, the workman is held entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) to be paid to him within 30 days from the date of notification of the Award in
official gazette, failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of notification till payment. Issue No. 3 is
answered accordingly.
14. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of Assistant General Manager, the United Western
Bank Ltd. Satara in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar Khadse w.e.f.
3-2-05 is held to be unjustified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh)
in full and final settlement of all his dues to be paid to him within 30 days from the
date of notification of the Award in official gazette, failing which interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of notification till payment.
15. 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: 19/7/2022
नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1344.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/k rarz ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 229/97) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-41012/115/96-vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2022
S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.229/97) 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- 41012/115/96- IR(B-1)]
A.K. YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/229/97
Present: P.K. SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
2960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Vijay Kumar
S/o Shri Mangalchand,
Nayagaon, Mirzapur
Tehsil Gangapur,
Village Sawai Madhopur
Rajasthan
…Workman
Versus
The Senior Divisional Engineer(Diesel)
Western Railway,
Ratlam(M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 10-11-2022)
As per letter dated 30/7/1997 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-41012/115/96-IR(B) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management Senior Divisional Engineer(Diesel),
West Railway Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Kumar
Mangalchand is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is
entitled?” .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he first joined as a Diesel Mechanic
on 19-2-1983 at Diesel Shed, Western Railway, Gangapur City(Rajasthan). His services were terminated for
unauthroised absence from 1-11-1991 to 23-12-1991. He was issued a charge sheet/Memo dated 9-1-1992
regarding his unauthorized absence. According to him he was sick during this period. He reported before
Divisional Medical Officer , Gangapur City who after medical examination, found him unfit for duty and took
him in sick list issuing a proper sickness certificate, advising him to take a proper bed rest. Since the Railway
Hospital was far off from his residence, he received treatment from a private Doctor. He had been dispatching
necessary medical certificate regularly to the D.F.O. Diesel Shed, Ratlam by U.P.C. as per rules. He was
wrongly held guilty for the charge of unauthorized absence during the Inquiry which was against Rules. The
punishment is also disproportionate to the charges. Accordingly, he has prayed that holding his termination bad
in law, he be entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
3. The case of the Management as put in their written statement of defense is that while in service, the
workman remained under treatment of Railway Doctor from 1-11-1991 to 4-11-1991 but thereafter he
remained absent unauthorisedly from 5-11-1991 to 23-12-1991 without any intimation to Management. He was
issued a charge sheet for this misconduct on 9-1-1992. According, to the Management, the workman never
produced any sickness certificate of treatment between 5-11-1991 to 23-12-1991. He only produced sickness
certificate for four days issued by Railway Doctor for the period 1-11-91 to 4-11-91. The Departmental
Inquiry was conducted as per rules . The Inquiry Officer rightly held the workman guilty of unauthorized
absence. Punishment order is also not disproportionate to the charges. Accordingly the Management has prayed
that the reference be answered against the workman.
4. The following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 20-11-2013:-
(1) Whether the Inquiry conducted against the workman is proper and legal?
(2) Whether the misconduct alleged against the workman is proved in inquiry
proceedings?
(3) Whether the punishment imposed on workman i.e. removal from service is proper
and legal?
(4) If so, to what relief, the workman is entitled.?
5. Issue No.1 was taken as preliminary Issue . The workman examined himself and was cross-examined
by Management. The Management did not examine any witness on preliminary issue.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2961
6. Preliminary Issue No.1 was decided by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 24-4-2017 holding
the departmental inquiry legal and proper. His this order is part of this Award.
7. Parties were given opportunity to lead their respective evidence documentary and oral on remaining
issues. No evidence was adduced by any of the parties on remaining issues.
8. I have heard arguments of learned counsel Mr. K.C.Raikwar for workman and Shri R.K.Soni, learned
Counsel for the Management and have gone through the record.
9. ISSUE NO.2:-
The charge against the workman is of unauthorized absence without notice or intimation to
Management within the period 5-11-1991 to 23-12-1991. The inquiry Report admitted by the parties is on
record which goes to show that one witness Govind, time keeper stated during the inquiry that the workman got
his leave sanctioned for 30th and 31st October-1991. Thereafter the office received a sick certificate showing
the workman sick in Railway Hospital from 1-11-91 to 4-11-91. This sickness certificate issued by the
Divisional Medical Officer Gangapur was received in the office of Management on 15-11-1991. This witness
further states that thereafter, the workman remained absent and did not send any communication in this respect
to Management. He later on filed a discharge certificate through Mechanical Engineer, Ratlam. Discharge
Certificate No.1922 dated 12-12-1991 showing that the workman was sick and under treatment of a private
doctor for the period 5-11-1991 till 21-12-1991. This witness further stated during the inquiry that the workman
filed some U.P.C. Certificate stating that he sent information of his sickness through these certificates but dates
were not clear, hence this U.P.C. Certificates were not relied upon. It also comes out during the inquiry that the
Certificate No.192626 dated 25-1-1992 issued by the Divisional Medical Officer states that Medical Certificate
of private Doctor showing treatment under private doctor from 5-11-1991 to 21-11-1991. The workman states
these facts in his statement during the inquiry also as it is established from the inquiry papers. Perusal of Inquiry
Reports shows that the Inquiry Officer nor did the Divisional Medical Officer in his certificate No.192626 dated
25-1-1991 held that the certificate issued by the Private Doctor regarding treatment of the workman was fake or
not genuine.
10. In the case of Learned counsel has further referred to case of Krishnakant B.Parmar versus Union of
India and other reported in 2012(3)SCC-178 wherein it has been observed that a Government employee who
remained absent unauthorizedly from duty cannot be proceeded against until the charges proved his absence
willful and not result of compelling circumstances. According to Hon’ble the Apex Court, unauthorized absence
from duty and willful absence are two separate things.
11. Thus it is established now that to constitute a misconduct the absence of an employee must firstly be
unauthorized and secondly it must be willful. The unauthorized absence may not necessarily be willful also in
every circumstances. For example an employee moves out of his house for office and he meets with an accident
and gets admitted for treatment say for a month. He does not intimate his office regarding his absence. His
absence is unauthorized because it is not approved by the Office but it is not willful because he was under
treatment during the period of his absence. In such a situation when it is established, in the case in hand that
there is evidence before the Inquiry Officer that the workman was under treatment of private doctor from
5-11-1991 to 2112-1991 and this fact/certificate in this respect is no where found false, the absence of the
workman in the case in hand, is not willful though it may be unauthorized. He may be held guilty for
misconduct only with respect of not informing his department regarding his absence within the time prescribed
or within proper format.
12. Hence in the light of above discussion, the finding of the Inquiry Officer and finding of the
Disciplinary /Appellate Authority holding the workman guilty of misconduct by way of unauthorized and
willful absence is based on no evidence and is held perverse. The workman is held not guilty for the charges of
unauthorized and willful absence. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
13. ISSUE NO.3 & ISSUE No.4:-
Since Issue No.3 and Issue No.4 are interconnected, they are being taken together.
14. In the light of finding on Issue No.2, it is held that the punishment of removal of workman from
service is improper and illegal. Reference of judgment of Hon. The apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu
Suwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapad Mahavidyalaya(2013) 10 SCC 324(2013(6) SLR 642(SC) broad
principles in this respect were laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court which is necessary at this point and are as
follows:-
“38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service
and back wages is the normal rule.
2962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back
wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of
service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved
against the employee/ workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar
other factors.
38.3. 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 on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the
employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar
emoluments.
38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under
Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the
enquiry held against the employee/ workman is consistent with the rules of natural
justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct found proved then it will have the discretion not to
award fullback wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the
employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had
foisted a false charges then there will be ample justification for award of full back
wages.
38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has
acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural
justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or
Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the
superior Court should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution
and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a
possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to
get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must
always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the
wrong doer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is
justification to give premium to, the employer of his wrong doings by relieving him of
the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
38.6 In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the
primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken
long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such
delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the
disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount
to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because
there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the
order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the
employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can
avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the
employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer
with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases, it would be prudent to adopt the
course suggested in Hindustan Tin works Private Limited V.Employees of Hindustan
TinWorks Private Limited (supra).
38.7 The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on
reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is
contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to here-in-above
and cannot be treated as good law.This part of the judgment is also against the very
concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2963
Furthermore, in Tapash Kumar Paul V. BSNL (2014) 4 SCR 875 :[2014(6) SLR 538 (SC)],
it is held :-
“Therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu’s case (supra)
which has correctly relied upon higher bench decisions of this Court in Surendra
Kumar Verma’s case (supra) and Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the
opinion that the appellant herein is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages since
in the absence of full back wages, the employee will be distressed and will suffer
punishment for no fault of his own.”
15. In the case in hand, the charge has been held not proved, hence naturally the workman is entitled to be
reinstated and is held accordingly. Since he was terminated on 17-9-1992 and the case is being decided after
30 years or more naturally he would have crossed the age of super annuation. Hence his reinstatement will not
serve any real purpose. Accordingly, he is held entitled to be treated in service till date of his superannuation
with all in service and post retiral benefits. Since he has been out of job during major portion of his career, he
may not be awarded full back wages. In given circumstances 50% of back wages to him will meet the ends of
justice to which he is heldentitled . Issue No.3 and Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
16. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management “Senior Divisional Engineer(Diesel), West Railway
Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Kumar Mangalchand is held to be
legal and justified.
B. The workman is held entitled to be treated in continuous service till date of his
superannuation with all in service and post retiral benefits. He is further held
entitled to 50% of back wages payable tohim within 60 days from the date of
publication of Award in the official gazette failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of Award till its realization.
17. 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: 10-11-2022
नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1345.— औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gSA
[सं. एल-12011/87/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2022
S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.32/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/87/2012– IR(B-1)]
A. K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/2013
Present: P.K. Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)
2964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The General Secretary
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan,
F-1 Tripti Vihar, OPP. Engineering College
Ujjain(M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager
State Bank of India
R.B.O
Ujjain(M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 18-7-2022.)
As per letter dated 1/2/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12011/87/2012-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether Shri Abdul Wahab is entitled for full wages as per Fifth Bipartite
Settlement dated 10-4-1989 and 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005?1.- State
Bank of India is a Banking Industry. 2. The nearest Tribunal is CGIT-Jabalpur .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Parties appeared
and filed their respective claim/defense.
2. The dispute between the parties is that the workman was engaged as daily wage labour on casual basis
and he worked for some time at Kanthal road Branch of State Bank of Indore, Ujjain. The dispute in the
reference is only with respect to payment of equal wages to the daily wagers at par with regular employees in
the Bank according to various Bi Partite Settlements. None of the parties have lead the oral and documentary
evidence.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the Management and none was present from the side of the workman.
No written argument was filed by workman side inspite of opportunity being given.
4. The Reference is issue for determination in the case in hand.
5. The case of the workman is that he was not paid wages according to the Bi Partite Settlements
applicable in different time zones. The management has disputed the claim with a case that the Bi Partite
Settlements are only for regular employees of the Bank and not for the daily wagers.
6. The management has referred to decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
and Another Vs. Tilak Raj & Others reported in AIR(2003) SC 2658 wherein following observation has been
made:-
“A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no
posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any
comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a
claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for
the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile
discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group
vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High court as to
the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the
principle of “equal pay for equal work” is an abstract one.
“Equal pay for equal work” is a concept which requires for its applicability complete
and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and
the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem
about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.”
7. Following observation has been made in another case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Others Vs.
State of Bihar & Others reported in AIR(1997) SC3657, where in it has been observed as under:-
“they are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under this circumstance, the
dis-engagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of retrenchment, therefore, cannot be stretched to
such an extent as to cover these employees. Since they are only daily wage employees
and have no right to the post, disengagement is not arbitrary.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2965
8.
As referred by management , following observation has been made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Dayalal & Others reported in(2011) 2 SCC 429:-
“(1)High Courts in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will
not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance,
unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance
of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rule in an open
competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts . The equality clause
contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts
should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which
would be in violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is
irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized back
door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily wage
employee, under cover of some interim orders of the Court, would not confer
upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be
litigious employment. Even temporary , ad hoc or daily wage service for a long
number of years let along service for one or two years, will not entitle such
employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post.
Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularization in the absence of a legal right.
(iii)
Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off
date(that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number
of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut off date), it is not
possible to others who were appointed to subsequent to the cut off date, to claim
or to contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off
date or seek a direction for successive cut off dates.
(iv)
Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are
not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for
absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part time temporary
employees.
(v)
Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot
claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the
principle of equal pay for equal work. No can employees in private
employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with against
the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.”
9.
In the light of aforesaid preposition of law declared by Hon’ble the Apex Court, the daily wagers
cannot be held to be entitled to the pay and wages equally paid to regular paid employees of the Bank and the
issue requires to be decided against the workman.
10.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management in not holding Shri Abdul Wahab(workman) entitled
for full wages as per Fifth Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-1989 and 8th Bipartite
Settlement dated 2-6-2005,is held to be just and proper.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
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: 18-7-2020
नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1346.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj िजक्षण पूवव मध्य रेलवे izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
2966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la- 4/2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-41012/47/2008- vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,-ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2022
S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.4/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central
railway and their workmen.
[No. L- 41012/47/2008- IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/4/2009
Present: P.K. SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Premlal
S/o Shri Tularam,
Qtr No.1, Block No.7,
Railway Colony Rasmda,
Durg (Chhattisgarh)
… Workman
Versus
The D.R.M.
South Eastern Railway
Nagpur.
The Assistant Divisional Engineer
South Eastern Central Railway,
District Rajnandgaon,
Dongargarh(Chhattisgarh)
… Management
AWARD
(Passed on 26-9-22)
As per letter dated 22/1/2009 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-41012/47/2008-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of South Eastern Railway(now South
East Central Railway),Nagpur in terminating services of Shri Premlal Sahu Ex-
Trackman(Gang No.47,Rajnandgaon) vide letter dated 15-11-2004 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned entitled to? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the
parties have filed their statementof claim/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed as a
Gangman on 10-2-1981. He was served with a charge sheet vide memo on 8-7-2002 with charges regarding
unauthorized and willful absence from 1-1-1999 to 30-5-2002. The charge sheet was in English. The workman
does not know English. He could not understand the charge sheet during the inquiry also he could not know
what was happening. He was asked to sign some papers which he signed. Inquiry was conducted behind the
back of the workman taking benefits of his ignorance of English language and order was passed by the
Management on 15-11-2004 removing him from service. According to the workman, the punishment is against
law and is in violation of principles of natural justice because the procedure as per rules have not been followed
in conducting the departmental inquiry. No witness was examined in support of the charges in his presence. He
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2967
was not informed by the inquiry office regarding his right to engage a defense assistant. No show cause notice
was given to him before the Award of punishment. According to the workman he was absented from duty on
account of his illness for which he submitted illness and sickness certificate of Senior District Medical Office
and on this basis he was allowed to join duty. The punishment was disproportionate to the charge, accordingly
the workman has prayed that setting aside his punishment order, he be reinstated with all back wages and
benefits. The case of the Management is manly that the workman absented willfully and unauthrisedly from 1-
1-1999 to 30-5-2002 without any intimation to the Management. A departmental inquiry was conducted,
against him in which he participated. The inquiry officer rightly held him guilty of mis-conduct by way of
unauthorized and willfully absenting himself from 1-1-1999 to 30-5-2002. The Disciplinary authority issued a
show cause notice to him before proceeding on the inquiry report and finding his representation inadequate
imposed the punishment of removal with certain conditions mentioned in the punishment order which is not
disproportionate to the charge. Accordingly the Management has requested that the reference be answered
against the workman.
3. A preliminary issue regarding legality of inquiry was framed and was decided my learned predecessor
vide his order dated 12-5-2016 holding the inquiry conducted against law. The management was given
opportunity to prove the charges before this Tribunal.
4. The examined its witness R.Jagmohan Rao Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to prove the charges.
The management also relied on inquiry documents proved by them during their evidence on preliminary issue.
The workman did not examine any witness or himself on this point.
5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel Mr. Ashish Shroti for workman and Shri R.K.Soni, learned
counsel for the Management and have gone through the records.
6. Following issues come out for determination on perusal of record in the light of rival arguments:-
(1)Whether the charges stand proved from the evidence before this Tribunal?
(2)Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charge.?
7. ISSUE NO.1:-
According to the Management, the workman was charged with misconduct by way of unauthorisedly
and willfully absenting himself since 1-1-1999 to 30-5-2002. The Management witness has stated on oath that
the workman was in the habit of absenting himself willfully and unauthroisedly. He remained absent form 1-1-
1999 to 30-5-2002 without getting any leave sanctioned and without informing the management. He was issued
oral and written warning earlier also for his absence but he has never improved, hence he was issued a charge
sheet and on inquiry he was removed from service. This witness further states that the workman admitted his
absence but told that he was sick for this period. The Management of Railways have their own railway hospital.
The workman never received any treatment in Railway Hospital nor did he file any medical certificate regarding
his treatment before the Management. This witness has been cross-examined by workman. He states that he has
deposed on the basis of records available in his office.
8. The Management has proved ExhibitM-7 which is attendance sheet of the workman for the 1999 to 2002
which goes to support the claim of the management and evidence of management witness regarding the charges.
The management witness has specifically stated that the workman did not produce any certificate regarding his
treatment and any certificate to show that he was advised bedrest. Since it is the case of the workman he was
sick during this period and hence could not attend his duties, the burden was on him to prove this fact before
this Tribunal in which he has failed, hence in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the charge of misconduct as
levelled above against the workman is held proved. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
9. ISSUE NO.2:-
According to Railway Rules(RSD&A Rules)1968 such an absence is misconduct warranting major
punishment.
10. The settled law on this point is that until and unless the punishment is sho shockingly
disproportionate to the charge that it shakes the conscience of the Tribunal, interference is not warranted .
Keeping in view the severity of the charges, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be so
harsh to warrant interference. Accordingly the punishment is held not disproportionate to the charge. Issue
No.2 is answered accordingly.
11. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.The action of the management of South Eastern Railway(now South East Central
Railway), Nagpur in terminating services of Shri Premlal Sahu Ex-Trackman(Gang
No.47,Rajnandgaon) vide letter dated 15-11-2004 is held to be legal and 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: 26-9-2022
2968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1347.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj आरबीएल दफनसवव जलजमटेड izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 47/2021) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12012/03/2021- आईआर-(बी-I)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2022
S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 47/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of RBL Finserve ltd
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/03/2021- IR (B-I]
A. K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/2021
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Rahul Vishwakarma
House No.389,In front of
Victoria Hospital
Jonshgunj,Jabalpur-482001
….Workman
Versus
Shri Manish Paroha,
RBL finserve Ltd.
C-301, Lotus Cooperate Park,
CTA No.185/A
Gahem Firth Compound,
Western Express Highway,
Mumbai-400063
….Management
AWARD
(Passed on 30-8-2022.)
As per letter dated 28/9/2021by 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-12012/03/2021(IR(B-1)). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of M/s RBL Finserve Ltd. In terminating the services of
Shri Rahul Vishwakarma Sr. Group Loan Officer, w.e.f. 26-8-2020 without
giving him an opportunity to be heard is legal and justified?if not, as to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2. The workman never appeared inspite of service of notice on him and nor has filed any written
statement of claim.
3. The Management has also not filed any statement of defence.
4. Inpsite of giving opportunities to both the parties, none of the parties have filed the written arguments.
5. The initial burden to prove their claim lies on the workman. He has not filed any statement of claim
nor has he filed any documents or evidence in his support. The workman has miserably failed to prove his
case. Hence this tribunal is constrained to decide the reference against the workmen.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2969
6. Accordingly the award in favour of the Management is passed. The workman is held entitled to no
relief.
7.
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: 30-8-22
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1348.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंि जनिेिक, बीएसएनएल, भारत संचार भवन, िनपथ, दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक, सम्राट िोटल,
चाणक्यपुरी, नई दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक, िनपथ िोटल, िनपथ रोड, नई दिल्ली; जनिेिक (वाजणजज्यक), आईटीडीसी,
नई दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक (िोटल) आईटीडीसी, नई दिल्ली,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री एम. पी. सत्यम
और 53 अन्य, द्वारा मिासजचव, आईटीडीसी िोटल वकवसव यूजनयन, िनपथ िोटल, िनपथ रोड, नई दिल्ली, के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव
सं. 153/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
साथ 16.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/80/2019- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 153/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL,Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Janpath, Delhi;The General
Manager,Samrat Hotel, Chanakyapuri,New Delhi; The General Manager,Janpath Hotel, Janpath Road,New
Delhi ;The Director (Commercial), ITDC,New Delhi ;The General Manager (Hotels) ITDC, New Delhi, and
Shri M.P Satyam & 53 Others,Through The General Secretary, ITDC Hotel Workers Union, Janpath Hotel,
Janpath Road, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.11.2022.
[No. L- 42011/80/2019- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (RETD.), PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, ROOM
No. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
ID. NO. 153/2019
Sh. M.P Satyam & 53 Others,
Through The General Secretary,
ITDC Hotel Workers Union, Janpath Hotel,
Janpath Road, New Delhi – 110001
…Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, Delhi – 110001
2. The General Manager,
Samrat Hotel, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi – 110011
2970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The General Manager,
Janpath Hotel, Janpath Road
New Delhi – 110001
4. The Director (Commercial), ITDC,
Scope Complex, Core-6, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003
5. The General Manager (Hotels) ITDC,
Scope Complex, Core-6, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003
….Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.-L-42011/80/2019 – IR(DU) dated 11.06.2019 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:
SCHEDULE
“Whether termination of 54 workmen (list enclosed) in continuous services for 20 and more
years through contractors can be construed as employment of workmen on perennial job
through sham and bogus contractors? If yes, whether termination of 54 workmen without
adhering to the provisions of ID Act, 1947 instead of regularization is just, fair and legal? If not,
to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”
2.
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 union opted not to file the claim statement with
the Tribunal.
3.
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.
4.
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.
Justice Sh. VIKAS KUNAVAR SHRIVASTAVA (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1349.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार कमांडर वक्सव इंिीजनयर, दिल्ली कैंट, दिल्ली; श्री लाला राम प्रोप., मेससव वमाव जबल्डसव, पालम कॉलोनी,
नई दिल्ली ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िगमीत मसंि, द्वारा इंजडयन नेिनल माइग्रेंट वकवसव यूजनयन,
कालकािी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 13/2020) 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-42025/07/2022-33- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Commander Works Engineer, Delhi Cantt, Delhi ; Shri Lala Ram Prop., M/s Verma Builders,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2971
Palam Colony, New Delhi , and Shri Dharam Pal, Through The General Secretary, Hindustan Engineering &
General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), Sultanpuri, Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 16.11.2022.
[No. L- 42025/07/2022-33- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (RETD.), PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, ROOM NO.
207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
ID.NO. 13/2020
Sh. Dharam Pal S/o Gaj Ram,
Through The General Secretary,
Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),
D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi
….Workman
Versus
1.
The Commander Works Engineer,
Delhi Cantt, Delhi – 110010
2. Sh. Lala Ram Prop.,
M/s Verma Builders, 277, Manglapuri,
Phase – I, Palam Colony, New Delhi – 110045
…..Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. ND.96(36)2019-ID-FOC-DY.CLC dated 05.12.2019 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:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Verma Builders (Contractor of MES) in
terminating the services of the workman Sh. Dharam Pal S/o Sh. Gaj Ram w.e.f.
01.04.2017 is just, fair and legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to
and from which date?”
2.
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 union opted not to file the claim statement with
the Tribunal.
3.
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.
4.
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.
Justice Sh. VIKAS KUNAVAR SHRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1350.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार मैससव मास मैनेिमेंट सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली; मैससव एनटीपीसी जलजमटेड, नई
दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िगमीत मसंि, द्वारा इंजडयन नेिनल माइग्रेंट वकवसव यूजनयन,
कालकािी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई
2972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 154/2019) 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-42011/79/2019- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 154/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Mass Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ; M/s NTPC Ltd., New Delhi , and Shri
Jagmeet Singh, Though Indian National Migrant Workers Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.11.2022.
[No. L- 42011/79/2019- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (RETD.), PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, ROOM NO.
207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
ID.NO. 154/2019
Sh. Jagmeet Singh S/o Sh. Surender Singh,
Rept. Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,
(Regd.) 1770/8, 3rd Floor, Govindpuri Extention,
Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019
….Workman
Versus
1. M/s Mass Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
B-7, Ansal Chambers-II, 6, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
2. M/s NTPC Ltd., NTPC Bhawan,
Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, Instotitional Area,
New Delhi – 110003
...Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.-L-42011/79/2019 – IR(DU) dated 18.06.2019 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:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the services of the workman Sh. Jagmeet Singh S/o Sh. Surender Singh
were terminated in an illegal and unjustified manner by M/s Mass Management
Services Pvt. Ltd. in the establishment of NTPC Ltd. Scope, New Delhi? 2. If yes,
whether the workman is entitled the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full
back wages and other benefits? 3. What other relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
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 union opted not to file the claim statement with
the Tribunal.
3.
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.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2973
4.
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.
Justice Sh. VIKAS KUNAVAR SHRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1351.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मिाजनिेिक, ईएमई (जसजवल), अध्यािेि िाखा मास्ट्टर िनरल, मुख्यालय, नई दिल्ली; कमांमडंग
ऑदफसर, स्ट्टैरटन वकविॉप, ईएमई कैंट, लखनऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों मिासजचव, श्री परवेि आलम द्वारा
प्रजतरक्षा मििूर संघ, माणक नगर, लखनऊ, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 61/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30/11/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-14011/14/2019- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Director General, EME (Civil), Master General of Ordinance Branch, Headquarter of New Delhi; The
Commanding Officer, Statin Workshop, EME Cantt, Lucknow and The General Secretary, Pratiraksha Mazdoor
Union by Shri Parwej Alam, Manak Nagar, Lucknow, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 30/10/2022.
[No. L-14011/14/2019- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT: JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 61/2019
Ref. No. L-14011/14/2019-IR(DU) dated: 25.07.2019
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
Pratiraksha Mazdoor Union by Sh. Parwej Alam
283/63, B, Gadhi Kanora (Premwati Nagar)
PO – Manak Nagar, Lucknow 226011.
AND
1. The Director General, EME (Civil)
Master General of Ordinance Branch
Headquarter of New Delhi – 110005
2.
the Commanding Officer
Statin Workshop, EME Cantt
Lucknow – 226002
AWARD
By order No. L-14011/14/2019-IR(DU) dated: 25.07.2019 the present industrial dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with
following schedule:
2974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of management of the Commanding Officer, Station
Workshop, EME, Cantt. Lucknow and Director General, EME (Civil), Directorate
General of EME (Civil), Master General of Ordinance Branch, HQ of MOD
(Army), New Delhi for reversion of granted MACP/ACP from higher grade pay of
workman Sh. Rakesh with complying with the section 9(A) and 25(T) of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 is justified in eye of law or not. If, so to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 61/2017 has been registered on 21.08.2019.
Heard Sri G.C. Nigam, authorised representative of the workman, Rakesh and Shri Kunver Chandra
for EME.
Today an application has been moved on behalf of Sri Rakesh who has been identified by Sri G.C.
Nigam, advocate/authorised representation who appears on his behalf. In the said application it is stated that in
the controversy in which the present refence has been made has already been settled between the workman
union viz. Vidyut Yantrik Abhiyanta Karmchari Sangh, Lucknow and the employer on 14.01.2021. A copy of
the same is annexed as annexure no. 1 to the application; relevant portion of the same is quoted hereunder:
“1. The management is agree that no recovery will be made from the wages/salary of the workmen
as per DOPT circular no. 18/03/2015 estab. (Part-I) dated 02.03.2016.
2. In case further any modification of pay fixation may be required in light of aforesaid circular of
DOPT, in such circumstances, the management is empowered to act accordingly in uniform basis.
The union is agree with the fair action of the management. Accordingly, the matter has been
settled amicably.”
Accordingly, a request has been made that the present reference may be disposed of in terms of said
settlement.
Sri Kunwar Chandra, UDC on behalf of employers has no objection to the above said request.
For the foregoing reasons the present case is disposed of in terms of the settlement entered between Sri
Sharda Bux Singh, General Secretary, Yantrik Abhiyanta Karmchari Sangh, Lucknow to which the
applicant/workman is a member and Sri P.P. Pandey, SOB, Station Workshop, EME, Lucknow. The relevant
portion has been quoted hereinabove.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1352.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार उप मिाप्रबंिक, इंजडयन टेलीफोन इंडस्ट्रीि जलजमटेड, रायबरेली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों श्री राि
नारायण,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर के
पंचाट (संिभव सं. 87/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30/11/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42012/126/2012- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Deputy General Manager, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Raebareli and Shri Raj Narayan, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30/10/2022.
[No. L- 42012/126/2012- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 87/2012
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2975
Ref. No. 42012/126/2012-IR (DU) dated: 06.12.2012
BETWEEN
Shri Raj Narayan S/o Shri Ram Naresh Harijan
Gram & Post Gonde
Distt. Pratapgarh, Raibareli.
Vs
The Dy. General Manager
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
Sultanpur Road, Doorbhash Nagar
Raibareli.
AWARD
By order No. 42012/126/2012-IR (DU) dated: 06.12.2012, 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 with
following schedule:
“Whether the action taken by the management of ITI limited, Raibareli in
terminating the services of Shri Raj Narayan, Fitter, w.e.f. 23-01-1986 without
following the provisions of ID Act 1947 and not considering his representative
did. 23-02-1986 even on the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad is
justified & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
None present on behalf of claimant; even in the revised list.
Heard Sri Adarah Jagdhari, learned counsel for the ITI/respondent.
From perusal of the record the position which emerges out is that the workman, Raj Narayan, was
initially appointed as Fitter-Grade ‘B’ on 16.10.1982 in the ITI Limited, Raebareli.
By an order dated 23.01.1986 his services were terminated.
Aggrieved by the termination order Sri Raj Narayan filed a WP No. 177 (SS) of 1998 Raj Narayan
v. Personnel Manager (Administration) Indian Telephone Industries, Raebareli & others before the Hon’ble
High Court, in which an order dated 15.01.1998 has been passed, operative portion reads as under:
“According to the petitioner his services were orally" dispensed with orally some time in 1986 and for
the first time he has approached this court against the said order. The delay of 12 years has not been
explained therefore, the writ petition suffers from lackes and no interference is required.”
Again Sri Raj Narayan filed a WP No. 2147 (SS) of 1998 Raj Narayan v. General Manager, Indian Telephone
Industries, Raebareli & another, disposed of by order dated 21.05.1998, operative portion reads as under:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the materials available on word,
as it appears that the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy by way of appeal and the
same is still pending, I dispose of this writ petition with only direction upon the appellate authority to
decide the sit appeal in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.”
Thereafter, order dated 21.05.1998, passed in WP No. 2147 (SS) of 1998 was challenged by the Indian
Telephone Industries, Raebareli & another by filing a Special Appeal No. 221 (SB) of 1998 Indian Telephone
Industries, Raebareli & another v. Raj Narayan, which was dismissed by order dated 26.04.2001, which reads as
under:
“Hon'ble the Single Judge has passed an order to the effect that the petitioner had already availed of the
alternative remedy by way of appeal, which was said to be pending. The writ petition was accordingly
disposed of with the direction to the appellate authority to decide the said appeal in accordance with law
within a specified period. Against that order, the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., has filed the present
special appeal
The contention of the appellants appears to be is that since the respondent had earlier filed a W.P.
No.177 (S/S) of 1998 bearing the same grievance, which was dismissed no second writ petition was
maintainable. Besides the above. it was submitted that no appeal before the appellate authority alleged
to have been filed by the respondent, was pending.
In view of the fact that the respondent has invoked the jurisdiction of - this Court by filing second writ
petition on the same controversy, the second writ petition after dismissal of the first one, was not
maintainable. No appeal was pending which deserves to have been decided by the appellate authority, in
2976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
view of what has been indicated above, the appeal succeeds. The order passed by the Hon'ble the single
Judge dated 21.3.1998 is set aside.”
In view of the above said back ground the applicant/workman aggrieved by the order of termination dated
23.01.1986 has approached the Appropriate Government and accordingly, the present reference has been made.
After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the material on record, once the order of
termination dated 23.01.1986 by which the workman, Raj Narayan was orally terminated by management of ITI
Limited, Raebareli, against which he filed a WP No. 177 (SS) of 1998 (Raj Narayan v. Personnel Manager
(Administration) Indian Telephone Industries, Raebareli & others) before the Hon’ble High Court, was
dismissed vide order dated 15.01.1998.
And thereafter the order which was passed in the favour of the petitioner/workman by the Hon’ble High Court
in WP No. 2147 (SS) of 1998 Raj Narayan v. Indian Telephone Industries, Raebareli & another in which a
direction has been given to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the applicant in accordance with law,
against which a Special Appeal No. 221 (SB) of 1998 filed by the Indian Telephone Industries, Raebareli was
allowed and order dated 21.05.1998 has been set aside.
The oral order of termination dated 23.01.1986 by which the services of the applicant has been terminated form
the post of Fitter Grade-B has dismissed by order dated 15.01.1998, had attained finality.
And on the same cause of action, the present adjudication case was filed before this Tribunal.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the present dispute.
Because, as per settled position of law, if on a cause of action, a matter is closed then on same cause of action
another case is not maintainable as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn & Co. Vs. Their
Employees, AIR 1957 SC 38, the Apex Court, as under:
“That would be contrary to the well-recognised principle that a decision once rendered by a
competent authority on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be
permitted to be re- agitated. It is on this principle that the rule of res judicata enacted in Section 11,
Civil P.C. is based. That section is, no doubt in terms in application to the present matter, but the
principle underlying it, expressed in the maxim "interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium", is founded on
sound public policy and is of universal application. (Vide Broom's Legal Maxims, Tenth Edition, page
218). The rule of res judicata is dictated' observed Sir Lawrence Jenkins C.J. in Sheoparasan Singh
Vs. Ramnandan Prasad Narayan Singh, 43 Ind. App. 91: ILR 43 Cal. 694: (AIR 1916 PC 78) (C), by a
wisdom which is for all time." (See also M/s. Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 88; Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 1994 (6)
SCC 97; and Khacher Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1995 All. 338.)
Even otherwise, this Tribunal is sub-ordinate to the Hon’ble High Court, so once issue in controversy
has been decided by Hon’ble the High Court as stated above, the same cannot be adjudicated and decided by
this Tribunal.
Thus, present industrial dispute is not maintainable and is dismissed; the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1353.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj mrj पूवव रेलवे 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 लखनऊ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 60/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-41012/28/2014- आईआर-(बी-I)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1353.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 60/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L- 41012/28/2014- IR (B-I)]
A. K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2977
I.D. No. 60/2014
Ref. No. L-41012/28/2014 – IR(B-1) dated 14.10.2014
BETWEEN
Shri Hari Prasad S/o Late Kanhiya Lal C/o Shri Parvej Alam,
83/63, Kh Gari Kannora Premvati Nagar, Manak Nagar
Lucknow (U.P)
AND
The Divisional Signal & Tele Communication Engineer (Construction),
North Eastern Railway
DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
AWARD
By Order No. L-41012/28/2014 – IR(B-1) dated 14.10.2014 issued by Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, Shram Mantralaya the following reference is made to this tribunal.
“क्या पूवोत्तर रेल प्रिासन, लखनऊ द्वारा श्री िरी प्रसाि पुत्र स्ट्व० कन्िैया लाल, ग्रेड
-1 को क्वालीफाइंग सर्ववस 23 वषव 04 माि 05 दिन के आिार पर सेवाजनवृत्त जित
लाभों का भुगतान न दकया िाना न्यायोजचत एवम वैि िै? यदि निीं तो कामगार
दकस राित को पाने का िकिार िै?"
On 10.12.2014, claim petition has been filed by the claimant, in brief the facts which are pleaded
therein are that by an order dated 26.06.1985, the claimant was appointed and thereafter by an order dated
23.10.1985 he was given status of temporary employee.
On 26.03.1988 his services were regularized on the post of Helper Khalasi Grade-I. After attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.07.2011 he retired from services from said post.
It is further pleaded by the workman in its statement of claim that total period of services which were
rendered by him under employment of respondent was 23 years 04 months 05 days; but, after retirement the
post retiral dues pad to the claimant was made taking into consideration 18 years 05 months and 14 days as
qualifying services instead of 23 years 04 months 05 days.
Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the respondent may be directed to make payment of his post
retiral dues (pension, gratuity etc.) taking into consideration qualifying service of the claimant as 23 years 04
months 05 days.
On behalf of the respondents a written statement has been filed on 04.07.2015 and in the additional plea the
defence was taken by the respondent as under:
“5
यि दक कायावलय पत्र संख्या W/175/8/0A/Con/P to 2/735 / Dtd 5-8-87 उक्त श्रजमक
/कमवकार को आकजस्ट्मक श्रजमक के रूप में दिनाेँक 26-6-85 को भती दकया गया था तथा प्रोिेक्ट िर
196+डी ए दिनाेँक 23-12-85 से दिया गया या | श्रजमक कमवकार प्रिासन तथा ए०एल०सी० (केजन्रय),
लखनऊ के समझौते के अनुसार श्रजमक / कमवकार को रेल सेवा में पुनवबिाल दकया था तथा दिनाेँक 01-4-87
से प्रोिेक्ट िर दिया गया ।
6
यि दक श्रजमक द्वारा 360 दिनों की आकजस्ट्मक सेवा पूणव कर लेने के उपरान्त जडवीिनल मसंग्नल
एवं िूरसंचार इंिीजनयर/जनमावण, लखनऊ के ज्ञापन संख्या - N / 175/8/0/ Con / 309/Dtd 30-6-88
द्वारा श्रजमक कमवकार के पक्ष में टेम्पोरेरी स्ट्टेटस दिनांक 26-3-88 से स्ट्वीकृत दकया गया था ।
7 यि दक श्रजमक कमवकार को दिनांक 26-3-88 से सेवा जनयमन न िोकर अस्ट्थायी ओििा टेम्पोरेरी स्ट्टेटस
स्ट्वीकृत दकया गया | श्रजमक / कमवकार का सेवा जनयमन दिनांक 31-12-97 को दकया गया था ।
8
यि दक जवपक्षी के कायावलय पत्रावली के अनुसार कमवचारी की सेवा गणना इस प्रकार िै :
2978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26-3-88 ( टेम्पोरेरी स्ट्टेटस की जतजथ) से 31-12-97 (जनयमन की जतजथ)
- 09 वषव 09 माि 05 दिन
50% टेम्पोरेरी स्ट्टेटस के जनजमत्त िेय - 04 वषव 10 माि 17 दिन दिनाेँक 01-01-98 से 31-7-11
- 13 वषव 01 माि 30 दिन
कुल - 18 वषव 05 माि 17 दिन
9 यि दक श्रजमक को सेवा के अनुसार गणना करके उसका उजचत भुगतान दकया िा चुका िै। इस प्रकार से
श्रजमक का दकसी प्रकार का भुगतान जवपक्षी पर िेष निी िै । जवपक्षी द्वारा कायावलय ज्ञापन संख्या -
N/P.F./N E / Hari Prasad / 398/Dtd 27-11-14 से इसकी सूचना श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई
दिल्ली को पूवव में िी प्रजषत की िा चुकी िै।“
On 15.09.2015 rejoinder has been filed by the claimant however there was no categorical denial of the
averments made by the respondent in additional pleas are quoted hereinabove.
Matter is taken up in revised cause list.
None is present on behalf of the claimant.
Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
In short controversy to be decided in the present industrial dispute case is to the effect that whether the
post retiral dues which were paid to the claimant by the respondent taking qualifying services as 18 years 05
months and 14 days after his superannuation on 31.07.2011 or he is entitled for same or as per his case that the
qualifying services, rendered by him prior to his retirement was 23 years 04 months 05 days.
Taking into the consideration the pleadings of the parties, other material on record as well as the
document filed on behalf of the parties, the positon which emerges out is that it is specifically pleaded on behalf
of the respondent that the claimant/workman has been paid retiral dues taking into qualifying services as
rendered by him as 18 years 05 months and 14 days; and in support of their case they had filed a document i.e. a
letter dated 27.11.2014 written by the railway authority to the concerned authority of the Labour Ministry, New
Delhi, which reads as under:
“सं-एन /पी०एफ० /जन० / िरी प्रसाि / 398
कायावलय
उप मुजसिूई०/जन०/
पूवोत्तर रेलवे, लखनऊ
दिनांक-27 11.2014
सेवा में,
सुमती सकलानी
सेक्सन आदफसर. T. No. 23473150
भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली
जवषय- श्री िरी प्रसाि पुत्र श्री कन्िई लाल, भु०पू० िेल्पर के बाि के सम्बन्ि में।
सन्िभव- भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय पिव दिल्ली का पत्र संo L-41012/28/ 2014-
IR/B-1 दिनांक -20.10.2014
भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय / नई दिल्ली के उपरोक्त पत्र द्वारा जवषयागत कमवचारी के बाि के सम्बन्ि में
िो िानकारी मांगी िै। वे जनम्न प्रकार से दिया िा रिा िै।
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2979
श्री िरी प्रसाि पुत्र श्री कन्िई लाल नू०पू० िेल्पर की भती आकजस्ट्मक श्राजमक के रूप दिनांक-
26.06.1985 को हुई थी। रेलवे बोडव /नई दिल्ली के पत्र सं0-एस / एनिी/11/ 84/सीएल/41 दिनांक-
11.09.1986 के 3b के कम सं0-IV के अनुसार इनके पक्ष में टेम्पेरीस्ट्टेट्स (अस्ट्थाई ओििा) दिनांक-
26.03.1988 से स्ट्वीकृत दकया गया था। ( फोटोकापी संलग्न)
उक्त कमवचारी की सेवा गणना टी / एस अवजि से जनयमन की जतजथ तक दिनांक- (26.03, 1988, से
31.12.1997) 50% की गणना के आिार पर दकया गया था िो दक रेलवे बोडव / नई दिल्ली के पत्र सं०-
पीसी-V/2009/ACP/2 दिनांक 25.02.2010 के अनुसार दकया गया था। ( फोटोकापी संलग्न)
जनयमन जतजथ से सेवा जनवृजत्त जतजथ तक 01.01.1998 से 31.07.2011 तक की अवजि 100% की
गणना दकया गया था।
अतः उक्त कमवचारी को टी / एस से जनयमन जतजथ तक 50% तथा जनयमन जतजथ से सेवा जनवृजत्त तक
100% की गणना कर कुल 18 वषव 05 माि 07 दिन का पेन्िनीय लाभों का भुगतान दकया गया जिसके
वे िकिार थे।
वतवमान समय में भी िो कमवचारी (आ० श्रजमक में जनयुजक्त वाले) सेवा जनवृजत्त िो रिे िै उक्त प्रकार से िी
सेवा गणना पेन्िनीय लाभ दिया िा रिा िै।
-ि-
मजसिूई / जनमावण लखनऊ”
As stated above the facts stated in the additional pleas and the above stated document filed by the
respondent in support of their case were not denied from the side of the workman nor any evidence has been
filed in support of his case that at the time of retirement the qualifying serices rendered by him was 23 years 04
months and 05 days and the document filed on behalf of the respondent are incorrect.
Thus, taking into consideration the above said facts, I do not find force in the case of the claimant that
he is entitled for pensionary benefits as per qualifying services 23 years 04 months 05 days; rather he has been
paid the posit retiral dues after his retirement on 31.07.2011 by the respondent taking into his consideration his
qualifying service as 18 years 05 months and 14 days.
For the foregoing reasons, there is any force in the case of the workman, and the reference under
adjudication is adjudicated against him, resultantly he is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1354.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQW banksj izca/k rarz ds laca) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92/2007) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-12012/84/2007- vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,-ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
2980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 92/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/84/2007- IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2007
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Nationalised Bank Karmachari Sangathan
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain(M.P.)
….Workman
Versus
The Deputy General Manager
State Bank of Indore,
Head Office,
5, Y.N.Road, Indore(M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 15-11-2022.)
As per letter dated 17/9/2007 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-12012/84/2007-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Indore in
issuing orders for compulsory retirement of Shri Narendra Shah, Daftari, is
justified? if not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled. .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed with the
State Bank of Indore on 29-8-1981 as Peon. He was later on promoted as Daftari in Rajgarh Branch of Bank in
the year 1981. He was issued a charge sheet alleging acts of misconduct on 31-5-2001 and was placed under
suspension. An inquiry was conducted against him which was against law. Charges were held wrongly proved
and punishment was disproportionate to the charges. The workman has accordingly prayed that setting aside his
sentence, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and service benefits.
3. The case of Management is mainly that while the workman was posted as Daftari in the Branch of the
Bank his services were found totally unsatisfactory. He was punished with stoppage of four increments for
misconduct proved against him by order of Management dated 27-2-1999. He did not improve himself. On 10-
4-2001 at about 1.30 p.m. he was sleeping in the Bank on the bench reserved for customers when he was asked
by the Manager to do his duty, he abused the Manager and refused to obey his direction. Thereafter, he sent a
letter to Management stating inappropriate statements against his Senior Officers. He was suspended for this
misconduct and was issued a charge sheet. His explanation was found insufficient, hence a departmental inquiry
was conducted in which he was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer submitted his
report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed the
impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement. An appeal filed by the workman was dismissed after
hearing.
4. Following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor on the basis of pleadings:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2981
(1)Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman is legal and proper?
(2)Whether the misconduct alleged against the workman is proved?
(3)Whether the punishment is legal and proper?
5. All the issues were taken up together. The workman did not produce any evidence. The Management filed
affidavit of its witness. The workman did not appear for cross-examination.
6. At the stage of arguments also the workman did not appear, hence arguments of learned counsel for the
management were heard by me. The workman did not file any written arguments, inspite of opportunity given.
7. ISSUE NO.1:-
The initial burden to prove this Issue is on the workman. He has not filed any evidence. Perusal of Affidavit of
Management witness which is uncross-examined shows that the inquiry was proper and legal , hence Issue
No.1 is decided against the workman , holding the inquiry legal and proper.
8. ISSUE N0.2-
The settled law is that the standard of proof required to prove charge during the departmental inquiry is not
beyond reasonable doubt , rather, it is to the extent of reasonable probability which is to be seen, whether a
charge is proved in the departmental inqury or not. The learned counsel for the Management has referred to
following case laws in this respect:-
A. State of A.P. Vs. Sree Rama Rao (1963) SC 1723 wherein it has been held that :-
“…a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and that the standard of proof
required in a disciplinary inquiry is that of preponderance of probability and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt, which is the proof required in a criminal trial.”
B. In another case B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India(1995) 6 SCC 749, it has been held that :-
“the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the Court. The disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of facts. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of review does not act as appellate authority to re-
appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.”
The workman has not lead any evidence on this issue. From the perusal of statement of management
witness in the form of affidavit and inquiry papers, the charges are held proved and Issue No.2 is answered
accordingly.
9 ISSUE NO.3:-
Before proceeding, the settled preposition of law on the issue requires to be mentioned, which is as
follows:-
A.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while
discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
B. In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High
Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the
punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant
factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,
the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an
discipline required to be maintained, and the department /establishment which the delinquent
person concerned works.”
C.
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on
review of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under
English law summarized the legal position in the following words:
2982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic
or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into
the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is
limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by
recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
D. In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it
finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
E. In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated
that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
F. Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M.
Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the
disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition
of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural
irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of
discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is
dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of
duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds,
previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or
establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion
on reappraisal of facts.
10. It is on record that the workman has been punished earlier for several misconduct in the light of
principle of law referred to above, keeping in view the misconduct proved, the punishment of
compulsory retirement cannot be held to be excessive , hence holding the punishment appropriate, Issue
No.3 is answered accordingly.
11. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Indore in issuing orders for
compulsory retirement of Shri Narendra Shah, Daftari, is held justified.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
C. Parties to bear their own cost.
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 15-11-2022
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1355.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQW banksj के izca/k तंत्रz ds laca) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 44/2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
[सं. एल-12012/270/2002- vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2983
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/270/2002- – IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2003
Present: P.K. SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Prahlad Das Chauhan,
S/o Shri Kanhiyalal Chouhan
P-4 Kamla Nagar,
Rasalpura District Indore (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Manager-I
State Bank of Indore, Zonal Office
163, Ghiya Chambers, KanchanBagh,
Indore (M.P.)
….Management
AWARD
(Passed on 14-10-2022.)
As per letter dated 6/2/2003 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12012/270/2002-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Assistant General Manager-1 State
Bank of Indore, Indore in dismissing the services of ShriPrahlad Das Chouhan
S/o KanhaiyalalChouhanw.e.f. 24/10/2002 is Justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled ?” .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their statement of claim/defense.
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a peon in the
Bank on 30-9-1969 and was promoted as a clerk cum go down keeper on 1-11-1978. He was posted in the
MHOW Branch of the Bank as a Clerk. He was placed under Suspension by the management on 12-7-1997
and an FIR was registered by the Bank Management against him in police Station Mhow District Indore,
regarding allegations of fraud and other offences against him and his co-workers. He was issued a charge sheet
by Management on 18-12-1998with as many as six charges against him and was asked to submit his
representation against the charges. He requested the Management to submit some documents which were not
supplied according to him. The Management decided to conduct a departmental inquiry against him.
ShriA.K.Joshi was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and ShriR.K.Ghadgil was appointed as the Presenting
Officer. According to the workman the inquiry conducted was not legal and proper. He was not provided with
an opportunity to produce evidence in his defence. The Inquiry was not stayed till the decision of criminal case
pending against him with respect to the same charges. The Inquiry Officer wrongly held the charges proved in
his inquiry report . the Disciplinary Authority relying on wrong finding reached at by the Inquiry Officer in the
Inquiry report passed the impugned punishment order of dismissal which is discriminatory because the other
officials/officers involved in the same transaction namely KeshavGhande, Officer, Mohan Moyal and Hari
Shankar, Vijay Vargeye, Special Assistant were permitted to seek Voluntary Retirement as per Scheme, hence
the punishment order is itself discriminatory against the workman. Accordingly, he has prayed that holding the
punishment against law, the workman be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
2984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The case of the management is mainly that before the inquiry , and even during the inquiry, the
workman was supplied copies of documents in support of charge. He participated during the inquiry, cross-
examined the management witness, also adduced evidence on his behalf. The Inquiry Officer rightly concluded
that the charges i.e. Charge No. 1 to 5 were proved against the workman and keeping view the nature of the
charges, the punishment is also disproportionate to the charges. Accordingly, the management prayed that the
reference be answered against the workman.
4. The Preliminary Issue regarding legality of the inquiry was decided by my learned Predecessor vide
his order dated 5-5-2016, holding the inquiry conducted legal and proper. His this order is part of this award.
5. Following other issues were framed by my learned Predecessor on 5-5-2016:-
1)
Whether the alleged misconduct is proved from the evidence in the inquiry
proceedings?
2)
Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against the workman is legal and
proper?
3)
If so to what relief, the workman is held entitled?
6. ISSUE NO,1:- Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on these issues. The workman examined
himself and was cross-examined. He proved documents Exhibit W-8 and W-9 to be referred to as and
whenrequired. The Management did not lead any other evidence onthis Additional issues. The Management
has heldproved the inquiry papers and punishment order which are exhibits M1 to M7.
7. I have heard arguments of learned counsel Mr. Uttammaheshwari for the workman and
ShriAshishShroti for the Management. The workman has filed written arguments which is taken on record. I
have gone through the record and written arguments also.
8. Learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that there were following charges against the
workman which were held provedby the Inquiry Officer after inquiry:-
A.
First party was charged that he conspired with ShriN.D.Shastri(incharge of savings
a/c)and cleared withdrawal slips which contained forged signatures of account holders
as detailed in Annexure-1.
B.
First party was charged that he failed to discharge duties honestly and withdrawal slips
were cleared without presenting the pass books. And said slips were forwarded to the
clearing authority;
C.
First party was charged that he received cash from account holders, and without
depositing in bank accounts of concerned account holders, marked endorsement in the
pass-book and kept the cash with himself.
D.
First party was charged that he deposited cash in the ban account of account holders
without making any entry in passbooks so that their withdrawal could be cleared,
without they becoming aware of forgery committed with them;
E:
First party was charged that when account holder Smt. Laxmibai w/o ShriRamnarayan
Sharma A/No. L-217 came for withdrawal of Rs.1204/- he himself filled in the
withdrawal slip and later on forged it for Rs.7,204/- and thus illegally withdrew
Rs.7000/- in excess from her bank account (year 1997).
9. He has further referred to statement of management witness R.K.Ghatge, ShriSharadRokde and
ShriGovindRawal and has submitted that they are not handwriting experts. They have admitted that they were
never posted with the workman . Their statement that the entries made in the pass book and ledger register are
in the handwriting of the workman on comparison of other entries written in the hand writing of the workman.
They have further stated that the signature and column in the withdrawal forms have been filed by the
workman himself in his own hand writing and they are stating so after comparing the hand writing of the
workman. They have further stated that the signature and the colunms in the withdrawal forms have been filled
by the workman himself in his own handwriting and they are stating so after a comparison of hand writing of
the workman in other documents and registers available in the bank records. According to the learned counsel,
these witnesses are not hand writing experts. They have never seen the workman righting in any document or
making ay signature. Learned Counsel has referred to decisionof Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of
Ministry of Finance Vs. Ramesh 1998 SCC(L&S) 865 wherein it has been observed “that the statement of
witness who is not hand writing expert or signature of person is only a guess work which does not amount to
proof even in a disciplinary proceedings. It has beenfurther held that though the degree of proof required in the
departmental inquiry need not be of same standard as the degree of proof required for establishing guilt of an
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2985
accused in a criminal case”, the law is settled now that suspicion however strong cannot be substituted for proof
even in departmental disciplinary proceeding.
10. Their appears force in this argument of learned counsel for the management that the statements of
these witnesses that the handwriting and signatures which are said to be false and forged are in the handwriting
of the workman cannot be believed because they are neither handwriting experts nor have they seen the
workman writing it at any point of time. But this matter requires to be seen from another angle also. The
charges against the workman is that he paid the amount in the withdrawal slips without making any entry in the
pass books of the account holders. While working as clerk cum cashier he was duty bound to post the
withdrawal amount in the pass book of the account holder. If there was no related entry regarding withdrawal
of amount found in the pass book of the pass book holder it was to be presumed that he paid these amounts
either to fake persons or atleastthat the relevant entries in the pass book were he discharged his duties
negligently resulting into payment to fake persons.
11. Similarly if any money was deposited by any Account holder in his account and it was settled that the
workman acting as clerk cum cashier, he made entry in the pass books regarding deposit of the amount but did
not post this amount within the ledger which he was duty bound to do so similarly with records of other parties
proved since the dates on which these lapses happened, He was in chargeof relevant registers and hence in case
of any discrepancy or any default with regard to any entry in the register , there will be a presumption that either
he was complacent in the lapse or he was negligent in discharging his duties
12. Learned Counsel for the Management has referred to decision of Hon.the Apex Court in the case of
M.L.Singla vs Punjab National Bank 2018Scc18, para16,17,18,19:-
16. Depending upon the answer to this question, the Labour Court should have
proceeded further to decide the next question.
17. If the answer to the question on the preliminary issue was that the domestic
enquiry is legal and proper, the next question to be considered by the
Labour Court was whether the punishment of dismissal from the service is
commensurate with thegravity of the charges or is disproportionate requiring
interference in its quantum by the Labour Court.
18. If the answer to this question was that it is disproportionate, the Labour
Court was entitled to interfere in the quantum of punishment by assigning reasons
and substitute the punishment in place of the one imposed by respondent
No. 1-Bank. This the Labour Court could do by taking recourse to the powers
under Section 11¬A of the ID Act.
19. While deciding this question, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to
examine as to whether the charges are made out or not. In other words, the
enquiry for deciding the question should have been confined to the factors such
as¬what is the nature of the charge(s), its gravity, whether it is major or
minor as per rules, the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges, the
employee's overall service record and the punishment imposed etc.
And has stated that when the departmental inquiry has been held legal and proper. There remains
limited scope for Tribunal because the settled law is that the Tribunal cannot appreciate the evidence
recorded during the Management:
20.
The limited scope of evaluating the evidence recorded during the inquiry which isleft with this
Tribunal, it is within its jurisdiction to see whether the findings are based on some evidence or they are
perverse. Looking into the angle from this evidence , the finding of the Inquiry Officer with relation to the
charge that the workman filled in the withdrawal slip forms and Typed the signatures if the different Account
Holders on these different account form is nothing but perverse. No doubt the charge of being negligent in
passing and making the payments is nothing but perverse of accounts mentioned in the withdrawal forms
without making relevant entries in the respective pass books was negligent on the part of the workman in
discharging the duties The entries in the relevant pass books regarding deposit of amount and not accounting
these amounts with the bank as well as not posting the amount in ledger, is more than negligent rather it may
amount to misappropriation of these amount deposited by different accountholders, these charges are also
misconduct in the Bi Partite Settlement and Desai Award On the basis of the above discussion Issue Hol2 is
answered accordingly.
21.
ISSUE NO.3:- It has been submittedfrom the side of the learned counsel for the workman is that the
punishment is disproportionate to the other co-workman of the Officer cadre names mentioned above in the
statement of claims were allowed to avail benefit of voluntary retirement inspite of the fact that criminal case
were pending against them with regard to these transactions and departmental inquiries were going on against
them which is in violation of Circular of the Bank dated 23-6-2001 and the rules are regardingVoluntary
2986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retirement circulated vide no.4/01 dated 27-1-2001. He has referred to documents Exhibit W-14,W-15,W-16
and W-17 in this respect. These documents show that the ShriK.S.Gandhe, ShriH.S.VijayVargeya and
ShriM,S,Moyal mentioned as above were given voluntary retirement scheme inspite of the fact that criminal
case as well as departmental inquiry was going to start against them with respect to the same transactions or
similar transactions. Learned Counsel has referred to Judgment of Hon the Apex Court in the case of Pawan
Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India(2016)2 SCC(L&S) 184wherein it has been held that when two
employees were found responsible for approving cash credit facilities without disclosing provision of loan, the
Branch Manager was imposedpunishment of stoppage of one increment and the delinquent employeewas
imposed. Such action was discriminatory on the part of the Management.
22.
Learned counsel for the management has referred tojudgment of HOnl the Apex Court in case
of Regional Management of Rajathan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohanlal
2004(8)SCC 218 and has submitted that the workman was found involved in as many as 20 or more
transactions of this type, wherein he committed mis-conduct, hence he has been a serial offender. No
employer can afford a subordinate who has lost faith with his employer.
23.
Before proceeding, the settled preposition of law on the issue requires to be mentioned, which
is as follows:-
It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence
relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of
invoking the powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that
the Court should interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the
misconduct committed or it is harsh.
1.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749while discussing about
the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in
exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
thereof.”
2. In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the
High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion
that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the
relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed
earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected
of an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the
delinquent person concerned works.”
3. In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long
line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized
the legal position in the following words:
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic
or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into
the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is
limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
4.
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2987
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the
same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
5.
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated
that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs.
Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the
High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary
authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment
unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would
shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment
by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity
of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be
maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal
would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material
on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence,
the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds
for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere
with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on
no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a
tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on
record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of
natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary,
capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.
24.
Considering the punishment imposed upon in the light of the above judgments, there is on record
papers Exhibit W-10 which shows that this fraud was reported to head quarter. The workman
ShriR.D.Chouhan, Dinesh Yadav, and Shri N.D.Shashtri(physical proceedings) were suspended to be involved.
Exhibit W-11 is the supplementary report with respect to this circumstances is not by the Branch of the Bank
which goes to show that in addition to this Shri K,S.Gadhe, Deputy Manager Shri ‘R.K.Tiwari, Deputy
Manager ShriM.L.Dubey Shri M.L.Moyal and Shri H.S.Vijayvargeya has also passed forged withdrawal on
stray occasions while on reliving duties. It has been mentioned here that out of these somewhere given benefit
of voluntaryretirement and somewhere given lighter punishments.. The point here arises is as to whether the
workman also has been found indulged in various transactions within a certain period.It is also submitted by
the Management that the Officer ShriD.M.Shastri was also awarded punishment, regarding the same
transactions.
25. Hence in the light of the above discussion, the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman is held
proportionate to the charge. IssueNo.3 is answered accordingly.
26.
ISSUE No.4:-
In the light of the findings recorded in Issue No1,2, and 3,the workman is held entitled to no
relief, thus Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
27. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just proper and legal.
B.Theworkman is held entitled to no relief.
28. 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:14-20-2022
2988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1356.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार मैनेिर, मेससव प्लास माबवल्स, उियपुर (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष,
िनिाजत खान मज़िूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय उियपुर के पंचाट
(संिभव सं. 21/2015 आई. टी. आर. (सी) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-28011/6/2015- आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2015 I.T.R.(C) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Manager, M/s Plaas Marble, Udaipur (Rajasthan), and The President, Janjati Khan Mazdoor Sangh, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. L- 28011/6/2015-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
izdj.k ala[;k 21 lu~ 2015 I.T.R (C)
v/;{k] tutkfr [kku etnwj la?k&
&eSustj eSllZ Iykl ekcZYl
vf/klwpuk %L-28011/6/2015-IR(M) Dated 22.06.2015
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd mifLFkr A
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd us izdj.k esa fnuakd 05-08-2022 dks yksd&vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj
Not Press fd;k rFkk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgh A izkFkhZ i{k }kjk dk;Zokgh ugha pkgus ds dkj.k vc
i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgrk gSA
vr% izkFkhZ ds bl fookn esa 'No Dispute Award' ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS A
lwpuk izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr&ljdkj dks Hksth tkos A
i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky n¶rj gks A
lnL; lfpo xksiky fctksjhoky] v/;{k
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1357.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मैनेिर, मेससव िाजत्रय माबवल्स, उियपुर (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष, िनिाजत
खान मज़िूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय उियपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं.
45/2015 आई. टी. आर. (सी) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-28011/36/2015-आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2989
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2015 I.T.R.(C)) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Manager, M/s Datriya Marble, Udaipur (Rajasthan), and The President, Janjati Khan Mazdoor Sangh, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. L- 28011/36/2015-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
I.T.R(C)- izdj.k la[;k 45@2015
vf/klwpuk uEcj %& L-28011/36/2015-IR(M) fnukad 22-06-2015
v/;{k]tu tkfr [kku etnwj la?k
eSustj] eS- nkf=; ekcZy
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd mifLFkr A
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd us izdj.k esa fnuakd 25-02-2022 dks yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj Not
Press fd;k rFkk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgh A izkFkhZ i{k }kjk dk;Zokgh ugha pkgus ds dkj.k vc i{kdkjku ds
e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgrk gS A
izkFkhZ ds bl fookn esa No Dispute award' dksbZ fookn ugha dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS A
lwpuk izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr&ljdkj dks Hksth tkos A
i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky n¶rj gks A
lnL;
v/;{k]
yksd vnkyr
yksd vnkyr
f'ko dqekj िमाव, न्यायािीि
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1358.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससव जसद्धाथव ग्रीन माबवल, उियपुर (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िरीि, कामगार,
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय उियपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 01/2015
आई. टी. आर. (सी) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड -16025/04/2022-आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.01/2015 I.T.R.(C)) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s
Siddharth Green Marble, Udaipur (Rajasthan), and Shri Harish, Worker, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022 -IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
2990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुबंि
&& f'ko dqekj 'kekZ ¼ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ½s
izdj.k la[;k 01@2015 I.T.R.(C)
gfj'k firk Jh ukFkq th eh.kk tkfr eh.kk] mez o;Ld]
fMªy esau] eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh]
fuoklh xkao dkxnj] Qyk ek.Mok]
rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½
….izkFkhZ
eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh]
rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½
…foi{kh
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls %& Jh jes'k uUnokuk] vf/koDrk
foi{kh dh vkSj ls %& dksbZ mifLFkr ugha&dk;Zokgh ,d i{kh;
izkFkhZ gfj'k }kjk viuh lsok eqfDr ckcr~ loZizFke f'kdk;r izkFkZuk i= {kS=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½
vtesj ds ;gka fnukad 23-07-2014 dks izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftUgksaus vius i= dzekad ,sts&5¼95½
2014&vkj,ylh fnukad 15 flrEcj] 2014 }kjk vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu The Secretary (Desk Officer) New
Delhi dks izsf"kr dj fn;k vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Dyse is'k fd;k x;k gSA ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ
jftLVj fd;k x;k ,oa foi{kh dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr Dyse ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh dh [knku esa fnukad
01-07-2005 ls dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh dh [knku esa dke djus okys vU; Jfedksa ,oa _"kHknso {ks= esa
dke djus okys Jfedksa dks U;wure etnwjh] lkIrkfgd vodk'k] vksoj VkbZe] xzsP;qVh ,oa ih-,Q-tSlh
U;wure lqfo/kk;sa izkIr ugha gks jgh Fkh] ftlds fy, {ks= ds [kku ekfydksa dk /;ku vkdf"kZr djus dh fu;r
ls dslfj;kth {ks= ds lHkh etnwj fnukad 23-01-2014 ls ebZ 2014 rd gMrky ij FksA
ebZ 2014 dks [kku ekfydksa ,oa Jfedksa dh ;wfu;u ds e/; {ks=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ vtesj dh
v/;{krk esa vUrfje le>kSrk lEiUu gqvk ftlds vk/kkj ij _"kHknso {ks= ds lHkh Jfedksa us fnukad 07-05-
2014 ls okil dke ij tkus dk fu'p; fd;kA fnukad 07-05-2014 dks izkFkhZ tc dke djus ds fy, [knku
ij x;k rks mls rFkk vU; Jfedksa dks dke ij ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k x;k vkSj dgk x;k fd rqe yksx
;wfu;uckth djrs gks] rqEgsa [kku ij ugha j[ksaxsA izkFkhZ us [kku ekfyd o eSustj dks dkQh le>k;k fd
mldh yEch vof/k dh lsok gSa rFkk mlus iwjh yxu ,oa fu"Bk ls [kku esa lsok,a nh gSA {ks= ds lHkh
Jfedksa dh gMrky Fkh blfy, og Hkh mlesa 'kkfey jgkA blds vykok mlds f[kykQ iwoZ esa fdlh rjg
dk dksbZ vkjksi ugha jgk gS rks Hkh foi{kh us mldks dke ij ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k o dgk fd ;wfu;u
cukus okyksa dks os fdlh Hkh gky esa etnwjh ugha nsaxsA
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k ml le; mls 250@&:i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls osru fn;k
tkrk Fkk tcfd og v}Zdq'ky Jfed Fkk ftldh U;wure etnwjh 371@&:i;s gksrh FkhA
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk;k x;k rFkk mls viuk i{k j[kus dk
volj fn;s fcuk gh lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k tks izkd`frd U;k; ds fl}kUr ls foijhr gSA
fof/kuqlkj izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg
dk osru fn;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] exj mls fcuk uksfVl ;k uksfVl&is; fn;s fcuk gh lsok ls i`Fkd dj
fn;k x;k tks iwo.kZr;k fof/k foijhr gSA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2991
izkFkhZ dks ftl le; lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k rc rd mlus 9 o"kZ dh lsok vof/k iwjh dj yh
FkhA bl izdkj dh lsok vof/k iwjh djus okys deZpkjh dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ lsokeqfDr dk
eqvkotk fnyk;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] exj mls u rks lsok eqfDr dk eqvkotk fn;k x;k vkSj u gh fdlh
rjg dh xzsP;qVh vkfn dk dksbZ ykHk fn;k x;kA
lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ ;g vko';d Fkk fd mls lsokeqDr dk ukfVl nsus ds lkFk lkFk ljdkj dks Hkh
bldh lwpuk foi{kh nsrk] exj mls lsokeqDr fd;s tkus dh dksbZ lwpuk foi{kh }kjk ljdkj dks Hkh ugha nh
xbZA
izkFkhZ us lu~ 2005 ls ysdj 2014 rd izR;sd dys.Mj o"kZ esa 180 fnu ls T;knk dh lsok;asa nh gSA
blds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ dks fcuk dkuwuh izfdz;k viuk;s lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k gS tks iw.kZr;k fof/k fo:)
gSA
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k gS] tcfd izkFkhZ ds ckn lsok esa vkus okys dkexkj vHkh Hkh
foi{kh dh [knku esa dk;Zjr gSA foi{kh dh [knku esa dk;Z fu;fer :i ls tkjh gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij
foi{kh us nwljs O;fDr dks etnwjh ij j[k fy;k gSA
izkFkhZ ls cU/kqvk etnwj dh rjg dke fy;k tkrk Fkk]mls u rks U;wure etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh] u
lkIrkfgd vodk'k fn;s tkrs mls 8 ?k.Vs ds ctk; 12 ?k.Vs rd dke djuk iMrk Fkk] exj 8 ls vf/kd
12 ?kaVksa rd ds le; ds dke dk Hkqxrku ugha fn;k tkrk FkkA mls ikfjokfjd isU'ku tSlh lqfo/kk,a
vfuok;Z gksus ds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ o vU; Jfedksa dks bu lqfo/kkvksa ls oafpr j[kk gqvk FkkA
bl izdkj iw.kZr;k vekuoh; ,oa e/;;qxhu rjhds ls izkFkhZ ls dke fy;k tkrk FkkA blh dkj.k ls
Jfedksa us gMrky dh Fkh ftlesa izkFkhZ dk 'kkfey gksuk fof/k foijhr ugha Fkk] blds ckotwn Hkh mls
gMrky esa 'kkfey gksus ds vk/kkj ij lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k िै A
izkFkhZ dks mldh yEch vof/k dh lsok,a gksus ds ckotwn Hkh mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k gSA ,slh
fLFkfr esa mlds lkeus thou;kiu dk xEHkhj ladV mRiUu gks x;k gS rFkk orZeku esa mlds ikl
vkthfodk dk dksbZ lgkjk ugha jgk gSA
vUr esa fuosnu fd;k x;k fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh fnukad 07-05-2014 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks
voS/k ,oa fof/k foijhr ?kksf"kr fd;k djkosa rFkk izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa fujUrjrk osru ofj;rk ,oa
vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosaA
foi{kh dh vkSj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk mldh vksj ls dksbZ tckc ;k lk{; is'k ugh gqbZ vr%
foi{kh ds fo:) fnukad 24-03-2017 dks ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh vey easa ykbZ xbZA
izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls gfj'k dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvkA
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd dh ,d i{kh; cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
^^vc ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd foi{kh esllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh] rglhy _"kHknso]
ftyk mn;iqj }kjk izkFkhZ gfj'k firk Jh ukFkq th eh.kk tkfr eh.kk] mez o;Ld] fMªy esau] eSllZ fl}kFkZ
xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh] fuoklh xkao dkxnj] Qyk ek.Mok] rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj dks
fnukad 07-05-2014 dks xyr o feF;k vkjksi yxk dj lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS \ ;fn
ugha] rks izkFkhZ D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka viuh fu;qfDr fnukad ls lsok i`Fkd fnukad
rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ us vius lsokdky lu~ 2005 ls ysdj 2014 rd izR;sd dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 180
fnu ls T;knk dh lsok,a nh gS] ysfdu foi{kh laLFkku }kjk xyr o feF;k vkjksi yxk dj lsok i`Fkd dj
fn;k o lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg dk osru ugha fn;k
x;kA vr% foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh fnukad 07-05-2014 ls dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks voS/k ,oa fof/kfoijhr ?kksf"kr
djkosa rFkk izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa fujUrjr] osru ofj;rk ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus
dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosasA
2992 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa Dyse izkFkZuk i= ds rF;ksa dks 'kiFk iwoZd nksgjk;k gSA foi{kh ds fo:)
dk;Zokgh ,d rjQk gksus ls izkFkhZ ds mDr 'kiFk i= ds [k.Mu esa dksbZ lk{; is'k ugh gqbZ gSA
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr izkFkZuki= ,oa 'kiFki= ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ fujUrj
lsok esa jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us lsoki`Fkd djus ds iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi i= ;k psrkouh i= ugha fn;k u gh
mls lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj fn;k rFkk u gh dksbZ tkap dk;Zokgh dh xbZA izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus ds iwoZ
dksbZ eqvkotk jkf'k vnk ugha dhA izkFkhZ dks bl izdkj fnukad 07-05-2014 dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k :i ls
lsoki`Fkd fd;s tkus ij mlus dsUnzh; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ vtesj ds le{k fnukad 23-07-2014 dks
f'kdk;r izLrqr dh] ftl ij foi{kh dks uksfVl izsf"kr fd;k x;k ijUrq og mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh
dksbZ tokc gh is'k fd;kA
izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr mDr ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; dk foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ [k.Mu ugha gqvk gS]
blfy;s izkFkhZ dh mDr lk{; dks u ekuus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ
dks dksbZ uksfVl ;k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gks] ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; foi{kh dh vkSj ls ugha
vkbZ gSA mDr vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA
vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd izkFkhZ bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds dkj.k D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls bl lEcU/k esa ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa
fujUrjr] osru ofj;rk ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosasA
bl izdj.k es U;k;ky; bl er dk gS fd izkFkhZ lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad 07-05-2014 ls
iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh frfFk rd fiNys osru ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS
lkFk gh foi{kh izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk iqu% lsok esa ysos rFkk ;fn og lsok esa gksrk rks D;k
ykHk izkIr djrk os lHkh ykHk Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA
mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ,d i{kh; iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd &
izkFkhZ gfj'k firk Jh ukFkq th eh.kk tkfr eh.kk] mez o;Ld] fMªy esau] eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy]
elkjksa dh vkscjh] fuoklh xkao dkxnj] Qyk ek.Mok] rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ dks foi{kh
laLFkku eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh] rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ }kjk fnukad
07-05-2014 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA
blfy;s bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds dkj.k foi{kh laLFkku izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk rhu
ekg dh vof/k esa iqu% lsok esa ysos rFkk ;fn og lsok esa gksrk rks tks ykHk izkIr djrk os lHkh ykHk Hkh fn;s
tkos lkFk gh foi{kh izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad 07-05-2014 ls iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh
frfFk rd fiNys osru ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr jkf'k Hkqxrku djs] vU;Fkk] mDr jkf'k ij vkns'k dh fnukad ls
7 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ns; gksxkA
,d i{kh; iapkV izdk”kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj {ks=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ vtesj ds i= dzekad
,sts&5¼95½@2014&vkj,ylh fnukad 15-09-2014 ds dze esa Hkstk tkosaA
f'ko dqekj 'kekZ] न्यायािीि
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1359.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार मेससव जसद्धाथव ग्रीन माबवल, उियपुर (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री मुकेि,
कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय उियपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं.
02/2015 आई. टी. आर. (सी) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड -16025/04/2022- आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2993
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2015 I.T.R.(C)) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s Siddharth Green Marble, Udaipur (Rajasthan), and Shri Mukesh, Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022 -IR(M) ]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
&f'ko dqekj 'kekZ ¼ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ½s
izdj.k la[;k 02@2015 I.T.R.(C)
eqds'k firk Jh vejk th tkfr eh.kk] mez o;Ld]
okjlks vksijsVj] eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh]
fuoklh xkao dkxnj] Qyk ek.Mok] rglhy _"kHknso]
ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½
…izkFkhZ
eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh]
rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½
…foi{kh
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls %& Jh jes'k uUnokuk] vf/koDrk
foi{kh dh vkSj ls %& dksbZ mifLFkr ugha&dk;Zokgh ,d i{kh;
fnukad 11-10-2022
izkFkhZ eqds'k }kjk viuh lsok eqfDr ckcr~ loZizFke f'kdk;r izkFkZuk i= {kS=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½
vtesj ds ;gka fnukad 23-07-2014 dks izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftUgksaus vius i= dzekad ,sts&5¼98½
2014&vkj,ylh fnukad 15 flrEcj] 2014 }kjk vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu The Secretary (Desk Officer) New
Delhi dks izsf"kr dj fn;k vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Dyse is'k fd;k gSA ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ
jftLVj fd;k x;k ,oa foi{kh dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr Dyse ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh dh [knku esa fnukad
01-07-2005 ls dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh dh [knku esa dke djus okys vU; Jfedksa ,oa _"kHknso {ks= esa
dke djus okys Jfedksa dks U;wure etnwjh] lkIrkfgd vodk'k] vksoj VkbZe] xzsP;qVh ,oa ih-,Q-tSlh
U;wure lqfo/kk;sa izkIr ugha gks jgh Fkh] ftlds fy, {ks= ds [kku ekfydksa dk /;ku vkdf"kZr djus dh fu;r
ls dslfj;kth {ks= ds lHkh etnwj fnukad 23-01-2014 ls ebZ 2014 rd gMrky ij FksA
ebZ 2014 dks [kku ekfydksa ,oa Jfedksa dh ;wfu;u ds e/; {ks=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ vtesj dh
v/;{krk esa vUrfje le>kSrk lEiUu gqvk ftlds vk/kkj ij _"kHknso {ks= ds lHkh Jfedksa us fnukad
07-05-2014 ls okil dke ij tkus dk fu'p; fd;kA fnukad 07-05-2014 dks izkFkhZ tc dke djus ds fy,
[knku ij x;k rks mls rFkk vU; Jfedksa dks dke ij ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k x;k vkSj dgk x;k fd rqe
yksx ;wfu;uckth djrs gks] rqEgsa [kku ij ugha j[ksaxsA izkFkhZ us [kku ekfyd o eSustj dks dkQh le>k;k
fd mldh yEch vof/k dh lsok gSa rFkk mlus iwjh yxu ,oa fu"Bk ls [kku esa lsok,a nh gSA {ks= ds lHkh
Jfedksa dh gMrky Fkh blfy, og Hkh mlesa 'kkfey jgkA blds vykok mlds f[kykQ iwoZ esa fdlh rjg
dk dksbZ vkjksi ugha jgk gS rks Hkh foi{kh us mldks dke ij ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k o dgk fd ;wfu;u
cukus okyksa dks os fdlh Hkh gky esa etnwjh ugha nsaxsA
2994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k ml le; mls 250@&:i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls osru fn;k
tkrk Fkk tcfd og v}Zdq'ky Jfed Fkk ftldh U;wure etnwjh 350@&:i;s gksrh FkhA
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk;k x;k rFkk mls viuk i{k j[kus dk
volj fn;s fcuk gh lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k tks izkd`frd U;k; ds fl}kUr ls foijhr gSA
fof/kuqlkj izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg
dk osru fn;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] exj mls fcuk uksfVl ;k uksfVl&is; fn;s fcuk gh lsok ls i`Fkd dj
fn;k x;k tks iwo.kZr;k fof/k foijhr gSA
izkFkhZ dks ftl le; lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k rc rd mlus 9 o"kZ dh lsok vof/k iwjh dj yh
FkhA bl izdkj dh lsok vof/k iwjh djus okys deZpkjh dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ lsokeqfDr dk
eqvkotk fnyk;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] exj mls u rks lsok eqfDr dk eqvkotk fn;k x;k vkSj u gh fdlh
rjg dh xzsP;qVh vkfn dk dksbZ ykHk fn;k x;kA
lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ ;g vko';d Fkk fd mls lsokeqDr dk ukfVl nsus ds lkFk lkFk ljdkj dks Hkh
bldh lwpuk foi{kh nsrk] exj mls lsokeqDr fd;s tkus dh dksbZ lwpuk foi{kh }kjk ljdkj dks Hkh ugha nh
xbZA
izkFkhZ us lu~ 2005 ls ysdj 2014 rd izR;sd dys.Mj o"kZ esa 180 fnu ls T;knk dh lsok;asa nh gSA
blds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ dks fcuk dkuwuh izfdz;k viuk;s lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k gS tks iw.kZr;k fof/k fo:)
gSA
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k gS] tcfd izkFkhZ ds ckn lsok esa vkus okys dkexkj vHkh Hkh
foi{kh dh [knku esa dk;Zjr gSA foi{kh dh [knku esa dk;Z fu;fer :i ls tkjh gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij
foi{kh us nwljs O;fDr dks etnwjh ij j[k fy;k gSA
izkFkhZ ls cU/kqvk etnwj dh rjg dke fy;k tkrk Fkk]mls u rks U;wure etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh] u
lkIrkfgd vodk'k fn;s tkrs mls 8 ?k.Vs ds ctk; 12 ?k.Vs rddke djuk iMrk Fkk] exj 8 ls vf/kd
12 ?kaVksa rd ds le; ds dke dk Hkqxrku ugha fn;k tkrk FkkA mls ikfjokfjd isU'ku tSlh lqfo/kk,a
vfuok;Z gksus ds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ o vU; Jfedksa dks bu lqfo/kkvksa ls oafpr j[kk gqvk FkkA
bl izdkj iw.kZr;k vekuoh; ,oa e/;;qxhu rjhds ls izkFkhZ ls dke fy;k tkrk FkkA blh dkj.k ls
Jfedksa us gMrky dh Fkh ftlesa izkFkhZ dk 'kkfey gksuk fof/k foijhr ugha Fkk] blds ckotwn Hkh mls
gMrky esa 'kkfey gksus ds vk/kkj ij lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZ dks mldh yEch vof/k dh lsok,a gksus ds ckotwn Hkh mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k gSA ,slh
fLFkfr esa mlds lkeus thou;kiu dk xEHkhj ladV mRiUu gks x;k gS rFkk orZeku esa mlds ikl
vkthfodk dk dksbZ lgkjk ugha jgk gSA
vUr esa fuosnu fd;k x;k fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh fnukad 07-05-2014 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks
voS/k ,oa fof/k foijhr ?kksf"kr fd;k djkosa rFkk izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa fujUrjrk osru ofj;rk ,oa
vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosaA
foi{kh dh vkSj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk mldh vksj ls dksbZ tckc ;k lk{; is'k ugh gqbZ vr%
foi{kh ds fo:) fnukad 24-03-2017 dks ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh vey easa ykbZ xbZA
izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls eqds'k dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvkA
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd dh ,d i{kh; cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
^^vc ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd foi{kh esllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh] rglhy _"kHknso]
ftyk mn;iqj }kjk izkFkhZ eqds'k firk Jh vejk th tkfr eh.kk] mez o;Ld] okjlks vksijsVj] eSllZ fl}kFkZ
xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh] fuoklh xkao dkxnj] Qyk ek.Mok] rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj dks
fnukad 07-05-2014 dks xyr o feF;k vkjksi yxk dj lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS \ ;fn
ugha] rks izkFkhZ D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2995
izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka viuh fu;qfDr fnukad ls lsok i`Fkd fnukad
rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ us vius lsokdky lu~ 2005 ls ysdj 2014 rd izR;sd dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 180
fnu ls T;knk dh lsok,a nh gS] ysfdu foi{kh laLFkku }kjk xyr o feF;k vkjksi yxk dj lsok i`Fkd dj
fn;k o lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg dk osru ugha fn;k
x;kA vr% foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh fnukad 07-05-2014 ls dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks voS/k ,oa fof/kfoijhr ?kksf"kr
djkosa rFkk izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa fujUrjr] osru ofj;rk ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus
dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosasA
izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa Dyse izkFkZuk i= ds rF;ksa dks 'kiFk iwoZd nksgjk;k gSA foi{kh ds fo:)
dk;Zokgh ,d rjQk gksus ls izkFkhZ ds mDr 'kiFk i= ds [k.Mu esa dksbZ lk{; is'k ugh gqbZ gSA
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr izkFkZuki= ,oa 'kiFki= ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ fujUrj
lsok esa jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us lsoki`Fkd djus ds iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi i= ;k psrkouh i= ugha fn;k u gh
mls lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj fn;k rFkk u gh dksbZ tkap dk;Zokgh dh xbZA izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus ds iwoZ
dksbZ eqvkotk jkf'k vnk ugha dhA izkFkhZ dks bl izdkj fnukad 07-05-2014 dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k :i ls
lsoki`Fkd fd;s tkus ij mlus dsUnzh; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ vtesj ds le{k fnukad 23-07-2014 dks
f'kdk;r izLrqr dh] ftl ij foi{kh dks uksfVl izsf"kr fd;k x;k ijUrq og mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh
dksbZ tokc gh is'k fd;kA
izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr mDr ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; dk foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ [k.Mu ugha gqvk gS]
blfy;s izkFkhZ dh mDr lk{; dks u ekuus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ
dks dksbZ uksfVl ;k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gks] ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; foi{kh dh vkSj ls ugha
vkbZ gSA mDr vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA
vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd izkFkhZ bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds dkj.k D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls bl lEcU/k esa ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa
fujUrjr] osru ofj;rk ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosasA
bl izdj.k es U;k;ky; bl er dk gS fd izkFkhZ lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad 07-05-2014 ls
iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh frfFk rd fiNys osru ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS
lkFk gh foi{kh izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk iqu% lsok esa ysos rFkk ;fn og lsok esa gksrk rks D;k
ykHk izkIr djrk os lHkh ykHk Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA
mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ,d i{kh; iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd &
izkFkhZ eqds'k firk Jh vejk th tkfr eh.kk] mez o;Ld] okjlks vksijsVj] eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy]
elkjksa dh vkscjh] fuoklh xkao dkxnj] Qyk ek.Mok] rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ dks foi{kh
laLFkku eSllZ fl}kFkZ xzhu ekcZy] elkjksa dh vkscjh] rglhy _"kHknso] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ }kjk fnukad
07-05-2014 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA
blfy;s bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds dkj.k foi{kh laLFkku izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk rhu
ekg dh vof/k esa iqu% lsok esa ysos rFkk ;fn og lsok esa gksrk rks tks ykHk izkIr djrk os lHkh ykHk Hkh fn;s
tkos lkFk gh foi{kh izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad 07-05-2014 ls iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh
frfFk rd fiNys osru ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr jkf'k Hkqxrku djs] vU;Fkk] mDr jkf'k ij vkns'k dh fnukad ls
7 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ns; gksxkA
,d i{kh; iapkV izdk”kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj {ks=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ vtesj ds i= dzekad
,sts&5¼98½@2014&vkj,ylh fnukad 15-09-2014 ds dze esa Hkstk tkosaA
f'ko dqekj िमाव] न्यायािीि
2996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1360.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससव राणावत ग्रीन माबवल, उियपुर (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री प्रकाि मीणा,
कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय उियपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं.
01/2017 आई. टी. आर. (सी)) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड -16025/04/2022-आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.01/2017 I.T.R.(C))) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s
Ranawat Green Marble, Udaipur (Rajasthan), and Shri Prakash Meena, Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022 -IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
I.T.R (C)- izdj.k la[;k 01@2017
izdk'k eh.kk cuke eSllZ jk.kkor xzhu ekcZy
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd mifLFkr A
izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd us izdj.k esa fnuakd 28-02-2022 dks yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj Not
Press fd;k rFkk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgh A izkFkhZ i{k }kjk dk;Zokgh ugha pkgus ds dkj.k vc i{kdkjku ds
e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgrk gS A
izkFkhZ ds bl fookn esa No Dispute award' dksbZ fookn ugha dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS A
lwpuk izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr&ljdkj dks ¼mi eq[; Je vk;qDr dsUnzh;] vtesasj ds i= dzekad
,sts&5¼105@2014&vkjs,ylh fnukad 15-09-2014 ds dze esa½ Hksth tkos A
i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky n¶rj gks A
lnL;
v/;{k]
yksd vnkyr
yksd vnkyr
f'ko dqekj िमाव, न्यायिीि
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1361.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार जनिेिक, जिन्िुस्ट्तान मिंक जलजमटेड, भीलवाड़ा (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
मिावीर प्रसाि माली, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि- श्रम न्यायालय भीलवाड़ा के
पंचाट (संिभव सं. 7/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2022 -आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2997
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2019) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Bhilwada as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director,
Hindustan Zinc Limited, Bhilwada (Rajasthan), and Shri Mahavir Prasad Mali, Worker, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022 -IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
Jh lq'khy dqekj 'kekZ]- ¼ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ½ -
izdj.k la[;k % 7 lu~ 2019 vkbZ-Vh-vkj-
Jh egkohj izlkn ekyh iq= Jh y{e.k ekyh] -
fu-&vkxqpk] rg-&gqjMk] ftyk&HkhyokMkA
…izkFkhZ@Jfed
cuke
funs'kd] fgUnqLrku ftad fy0]
jkeiqjk&vkxwpk ekbZUl]ftyk& HkhyokMkA
…foi{kh@fu;kstd
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ gkftj ugha A
…foi{kh dh vksj ls
dksbZ gkftj ughaA
fnukad 26-8-2022
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk dzekad% ,Q
ua- , ts&08@2@45@2019&vkbZ-vkj fnukad 26-11-2019 ds }kjk fuEu fookn bl U;k;ky; dks
vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k&
'Whether the action of the management of Hindusthan Zink Limited , Rampura
Agucha Mines,Rampura ,Distt. Bhilwara in giving premature Retirement To Shri
Mahaveer prasad Mali S/O Shri Laxman Mali,Asstt.Foreman at the age of 58 years
instead of 60 years w.e.f 31.03.2019 is legal and justified? If not, whether the
demand of the workman for his reinstatement upto the age of 60 years or payment
of wages ,allowence and other benefits for 02 years is legal and justified?if yes,to
what relif the concerned workmen is entitled and from which date.
fookn izkIr gksus ij i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl tkjh dj ryc fd;k x;kA
vkt izkFkhZ gkftj ugha gSa A izkFkhZ dh rkehy jftLVMZ Mkd ls Hksth tk pqdh gSA rkehy Hksts ,d
ekg ls vf/kd dk le; Hkh iw.kZ gks x;k gSA rkehy vne rkehy Hkh ugha ykSVh gSA vr% rkehy i;kZIr ekuh
tkrh gSA izkFkhZ ckotwn rkehy gkftj ugha gSA vr% ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd mldh bl ekeys esa dksbZ :fp
ugha gS rFkk og izdj.k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gSA vr% ^dksbZ fookn ugha jgk^ vk'k; dk iapkV tkjh
fd;k tkrk gSA
iapkV dh izfr dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ Hksth tk;sA
lq'khy dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
2998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1362.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार जनिेिक, जिन्िुस्ट्तान मिंक जलजमटेड, भीलवाड़ा (रािस्ट्थान), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
लािूलाल प्रिापत, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट
(संिभव सं. 4/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉपी के साथ 08.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड -16025/04/2022-आईआर(एम)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/2019) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Bhilwada as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director,
Hindustan Zinc Limited, Bhilwada (Rajasthan), and Shri Ladulal Prajapat, Worker, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022 -IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
% Jh lq'khy dqekj 'kekZ] -¼ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ½ -
izdj.k la[;k % 4 lu~ 2019 vkbZ-Vh-vkj-
Jh yknwyky iztkir iq= Jh izsejkt iztkir] -
fu0&czkg~e.kksa dh ljsMh]ok;k&eksM dk fuEckgsMk] ]
rg0&vklhan]ftyk&HkhyokMkA
…izkFkhZ@Jfed
cuke
funs'kd] fgUnqLrku ftad fy-] jkeiqjk&vkxwpk ekbZUl]ftyk& HkhyokMkA
…foi{kh@fu;kstd
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ gkftj ugha A - foi{kh
dh vksj ls dksbZ gkftj ughaA
fnukad 26-8-2022
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk dzekad
,Q ua- ,
ts&08@2@42@2019 &vkbZ- vkj fnukad 26-11-2019 ds }kjk fuEu fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
izsf"kr fd;k x;k&
'Whether the action of the management of Hindusthan Zink Limited , Rampura Agucha
Mines,Rampura ,Distt. Bhilwara in giving premature Retirement To Shri Ladu Lal
Prajapat S/O Shri Prem Raj Prajapat,Asstt.Foreman at the age of 58 years w.e.f
30.04.2019 instead of 60 years is legal and justified?If not,whether the demand of the
workman for his reinstatement upto the age of 60 years or payment of wages ,allowence
and other benefits for 02 years is legal and justified?if yes,to what relif the concerned
workmen is entitled and from which date.
fookn izkIr gksus ij i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl tkjh dj ryc fd;k x;kA
vkt izkFkhZ gkftj ugha gSa A izkFkhZ dh rkehy jftLVMZ Mkd ls Hksth tk pqdh gSA rkehy Hksts ,d
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
2999
ekg ls vf/kd dk le; Hkh iw.kZ gks x;k gSA rkehy vne rkehy Hkh ugha ykSVh gSA vr% rkehy i;kZIr ekuh
tkrh gSA izkFkhZ ckotwn rkehy gkftj ugha gSA vr% ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd mldh bl ekeys esa dksbZ :fp
ugha gS rFkk og izdj.k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gSA vr% ^dksbZ fookn ugha jgk^ vk'k; dk iapkV tkjh
fd;k tkrk gSA
lq'khy dqekj िमाव, U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1363.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k rarz ds laca) 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 l- 91/2013) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-12012/63/2013- vkbZ vkj(ch-1)]
ए. के. यािव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/63/2013– IR(B-1)]
A.K. YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri HarjulalDhimer,
S/o shri Ganga Prasad Village Simaria
District Pawai,
District Panna(MP)
…Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Simaria Branch,
District Panna(MP)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 11-10-2022.)
As per letter dated 4-10-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12012/63/2013-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Simariya
Branch
district,
Panna(MP)
in
terminating
the
services
of
Shri
Harjulaldhimer, Ex-Canteen Boy/Messenger w.e.f. February,2012 without
following the procedure/provision of the Industrial disputes Act,1947 is valid
reasonable and fair? To what relief he is entitled to and from which date? .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
3000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed by the
Branch manager of Simariya Branch in Panna district as a daily water canteen boy and messenger on 1-9-1995
and since then he continuously worked as messenger in the branch till 7-2-2012. His services were terminated
under an oral of Management without any notice or compensation. He had continuously worked for 240 days
and more in every year including the year preceding his termination, hence the termination of his services is
arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. He has preferred a Writ Petition No.9656/2012 before Hon’ble High Court of
M.P. which was finally disposed by order dated 7-12-2012 with an observance that he could seek relief before
proper forum. According to the workman, the principle of first come and last go was not followed in his case
which is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The work which he has been doing is
of permanent nature. It is being done by another person in the Bank. Accordingly it has been prayed that
holding his termination against law the workman be held entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and
benefits.
3. The case of the Management in the written statement of defense filed is mainly that there is a Local
Implementation Committee which is Welfare Committee of staff members. The Branch Manager of the branch
is the President of the Committee and the Union Representative is the Secretary and there are one or more staff
members in the Committee. The bank provides subsidy to the Committee for doing catering and canteen
service of the staff members. The said Committee recruits canteen boy and the Bank has no say in its
recruitment. The work is also not supervised by the Bank, rather it is controlled and supervised by the
Committee. It is further the case of the Management that the workman was engaged as a canteen boy in the
staff canteen in the year 1992-1994 additionally he owns a generator which he had made available to the Bank
on contract basis for which the Bank used to pay him. According to the Management Bank the workman never
served as an employee of the Bank in any capacity, hence his termination is not against law. Accordingly, it has
been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4. In its rejoinder, the workman has mainly reiterated his case and has further stated that he had supplied
generator service to the Management Bank for which the Bank used to pay him its charges.
5. In evidence, the workman has filed its affidavit as his Examination in Chief. He has been cross-
examined. He has proved photocopy documents Exhibit W-1, letter of Branch Manger dated 31-3-1997,
Certificate of Branch Manager to the Regional Manager dated 6-4-2009 reengaging the workman to be
appointed as messenger Exhibit W-3, certificate issued by Branch Manager dated 5-6-2009 Exhibit W-4 Bill of
payment regarding work as messenger Exhibit W-5 and T.A.Bill Exhibit W-6.
6. Inspite of various opportunities given, the Management has not filed any documents. One
Management witness Anand Lochan dubey, Branch Manager has filed his affidavit. He could not appear for
cross-examination.
7. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for workman Shi Habiullah and Shri Ashish Shroti, learned
counsel for the management. I have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the management.
8. After perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination , in
the case in hand:-
1)
Whether the workman has successfully proved his engagement with the Management
Bank for a period of 240 days or more in the year, preceding the date of his
termination.?
2)
Whether the termination of service of the workman is in violation of Section 25G and
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947?
3)
Subject to the findings on Issue No.1 and Issue No.2, whether the workman is entitled
to any relief?
9. ISSUE NO.1:-
The respective pleadings of the parties on this issue has been detailed earlier. Section 25B of the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 requires to be reproduced and is being reproduced as under:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that
period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account
of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-
out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a
period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3001
an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety
days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred
and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during
a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five
days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
10. The workman has stated in his affidavit which is examination in chief that he had worked as a
Messenger since 1-9-1995 i.e. date of his first appointment as a daily messenger till the date of his termination
i.e. 7-2-2012 when his services were orally terminated by the management. He has further stated that he had
continuously worked for 240 days as a messenger in every year. He was paid Rs.3000/- for this job which is
credited to his saving bank account on monthly basis. Earlier he was paid Rs.1500/- per month. The documents
filed and proved by the workman Exhibit W-1 is the bank documents dated 31-3-1997 seeking permission by
the Branch Manager to engage the workman as permanent messenger. Exhibit W-2 is the certificate issued by
the Bank Manager regarding the work of the workman as messenger. Exhibit W-3 dated 6-4-2009 is a letter
sent by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager stating that the workman has been working as a
messenger in the branch also that there was no messenger in the Branch. The workman is a good and honest
person Exhibit W-4 and Exhibit W-5 and Exhibit W-6 also corroborates the case of the workman. ON the other
hand though there is no evidence to the contrary from the side of the Management except its pleadings, hence
on the basis of above discussion, it is held that the workman in the case in hand has successfully proved his
engagement as a messenger for 240 days and more in every year including the year preceding the date of his
termination. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
11. Issue No.2:-
As it is apparent from the pleadings, the workman has rested his case on two grounds, firstly his
termination is in violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act because no notice or compensation was
given, secondly the principle of first come and last go was not followed, hence his termination was in violation
of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
11. Section 25G and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are being reproduced as follows:-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given
one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for
every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment,
who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of
workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer
and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be
recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
12. As regards the first ground, it is the case of the workman that no notice or compensation was given to
him before termination of his services. He has corroborated this allegation in his statement on oath. The
Management has filed no evidence to rebut this allegation. Hence holding that no notice or compensation was
given to the workman before termination of his services, his termination is held in violation of Section 25G of
the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. As regards the second ground, though there is allegation that the workman
has failed to give details of employees who joined after him as a daily wager and is continuing even after his
termination, hence the second ground is held not proved. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
13. ISSUE NO.3:-
14. On the basis of the findings recorded, the issue arises as to what relief the workman is entitled.
3002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. Learned Counsel for the Management has vehemently contended that since the workman was not
appointed against a sanctioned vacancy, following recruitment process, rather he was a daily wager, a lump sum
compensation payable to him in lieu of all his claims would meet the ends of justice.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman has submitted that the workman has been
continuously working since 1995 to 2012 i.e. for a period of 18 years. There are vacancies of Messenger still
available in the Bank, hence, he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages. Learned Counsel has referred to a
recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JeetuBha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kachh District
Panchayat Civil Appeal No.6890/2022 i.e. SLP(Civil) No.8393/2022. In this case, the workman was a daily
wager. The Award of Labour Court reinstating him was upheld by Hon’ble the Apex Court. Hon’ble the Apex
Court has relied on its previous judgments and has up held the Award of Labour Court reinstating the workman
who was the casual worker with the Management, first appointed on 5-10-1992 and terminated from service on
30-12-2002. As it appears from the perusal of judgment of the referred cases, it was found that the workman
junior to the appellant were retained in service and his services were terminated by the Management. Keeping
this fact in mind, Hon’ble the Apex Court confirmed the reinstatement of the workman. There is an allegation
that principle of first come and last go was not followed in the case of the applicant workman but this allegation
has been held not proved, hence the referred case can be easily distinguished from the case in hand. In the light
of the above, discussion, I am of the considered view that a lump sum compensation quantified at Rs.3,00,000/-
in lieu of all the claims of the workman will meet the ends of justice, in my view in the case in hand. Issue
No.3 is answered accordingly.
17. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management“of State Bank of India , Simariya Branch district, Panna(MP)
in terminating the services of Shri Harjulaldhimer, Ex-Canteen Boy/Messenger w.e.f.
February, 2012 without following the procedure/provision of the Industrial disputes
Act,1947 is held not just and proper.
B. The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees three
lakh) from the date of publication of Award in the Official Gazette, failing which interest
@6% per annum from the Date of publication till the date of receipt of notification of
Award.
18. 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 11-10-2022
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1364.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार कुलसगचि, डॉ. हरर ससंह िौर गिश्वगिद्यालय, सािर, (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष,
डॉ. हरर ससंह िौर (मध्य.), गिश्वगिद्यालय कमिचारी संघ, सािर, (म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/78/2018) को जैसा कक
अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 26/11/2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/94/2018- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1364.—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/78/2018) 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 Registrar, Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar, ( M.P.) and The President, Dr. Hari Singh
Gour(Cent.), University Employ Union, Sagar,(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 26/11/2022.
[No. L- 42011/94/2018- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3003
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/78/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Sandeep Balmiki
President
Dr. Hari Singh Gour(Cent.)
University Employ Union
Resident of Purvyau Touri,,
Sagar, M.P. – 470001.
Versus
The Registrar
Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University
Sagar, M.P. – 470003.
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of October-2022)
1.
As per letter dated 14/11/2018 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-42011/94/2018-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"क्या प्रबंिि रगजस्रार डॉ हरीससंह िौर गिश्वगिद्यालय (केन्द्रीय गिद्यालय) सािर मप्र के द्वारा श्री राजेंर
ससंह ठाकुर, र्ूतपूिि दैगिक िेति र्ोिी डाटा प्रगिगष्ट आपरेटर / सहायक ग्रेड-3 को कदिांक 07.06.2013
से गियोजि में रखिे पश्चात स्थाई कमिचारी के तौर पर डाटा प्रगिगष्ट आपरेटर/ सहायक ग्रेड-3 के पद पर
ििीकरण ि करते हुए उिके िास्तगिक पद का िेतिमाि प्रदाि ि करिा एिं कदिांक 25.10.2017 से
उिकी सेिाएं समाप्त ककये जािे की कायिाही न्द्यायोगचत है ? यकद िहीं तो संबंगित कमिचारी ककस
अिुतोष का हकदार है ?"
2.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their statement of claim/defense.
3.
The case of the workman Union, as put up in their statement of claim, is that is an Association of
persons working for the protection of the interest of employees working for the University. It has authority to
raise a dispute and contest the case on behalf of the workman who has is a member of the Union. The workman
was initially appointed as Computer Operator and continued as daily wager/muster roll employee, grade three
post since his initial appointment in the year 2013 . He approached the Hon’ble High Court of M.P,. when there
was reduction of pay by way of a writ petition. Hon’ble High court directed the University to give benefit of
minimum pay scale notified to the post . The University was declared a Central University vide Central
University Act 2009. Before that, it was a State University as per provisions of M.P. Vishswavidyaklaya
Adhiniyam 1973. The workman was initially appointed as a Computer Operator on 17-6-2013 and started
discharging his duties as Computer Operator. The said appointment was with the prior approval after creation of
the post. The said workman has been continuously working since the date of his first appointment on 17-6-2013
till 25-10-2017 when his services were terminated without preparation of any seniority list, without following
the principles of last come first go and also without any notice or compensation. According to the applicant
workman, the said post are still available with the second party University and is of permanent nature. Further,
since the applicant workman possessed the necessary qualification for the post of data entry operator/lower
division clerk, he is therefore, entitled for classification on the aforesaid post with grade pay of 1900/- per
month with effect from 17-6-2013. He is also further entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and benefits
setting aside his retrenchment as inspite of his best efforts he could not get suitable job for him till now.
4.
According to the workman Union, the duties which were discharged by the applicant workman is of
Class-III post in the University. When the University was a State University a resolution was passed by the
Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 1-5-2008 by exercising powers under Section 24 of
the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam,1973. It was resolved that all the daily wagers/muster roll employees,
employed will be entitled to minimum of pay and scale and allowances which is applicable to the Grades in
which they were discharging their duties. The Executive council further adopted the recommendation of other
pay recommendations of Teachers/Officers and employees vide its resolution dated 22-8-2009. The University
3004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was declared a Central University with the passage of notification of Central Universities Act,2009. Section 4D
of this Act provided that every person earlier employed by the University shall hold his office on same
remuneration and terms and conditions and rules and privileges unless it is altered in consequence with the
statutory rights. The Applicant Workman and the other similarly situated employees who were required to
discharge duties equivalent to Class-III employees were illegally downgraded to Class-IV employees. It is
further the case of the workman Union that the university has not recruited regular employees in Class-III and
Class-IV for the last several years and this work is being discharged by muster roll employees even today also.
Hence, the action of the University denying standard classification pay scale of Grade-III to employees and
making payment to all at the same rate of pay irrespective of work discharged by them is illegal and arbitrary.
It is in this back drop that Hon’ble High Court of M.P. directed the University to pay the applicant workman
and similarly situated petitioners minimum pay in the scale of pay notified for the post against which they are
discharging their duties vide its order dated 26-9-2011 passed in W.P.No.4520/2010. This order has been
affirmed by Hon’ble the High Court vide its order dated 26-7-2013 passed in S.L.P.No.18342-43/2013.
Further, it has been stated that in order to circumvent the order of Hon’ble High Court and Hon. Supreme Court,
the University has not carried proper classification and fitment . Since the applicant workman has not been
given proper classification and fitment and deprived them of all the benefits which is violation of standing order
applicable over the University. Accordingly, it has been prayed that holding the termination of the workman
against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits and also be held entitled for
permanent classification in Grade-III for the post of Computer Operator, Grade-III with Grade Pay Scale of
Rs.1900/- per month w.e.f. completion of six months from the date of completion of six months of his
application or since 17-6-2013 with arrears and interest.
5.
IN the written statement of defence by the University, it has been pleaded that the allegation of the
workman that he is discharging his duties on vacant and sanctioned post is incorrect. To obtain the status of a
permanent employee a person must be employed in terms of statutory rules. The applicant workman was simply
a daily wager/temporary employee on outsourcing basis through a contractor,who cannot hold the post unless he
is appointment in terms of the Act and rules framed there under. An appointment may in violation of
mandatory provisions of a statute is nullity. A persons appointed in such a manner cannot claim any benefit and
rights regarding regularization and permanency in service in the light of Principle laid down in the case of
State of Karnataka & Another Vs. Uma Devi and Others(2006) 4 SCC 1. As regards the order of Hon’ble High
Court and Hon’ble the Apex Court directing minimum pay in the scale , it is the case of the Management that
the this order has been complied with by the management of University. The Competent Authority in the
University has constituted a Committee to examine the case of daily wagers/muster roll employees discharging
the duties of Class-III and on the basis of the records available the daily wage and muster roll employees have
been given pay entitled to Class-III employees and Dearness Allowance. Accordingly the management has
requested that the reference be answered against the workman Union. It is further the case of the management
that the applicant workman was disengaged following the rules. The Management has thus prayed that the
reference be answered against the applicant workman.
6.
The workman Union has filed a rejoinder wherein it has denied the case of management and has
further reiterated its case.
7.
The workman has filed vide list 15 documents and has proved as Exhibit W-1 to W-14, to be referred
to as and when required. The workman Union has further filed and proved photocopy of marksheets and
educational qualification documents of the workman Rajendra Singh Thakur which are collectively marked
Exhibit W-15 to be referred to as and when required.
8.
The workman Union has filed affidavit as his examination in chief . Opportunity of cross-
examination of this witness was given to management . They did not avail this opportunity, hence opportunity
of cross-examination of this witness is closed.
9.
The management has not examined any witness, rather it has filed two photocopy office orders dated
5-5-2014 and 2-11-2016 both admitted by workman Union, marked as Exhibit M1 to M2 respectively.
10.
I have heard arguments of Mr. Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the workman Union. The
management did not appear at the time of arguments. The workman Union has filed written arguments also
which is part of the record. No written arguments has been filed by the Management. I have gone through the
record as well.
11.
On perusal of record in the light of arguments, the following points/issues come up for determination :-
1) Whether the University Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University is an industry as defined
under Section 2(J) and the applicant workman is a workman as defined in Section
2(s) of the of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3005
2. Whether the applicant workman was recruited as a daily wager/muster roll
employee against sanctioned vacancy, following recruitment procedure and also
whether he had the requisite qualification for the job he was recruited?
3. Whether the applicant workman was initially recruited through contractor as a
contractor worker on outsourcing?
4. Whether the workman has been in continuous service of the management from the
date of his first appointment till date and whether his termination is against law?
5. Whether the applicant workman is entitled to be classified as Category-III/Class-III
employee for the post of Assistant Librarian/Assistant Grade-III , if yes from which
date?
12. ISSUE NO.1:-
Before proceeding it is necessary to enumerate Section 2(J) and Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 as below:-
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.]
2(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of
employers andincludes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial
occupation or avocation of workmen;
13. In the case of Rajkumar Vs. Director Education Civil appeal No.1020/2011 Hon’ble the Apex
Court has held that educational institution is industry as defined under Section 2(J) of the Act. As regards the
University, Hon’ble the Apex court has referred to the Judgment of Seven Judges Bench in the case of
Bangalore Water Suppy & Sewarage Board Vs. R.Rajappa and Others , (1978) Scr (3) 207, the relevant
portion is being reproduced as follows:-
“The issue whether educational institution is an ‘industry’, and its employees are ‘workmen’
for 4 (1997) 5 SCC 737 ,the purpose of the ID Act has been answered by a Seven-judge Bench of
this Court way back in the year 1978 in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra). It was
held that educational institution is an industry in terms of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, though not
all of its employees are workmen. It was held as under: “The premises relied on is that the bulk
of the employees in the university is the teaching community. Teachers are not workmen and
cannot raise disputes under the Act. The subordinate staff being only a minor category of
insignificant numbers, the institution must be excluded, going by the predominant character
test. It is one thing to say that an institution is not an industry. It is altogether another thinking
to say that a large number of its employees are not 'workmen' and cannot therefore avail of the
benefits of the Act so the institution ceases to be an industry. The test is not the predominant
number of employees entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Act. The true test is the predominant
nature of the activity. In the case of the university or an educational institution, the nature of
the activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the
university is an industry. The error has crept in, if we may so say with great respect, in mixing
up the numerical strength of the personnel with the nature of the activity. Secondly there are a
number of other activities of the University Administration, demonstrably industrial which are
severable although ancillary to the main cultural enterprise. For instance, a university may
3006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
have a large printing press as a separate but considerable establishment. It may have a large
fleet of transport buses with an army of running staff. It may have a tremendous administrative
strength of officers and clerical cadres. It may have karamcharis of various hues. As the
Corporation of Nagpur has effectively ruled, these operations, viewed in severalty or
collectively, may be treated as industry. It would be strange, indeed, if a university has 50
transport buses, hiring drivers, conductors, cleaners and workshop technicians. How are they
to be denied the benefits of the Act, especially when their work is separable from academic
teaching, merely because the buses are owned by the same corporate personality? We find, with
all defence, little force in this process of nullification of the industrial character of the
University's multi-form operations.” (emphasis laid by this Court)
14.
Hence, in the light of aforesaid judgment, the Dr.Hari Singh Gaur University non teaching staff is held
to be workmen as defined under Section 2(S) and 2(J) and for this purpose, the University is held to be an
Industry as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Issue No.1 is answered
accordingly.
15.
ISSUE NO.2 & 3:-
Since these issues are inter related, they are being taken together.
According to the workman Union, the applicant workman was initially appointed on 17-6-2013 on the post of
data entry operator which was a duly sanction and vacant post. He had the requisite qualification for the post he
was a Bachelor in Arts in short hand and typing certificate in Hindi and English also Post Graduate Diploma in
Computer Operations. It is in the evidence of the workman that University had a duly constituted Selection
committee headed by then Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and other Professors were the Members of the
Committee who after initial scrutiny, of his application and documents filed by him in response to vacancy
notification interviewed him personally and thereafter his name figured in the list of selected candidates. The
workman witness further stated that the case of the management that the workman was an outsourced employee
is against fact. He further states in his evidence that inspite of artificial breaks of one day after every 59 days he
had completed 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his termination. He also states
that the Management did not prepare any seniority list and did not follow the principle of first come and last go,
also did not pay any compensation or notice. He also states that when he had raised a dispute with the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, the Management illegally terminated his services in violation of section 33 of Industrial
Disputes Act,1947. This statement of workman which is on oath is uncross-examined. Exhibit W-15 which is
copy of his educational qualifications goes to show that he is a graduate having required diploma in shorthand
and typing in Hindi and English and also had computer diploma at the time when he was first appointed.
The case of Management is mainly that the workman was never engaged by the University. He was an
outsourced employee. The Management does not disclose the name of the contractor through which the
workman was outsourced in its pleadings nor has lead any evidence oral or documentary as to who was the
contractor though which the services of the workman was outsourced.
Secondly, the RTI documents mentioned above show that the payment to the workman was done by
the University itself and not through any contractor. Also that the provident fund of this workman was also
deposited by the Management itself, the RTI documents regarding the attendance of the workman corroborate
his case that he has worked continuously for 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his
termination.
As pleaded by Workman Union, the management neither prepared any seniority list nor has followed
the principle of first come last go also that no notice or compensation was given to the workman on his
retrenchment. The workman witness has corroborated this allegation in his affidavit as his Examination in
Chief. Management has not filed any document or evidence in rebuttal, hence, this allegation of the workman
Union also stands proved.
Section 25B, 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Rules 76 and
77 of Industrial Disputes Central les,1957 are being reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised
leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due
to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the
meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous
service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3007
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually
worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman
employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a
period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given
one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for
every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment,
who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of
workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer
and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be
recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and
the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as
may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of
India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer
themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
76. Notice of retrenchment.—If any employer desires to retrench any workman
employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service The
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for not less than one year under him
(hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’ in this rule and in rules 77 and 78), he shall give
notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the
Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that Government,
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post in the following
manner:— (a) where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be
sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (b) where
no notice is given to the workman and he is paid one month’s wages in lieu thereof,
notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which such
wages are paid; and (c) where retrenchment is carried out under an agreement which
specifies a date for the termination of service, notice of retrenchment shall be sent so as
to reach the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned,
at least one month before such date: Provided that if the date of termination of service
agreed upon is within 30 days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent
to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant
Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, within 3 days of the
agreement.
77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen.—The employer shall prepare a list of all
workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged
according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be
pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial
establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.
From the aforesaid discussion, following facts are held proved:-
3008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A.There was a vacancy with the management at the time when the workman was given
appointment.
B.The workman had requisite qualification for the post.
C.The case of the Management that the workman was outsourced employee could not be
proved.
D.The case of the workman that he was appointed following recruitment procedure
prevalent at the time stands proved. He worked under the direct control, supervision and
direction of Management, in the Office of management and his wages were paid to him by
Management only and not through any contractor.
E.The workman has successfully proved his continuous employment of more than 240
days in every year inspite of break of one day after every 59 days with the Management.
F.Mandatory Rules of prior notice and compensation as well preparation of seniority list
of daily wager/muster roll employee were not prepared and principle of first come and
last has not been followed.
IN the light of the above findings, Issue No.2 & 3 are answered accordingly.
16. ISSUE NO.4:-
From the aforesaid discussion, the fact that there a vacancy for the post on which the applicant workman is
working and that the applicant workman as requisite qualification of the post as well as that he has been
recruited following the procedure established as mentioned above. Learned Counsel for the workman has
referred to an Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act,1946, Clause 2(b) of Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Central Act 1946 which deals with the classification of the workman referred to by learned
counsel for the workman Union is being reproduced as follows:-
THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
This Act is to require employers in industrial establishments to formally define
conditions of employment under them and submit draft standing orders to certifying
Authority for its Certification. It applies to every industrial establishment wherein 100
(reduced to 50 by the Central Government in respect of the establishments for which it
is the Appropriate Government) or more workmen are employed. And the Central
Government is the appropriate Government in respect of establishments under the
control of Central Government or a Railway Administration or in a major port, mine or
oil field. Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, all RLCs(C)
have been declared Certifying Officers to certify the standing orders in respect of the
establishments falling in the Central Sphere. CLC(C) and all Dy.CLCs(C) have been
declared Appellate Authorities under the Act.
17.
In the case of M.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Heeralal and Chhedalal &
Others(Manu/MP 0138/1974) decided by the 5 Judges Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., it has been held
that in case of any discrepancy in the Standing Orders and Rules made by the Industrial Establishment, the
former shall prevail. Hon’ble High Court has referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Hari Shankar Jain & another (1997) SC 65 which has laid down the same
prepositions, hence so far as the case of the applicant workman is concerned his rights will be governed by the
standard Clause 2(b) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Act 1946 mentioned as above. This
is also established on record documentary/statement of applicant workman for he has been discharging duties
similarly to that done by the regular staff.
18.
Reference of Section 25(T) and Scheduled V of the Unfair Labour Practice of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 which deal with prohibition of unfair labour practice requires to be mentioned here which are being
reproduced as follows:-
[CHAPTER VC
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union,
whether registered under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit
any unfair labour practice.
Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 deals with unfair labour practices adopted by employer, is
being reproduced as follows:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3009
FIFTH SCHEDULE : Unfair Labour Practices
[Section 2(ra)]
I. ON THE PART OF EMPLOYERS AND TRADE UNIONS OF EMPLOYERS
(1) To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to
organize, form, join or assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, that is to say.-
(a) threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;
(b) threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organized;
(c) granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organization,
with a view to undermining the efforts of the trade union at organization.
(2) To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any
trade union, that is to say,
(a) an employer taking an active interest in organizing a trade union of his workmen;
and
(b) an employer showing partiality or granting favor to one of several trade unions
attempting to organize his workmen or to its members, where such a trade union is not a
recognized trade union.
(3) To establish employer sponsored trade unions of workmen.
(4) To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating
against any workman, that is to say,
(a) discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join or
organize a trade union;
(b) discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being a strike
which is deemed to be an illegal strike under this Act);
(c) changing seniority rating or workmen because of trade union activities;
(d) refusing to promote workmen of higher posts on account of their trade union
activities;
(e) giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating discord
amongst other workmen, or to undermine the strength of their trade union;
(f) discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of their
trade union activities.
(5) To discharge or dismiss workmen-
(a) by way of victimization;
(b) not in good faith, but in the colorable exercise of the employer’s rights;
(c) by falsely implicating a workman in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted
evidence;
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegations of absence without leave;
(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic
enquiry or with undue haste;
(g) for misconduct of a minor technical character, without having any regard to the
nature of the particular misconduct or the past record or service of the workman,
thereby leading to a disproportionate punishment.
(6) To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such
work to contractors as a measure of breaking a strike.
(7) To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of
following management policy.
3010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(8) To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct
bond, as a precondition to allowing them to resume work.
(9) To show favoritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.
(10) To employ workmen as "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 workmen.
(11) To discharge or discriminate against any workman for filing charges or testifying
against an employer in any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute.
(12) To recruit workman during a strike which is not an illegal strike.
(13) Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
(14) To indulge in acts of force or violence.
(15) To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognized trade unions.
(16) Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.
19.
It is now established that giving artificial break of one or two days at certain time establishes the fact
that the management of University has adopted un fair labour practice keeping in view the fact that the same
work continued after break and the same persons was engaged for that break even after breaks. Reference of
case law Secretary State of Karnataka and Uma Devi & Others 2006 AIR SCW 1991 has been taken by
Management in its written statement of defence but since in the case in hand it has been proved that the
applicant workman was not appointed through a back door entry rather he entered in the service after
undergoing the recruitment procedure prevalent at that time, hence, the law laid down in that case does not
apply to the case in hand. Judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pooranchand
Pandey Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2000 and Harinandan Prasad Vs,.Food Corporation of India & Ors. Appeal
(civil) 3765 of 2000 require to be mentioned in this respect. Accordingly, the termination of applicant workman
is held against law. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
20.
ISSUE NO.5:-
Learned Counsel for workman has referred to decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Jeetu
Bha Khan Sanghji Jadega Vs. Kuch District panchayat, Civil Appeal No.6890/2022/SLP Civil
No.8393/2022.
Hence, in the light of the above, discussion and finding, the claim of the applicant workman is held proved and
he is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages from the date of his retrenchment till the date of award
and is also held entitled for permanent classification in Class-III for the post of Data Entry Operator/ Assistant
Gr-III with Grade Pay admissible to him from the completion of six months from the date of his initial
appointment and is also held entitled to be treated in continuous service of Management for all service benefits
except back wages. Issue No.5 is answered accordingly.
21.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A The action of Management in terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Singh
Thakur Data Entry Operator/Assistant Grade III, after his appointment with the
Management on June-17-2013 and after continuing him as permanent employee as
data entry operator/Assistant Gr-III and also not classifying his services as data
entry operator/Assistant Gr-III,is held to unjustified in law and fact.
B. The workman is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages from the date of
his retrenchment till the date of award and is also held entitled for permanent
classification in Class-III for the post of Data Entry Operator/ Assistant Gr-III with
Grade Pay admissible to him from the completion of six months from the date of his
initial appointment and is also held entitled to be treated in continuous service of
Management for all service benefits except back wages.
22.
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: 19/10/2022
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3011
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1365.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार कुलसगचि, डॉ. हरर ससंह िौर गिश्वगिद्यालय, सािर, (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष,
डॉ. हरर ससंह िौर (मध्य.), गिश्वगिद्यालय कमिचारी संघ, सािर, (म.प्र.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/75/2018) को जैसा कक
अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 26/11/2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/91/2018- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1365.—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/75/2018) 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 Registrar , Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar,( M.P.) and The President, Dr. Hari Singh
Gour(Cent.),University Employ Union, Sagar,(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 26/11/2022.
[No. L-42011/91/2018 - IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/2018
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Sandeep Balmiki
President
Dr. Hari Singh Gour(Cent.)
University Employ Union
Resident of Purvyau Touri,,
Sagar, M.P. – 470001
….Workman
Versus
The Registrar
Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University
Sagar, M.P. – 470003
….Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of October-2022)
As per letter dated 13/11/2018 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-42011/91/2018-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“क्या प्रबंिि रगजस्रार डॉ हरीससंह िौर गिश्वगिद्यालय (केन्द्रीय गिद्यालय) सािर म०प्र० के
द्वारा श्री. अगमत िहाररया दैगिक िेति र्ोिी ्यूि / सहायक ग्रेड-4 को कदिांक 27.9.2010 से
गियोजि में रखिे पश्चात स्थाई कमिचारी के तौर पर ्यूि/ सहायक ग्रेड-4 के पद पर ििीकरण
ि करते हुए उिके िास्तगिक पद का िेतिमाि प्रदाि ि करिा एिं कदिांक 25.10.2017 से
3012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
उिकी सेिाएं समाप्त ककये जािे की कायिाही न्द्यायोगचत है ? यकद िहीं, तो संबंगित कमिचारी
ककस अिुतोष का हकदार है ?”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their statement of claim/defense.
2. The case of the workman Union, as put up in their statement of claim, is that is an Association of
persons working for the protection of the interest of employees working for the University. It has authority to
raise a dispute and contest the case on behalf of the workman who has is a member of the Union. The workman
was initially appointed Peon/Assistant Grade-IV on Daily Wage/muster roll in Department of Computer
Science, since his initial appointment in the year 2010 . He approached the Hon’ble High Court of M.P,. when
there was reduction of pay by way of a writ petition. Hon’ble High court directed the University to give benefit
of minimum pay scale notified to the post . The University was declared a Central University vide Central
University Act 2009. Before that, it was a State University as per provisions of M.P. Vishswavidyalaya
Adhiniyam 1973. The workman was initially appointed as a Daily wage Peon/Assistant Grade-IV on 27-9-2010
and started discharging his duties as daily wage peon. The said appointment was with the prior approval after
creation of the post. The said workman has been continuously working since the date of his first appointment on
27-9-2010 till 25-10-2017 when his services were terminated without preparation of any seniority list, without
following the principles of last come first go and also without any notice or compensation. According to the
applicant workman, the said post are still available with the second party University and is of permanent nature.
Further, since the applicant workman possessed the necessary qualification for the post of daily wage
peon/Assistant Grade-IV, he is therefore, entitled for classification on the aforesaid post with grade pay of
1900/- per month with effect from 27-9-2010. He is also further entitled to be reinstated with full back wages
and benefits setting aside his retrenchment as inspite of his best efforts he could not get suitable job for him till
now.
3. According to the workman Union, the duties which were discharged by the applicant workman is of
Class-IV post in the University. When the University was a State University a resolution was passed by the
Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 1-5-2008 by exercising powers under Section 24 of
the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam,1973. It was resolved that all the daily wagers/muster roll employees,
employed will be entitled to minimum of pay and scale and allowances which is applicable to the Grades in
which they were discharging their duties. The Executive council further adopted the recommendation of other
pay recommendations of Teachers/Officers and employees vide its resolution dated 22-8-2009. The University
was declared a Central University with the passage of notification of Central Universities Act,2009. Section 4D
of this Act provided that every person earlier employed by the University shall hold his office on same
remuneration and terms and conditions and rules and privileges unless it is altered in consequence with the
statutory rights.It is further the case of the workman Union that the university has not recruited employees on
regular basis in Class-III and Class-IV for the last several years and this work is being discharged by muster roll
employees even today also. Hence, the action of the University denying standard classification pay scale of
Grade-IV to employees and making payment to all at the same rate of pay irrespective of work discharged by
them is illegal and arbitrary. It is in this back drop that Hon’ble High Court of M.P. directed the University to
pay the applicant workman and similarly situated petitioners minimum pay in the scale of pay notified for the
post against which they are discharging their duties vide its order dated 26-9-2011 passed in
W.P.No.4520/2010. This order has been affirmed by Hon’ble the High Court vide its order dated 26-7-2013
passed in S.L.P.No.18342-43/2013. Further, it has been stated that in order to circumvent the order of Hon’ble
High Court and Hon. Supreme Court, the University has not carried proper classification and fitment . Since
the applicant workman has not been given proper classification and fitment and deprived them of all the
benefits which is violation of standing order applicable over the University. Accordingly, it has been prayed that
holding the termination of the workman against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and
benefits and also be held entitled for permanent classification in Grade-IV for the post of daily wage
peon/Assistant Grade-IV with Grade Pay per month w.e.f. completion of six months from the date of
completion of six months of his application or since 27-9-2010 with arrears and interest.
4. IN the written statement of defence by the University, it has been pleaded that the allegation of the
workman that he is discharging his duties on vacant and sanctioned post is incorrect. To obtain the status of a
permanent employee a person must be employed in terms of statutory rules. The applicant workman was simply
a daily wager/temporary employee on outsourcing basis through a contractor,who cannot hold the post unless he
is appointment in terms of the Act and rules framed there under. An appointment may in violation of
mandatory provisions of a statute is nullity. A persons appointed in such a manner cannot claim any benefit and
rights regarding regularization and permanency in service in the light of Principle laid down in the case of
State of Karnataka & Another Vs. Uma Devi and Others(2006) 4 SCC 1. As regards the order of Hon’ble
High Court and Hon’ble the Apex Court directing minimum pay in the scale , it is the case of the Management
that the this order has been complied with by the management of University. The Competent Authority in the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3013
University has constituted a Committee to examine the case of daily wagers/muster roll employees discharging
the duties of Class-III and on the basis of the records available the daily wage and muster roll employees have
been given pay entitled to Class-III employees and Dearness Allowance. Accordingly the management has
requested that the reference be answered against the workman Union. It is further the case of the management
that the applicant workman was disengaged following the rules. The Management has thus prayed that the
reference be answered against the applicant workman.
5. The workman Union has filed a rejoinder wherein it has denied the case of management and has further
reiterated its case.
6. The workman has filed vide list 18 documents and has proved as Exhibit W-1 to W-18, which are RTI
and educational documentsto be referred to as and when required. The workman Union has further filed and
proved photocopy of marksheets and educational qualification documents of the workman Amit Nahariya
which are collectively marked Exhibit W-15 to be referred to as and when required.
7. The workman Union has filed affidavit as his examination in chief . Opportunity of cross-examination
of this witness was given to management . They did not avail this opportunity, hence opportunity of cross-
examination of this witness is closed.
8. The management has not examined any witness, rather it has filed two photocopy office orders dated 5-
5-2014 and 2-11-2016 both admitted by workman Union, marked as Exhibit M1 to M2 respectively.
9. I have heard arguments of Mr. Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the workman Union. The
management did not appear at the time of arguments. The workman Union has filed written arguments also
which is part of the record. No written arguments has been filed by the Management. I have gone through the
record as well.
10. On perusal of record in the light of arguments, the following points/issues come up for determination:-
1) Whether the University Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University is an industry as defined
under Section 2(J) and the applicant workman is a workman as defined in Section 2(s)
of the of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947?
2. Whether the applicant workman was recruited as a daily wage peon/Assistant Grade
Class-IV against sanctioned vacancy, following recruitment procedure and also
whether he had the requisite qualification for the job he was recruited?
3. Whether the applicant workman was initially recruited through contractor as a
contractor worker on outsourcing?
4. Whether the workman has been in continuous service of the management from the date
of his first appointment till date and whether his termination is against law?
5. Whether the applicant workman is entitled to be classified as Category-III/Class-III
employee for the post of Daily Wage Peon/Assistant Grade-IV , if yes from which date?
11. ISSUE NO.1:-
Before proceeding it is necessary to enumerate Section 2(J) and Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 as below:-
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 mensum or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to
3014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.]
2(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of
employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial
occupation or avocation of workmen;
12. In the case of Rajkumar Vs. Director Education Civil appeal No.1020/2011 Hon’ble the Apex
Court has held that educational institution is industry as defined under Section 2(J) of the Act. As regards the
University, Hon’ble the Apex court has referred to the Judgment of Seven Judges Bench in the case of
Bangalore Water Suppy & Sewarage Board Vs. R.Rajappa and Others , (1978) Scr (3) 207, the relevant
portion is being reproduced as follows:-
“The issue whether educational institution is an ‘industry’, and its employees are ‘workmen’ for 4
(1997) 5 SCC 737 ,the purpose of the ID Act has been answered by a Seven-judge Bench of this
Court way back in the year 1978 in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra). It was held that
educational institution is an industry in terms of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, though not all of its
employees are workmen. It was held as under: “The premises relied on is that the bulk of the
employees in the university is the teaching community. Teachers are not workmen and cannot
raise disputes under the Act. The subordinate staff being only a minor category of insignificant
numbers, the institution must be excluded, going by the predominant character test. It is one thing
to say that an institution is not an industry. It is altogether another thinking to say that a large
number of its employees are not 'workmen' and cannot therefore avail of the benefits of the Act so
the institution ceases to be an industry. The test is not the predominant number of employees
entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Act. The true test is the predominant nature of the activity. In
the case of the university or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesis,
education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the university is an industry. The error has
crept in, if we may so say with great respect, in mixing up the numerical strength of the personnel
with the nature of the activity. Secondly there are a number of other activities of the University
Administration, demonstrably industrial which are severable although ancillary to the main
cultural enterprise. For instance, a university may have a large printing press as a separate but
considerable establishment. It may have a large fleet of transport buses with an army of running
staff. It may have a tremendous administrative strength of officers and clerical cadres. It may
have karamcharis of various hues. As the Corporation of Nagpur has effectively ruled, these
operations, viewed in severalty or collectively, may be treated as industry. It would be strange,
indeed, if a university has 50 transport buses, hiring drivers, conductors, cleaners and workshop
technicians. How are they to be denied the benefits of the Act, especially when their work is
separable from academic teaching, merely because the buses are owned by the same corporate
personality? We find, with all defence, little force in this process of nullification of the industrial
character of the University's multi-form operations.” (emphasis laid by this Court)
13.
Hence, in the light of aforesaid judgment, the Dr.Hari Singh Gaur University non teaching staff is held
to be workmen as defined under Section 2(S) and 2(J) and for this purpose, the University is held to be an
Industry as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Issue No.1 is answered
accordingly.
14.
ISSUE NO.2 & 3:-
Since these issues are inter related, they are being taken together.
According to the workman Union, the applicant workman was initially appointed on 27-9-2010 on the post of
Peon/Assistant Grade-IV on casual/ muster roll which was a duly sanctioned and vacant post. He had the
requisite qualification for the post he was a Matriculate. It is in the evidence of the workman that University
had a duly constituted Selection committee headed by then Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and other Professors
were the Members of the Committee who after initial scrutiny, of his application and documents filed by him in
response to vacancy notification interviewed him personally and thereafter his name figured in the list of
selected candidates. The workman witness further stated that the case of the management that the workman was
an outsourced employee is against fact. He further states in his evidence that inspite of artificial breaks of one
day after every 59 days he had completed 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his
termination. He also states that the Management did not prepare any seniority list and did not follow the
principle of first come and last go, also did not pay any compensation or notice. He also states that when he had
raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Management illegally terminated his services in
violation of section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act,1947. This statement of workman which is on oath is uncross-
examined. Exhibit W-18 is copy of his educational qualifications. The case of Management is mainly that the
workman was never engaged by the University. He was an outsourced employee. The Management does not
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3015
disclose the name of the contractor through which the workman was outsourced in its pleadings nor has lead
any evidence oral or documentary as to who was the contractor though which the services of the workman was
outsourced.
Secondly, the RTI documents mentioned above show that the payment to the workman was done by
the University itself and not through any contractor. Also that the provident fund of this workman was also
deposited by the Management itself, the RTI documents regarding the attendance of the workman corroborate
his case that he has worked continuously for 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his
termination.
As pleaded by Workman Union, the management neither prepared any seniority list nor has followed
the principle of first come last go also that no notice or compensation was given to the workman on his
retrenchment. The workman witness has corroborated this allegation in his affidavit as his Examination in
Chief. Management has not filed any document or evidence in rebuttal, hence, this allegation of the workman
Union also stands proved.
Section 25B, 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Rules 76 and
77 of Industrial Disputes Central les,1957 are being reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that
period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account
of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-
out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a
period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under
an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety
days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred
and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during
a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five
days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given
one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time ofretrenchment,
compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every
completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such
authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment,
who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of
workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer
and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be
recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and
the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as
may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of
India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer
themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
76. Notice of retrenchment.—If any employer desires to retrench any workman
employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service The
3016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for not less than one year under him
(hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’ in this rule and in rules 77 and 78), he shall give
notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the
Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that Government,
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post in the following
manner:— (a) where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be
sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (b) where
no notice is given to the workman and he is paid one month’s wages in lieu thereof,
notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which such
wages are paid; and (c) where retrenchment is carried out under an agreement which
specifies a date for the termination of service, notice of retrenchment shall be sent so as
to reach the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned,
at least one month before such date: Provided that if the date of termination of service
agreed upon is within 30 days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent
to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant
Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, within 3 days of the
agreement.
77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen.—The employer shall prepare a list of all
workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged
according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be
posted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial
establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.
From the aforesaid discussion, following facts are held proved:-
A.There was a vacancy with the management at the time when the workman was given
appointment.
B.The workman had requisite qualification for the post.
C.The case of the Management that the workman was outsourced employee could not be
proved.
D.The case of the workman that he was appointed following recruitment procedure
prevalent at the time stands proved. He worked under the direct control, supervision
and direction of Management, in the Office of management and his wages were paid to
him by Management only and not through any contractor.
E.The workman has successfully proved his continuous employment of more than 240
days in every year inspite of break of one day after every 59 days with the Management.
F.Mandatory Rules of prior notice and compensation as well preparation of seniority list
of daily wager/muster roll employee were not prepared and principle of first come and
last has not been followed.
IN the light of the above findings, Issue No.2 & 3 are answered accordingly.
15. ISSUE NO.4:-
From the aforesaid discussion, the fact that there a vacancy for the post on which the applicant workman is
working and that the applicant workman as requisite qualification of the post as well as that he has been
recruited following the procedure established as mentioned above. Learned Counsel for the workman has
referred to an Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act,1946, Clause 2(b) of Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Central Act 1946 which deals with the classification of the workman referred to by learned
counsel for the workman Union is being reproduced as follows:-
THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
This Act is to require employers in industrial establishments to formally define
conditions of employment under them and submit draft standing orders to certifying
Authority for its Certification. It applies to every industrial establishment wherein 100
(reduced to 50 by the Central Government in respect of the establishments for which it
is the Appropriate Government) or more workmen are employed. And the Central
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3017
Government is the appropriate Government in respect of establishments under the
control of Central Government or a Railway Administration or in a major port, mine or
oil field. Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, all RLCs(C)
have been declared Certifying Officers to certify the standing orders in respect of the
establishments falling in the Central Sphere. CLC(C) and all Dy.CLCs(C) have been
declared Appellate Authorities under the Act.
16.
In the case of M.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Heeralal and Chhedalal &
Others(Manu/MP 0138/1974) decided by the 5 Judges Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., it has been held
that in case of any discrepancy in the Standing Orders and Rules made by the Industrial Establishment, the
former shall prevail. Hon’ble High Court has referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Hari Shankar Jain & another (1997) SC 65 which has laid down the same
prepositions, hence so far as the case of the applicant workman is concerned his rights will be governed by the
standard Clause 2(b) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Act 1946 mentioned as above. This
is also established on record documentary/statement of applicant workman for he has been discharging duties
similarly to that done by the regular staff.
17.
Reference of Section 25(T) and Scheduled V of the Unfair Labour Practice of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 which deal with prohibition of unfair labour practice requires to be mentioned here which are being
reproduced as follows:-
[CHAPTER VC
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union,
whether registered under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit
any unfair labour practice.
Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 deals with unfair labour practices adopted by employer, is
being reproduced as follows:-
FIFTH SCHEDULE : Unfair Labour Practices
[Section 2(ra)]
I. ON THE PART OF EMPLOYERS AND TRADE UNIONS OF EMPLOYERS
(1) To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to
organize, form, join or assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, that is to say.-
(a) threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;
(b) threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organized;
(c) granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organization,
with a view to undermining the efforts of the trade union at organization.
(2) To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any
trade union, that is to say,
(a) an employer taking an active interest in organizing a trade union of his workmen;
and
(b) an employer showing partiality or granting favor to one of several trade unions
attempting to organize his workmen or to its members, where such a trade union is not a
recognized trade union.
(3) To establish employer sponsored trade unions of workmen.
(4) To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating
against any workman, that is to say,
(a) discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join or
organize a trade union;
(b) discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being a strike
which is deemed to be an illegal strike under this Act);
(c) changing seniority rating or workmen because of trade union activities;
3018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(d) refusing to promote workmen of higher posts on account of their trade union
activities;
(e) giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating discord
amongst other workmen, or to undermine the strength of their trade union;
(f) discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of their
trade union activities.
(5) To discharge or dismiss workmen-
(a) by way of victimization;
(b) not in good faith, but in the colorable exercise of the employer’s rights;
(c) by falsely implicating a workman in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted
evidence;
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegations of absence without leave;
(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic
enquiry or with undue haste;
(g) for misconduct of a minor technical character, without having any regard to the
nature of the particular misconduct or the past record or service of the workman,
thereby leading to a disproportionate punishment.
(6) To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such
work to contractors as a measure of breaking a strike.
(7) To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of
following management policy.
(8) To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct
bond, as a precondition to allowing them to resume work.
(9) To show favoritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.
(10) To employ workmen as "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 workmen.
(11) To discharge or discriminate against any workman for filing charges or testifying
against an employer in any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute.
(12) To recruit workman during a strike which is not an illegal strike.
(13) Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
(14) To indulge in acts of force or violence.
(15) To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognized trade unions.
(16) Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.
18. It is now established that giving artificial break of one or two days at certain time establishes the
fact that the management of University has adopted un fair labour practice keeping in view the fact that the
same work continued after break and the same persons was engaged for that break even after breaks. Reference
of case law Secretary State of Karnataka and Uma Devi & Others 2006 AIR SCW 1991 has been taken by
Management in its written statement of defence but since in the case in hand it has been proved that the
applicant workman was not appointed through a back door entry rather he entered in the service after
undergoing the recruitment procedure prevalent at that time, hence, the law laid down in that case does not
apply to the case in hand. Judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pooranchand
Pandey Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2000 and Harinandan Prasad Vs,.Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2000 require to be mentioned in this respect. Accordingly, the termination of applicant
workman is held against law. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
19. ISSUE NO.5:-
Learned Counsel for workman has referred to decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Jeetu
Bha Khan Sanghji Jadega Vs. Kuch District panchayat, Civil Appeal No.6890/2022/SLP Civil No.
8393/2022.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3019
Hence, in the light of the above, discussion and finding, the claim of the applicant workman is held proved and
he is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages from the date of his retrenchment till the date of award
and is also held entitled for permanent classification in Class-IV for the post of Peon/ Assistant Gr-IV with
Grade Pay admissible to him from the completion of six months from the date of his initial appointment and is
also held entitled to be treated in continuous service of Management for all service benefits except back wages.
Issue No.5 is answered accordingly.
19. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A
The action of Management in terminating the services of Shri Amit Nahariya Daily
Wage Peon/Assistant Gr-IV, after his appointment with the Management on 27-9-
2010 in Department of Computer Science also not classifying his services as
Peon/Assistant Gr-IV,is held to unjustified in law and fact.
B.
The workman is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages from the date
of his retrenchment till the date of award and is also held entitled for permanent
classification in Class-IV for the post of Peon/ Assistant Gr-IV with Grade Pay
admissible to him from the completion of six months from the date of his initial
appointment and is also held entitled to be treated in continuous service of
Management for all service benefits except back wages.
21. 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: 19/10/2022
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1366.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार प्रबंिक, ररलायंस िेक्स्ट सलंक प्राइिेट गलगमटेड, इंदौर; मैिेजर, अल्काटेल ल्यूसेंट मैिेज्ड सॉल्यूशि (इंगडया)
प्राइिेट गलगमटेड, सी/ओ ररलायंस इंफोकॉम इंफ्रास्रक्चर गलगमटेड, मुंबई; ररलायंस कम्पयुगिकेशि प्राइिेट गलगमटेड,
सतिा (एमपी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री गशि बघेल, कामिार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/07/2016) को जैसा
कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17/11/2022
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40012/32/2015- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1366.—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/07/2016) 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 Manager, Reliance Next Link Pvt.Ltd., Indore ;The Manager, Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution
(India) Pvt.Ltd.,C/o Reliance Inforcom Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai ; Reliance Communication Private Ltd.,
Satna (MP) and Shri Shiv Baghel,Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 17/11/2022.
[No. L- 40012/32/2015- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/7/2016
Present: P.K. SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Shiv Baghel
S/o Shri Girdhar Singh Baghel
H.No.212, Ward No.1, Amarpatan Post & Tehsil
3020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Amarpatam District,Satna-485775.
….Workman
Versus
1.The Manager
Reliance Next Link Pvt.Ltd.
BCM Heights Plot No.A-5
Scheme 54 PU-4,Commercial-2
Vijai Nagar, Near Bombay Hospital
Indore-452010
2. The Manager Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd.
C/o Reliance Inforcom Infrastructure Ltd.
A-8 Buildings, 3rd FloorB-Wing,
Newar MBP, Behind DAKC
Mahape MIDC,Navi Mumbai 400710
3.Reliance Communication Private Ltd.,
Mahihar Road,Nazirabad, Satna(MP)-485001
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 17-10-2022.)
As per letter dated 22-12-2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-40012/32/2015-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri
ShivBAghelw.e.f. 4-12-2014 and retrenchment compensation given to him is
justifiable/legal?if not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from
which date.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
According to the workman he was initially appointed with the Management of Reliance Next
Link/Reliance Communication on 15-10-2004 during his employment. Their employers entered into a
contract with M/s Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd. for providing network services to the
management. The services of 15employees of the establishment of Reliance Communication were transferred
to the Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd. The services of the workman were transferred
according. M/s Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd who accepted the absorption of such workers
including the workman . All of a sudden this contract of Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd was
dissolved and M/s Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd terminated the services after paying
recruitment compensation for one year, treating is services to be w.e.f 12-3-2013 i.e. date on which his
services were terminated to M/s Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd from Reliance
communication. This is also the case of the workman, that after termination of his services, the employers
Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd have given appointment to other persons namely viz
Mahendra Kumar, Rajendra Sajid Praadad pandey Pradeep Chaturvedi who were junior to the applicant
workman. The action of the management is in violation of Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H and Section
25N of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 . Accordingly, it has been prayed that setting aside his termination,
the applicant workman be entitled for reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.
3.
The case of the Management is mainly that while in service of Reliance Communication, the
applicant workman submitted his resignation on March-2013 and joined with Alkatel Lucent Managed
Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd. His resignation was accepted by Reliance Communication. After resignation there
was no employer/employee relation between the workman and Management and the Reliance Company the
third Management Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd has taken a case that he was retrenched
after paying him compensation as the work was not available with them. He received the compensation
without disputing it. He worked with them only from 1-4-2013 for one year.
4.
During the course of hearing none appeared for Management, hence this case proceeded ex-
parte against the management. The workman side has filed its affidavit as its examination in chief. He proved
his interview letter while he was in reliance communication. He also filed and proved his appointment letter
dated 12-12-2013 and recruitment notice.
5.
I have heard ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for the workman Shri Aditya Ahiwasi and
have perused the record.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3021
6.
The Reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
7.
The appointment letter Exhibit W-4 issued by the management of Alkatel Lucent Managed
Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd consequently states that it was a fresh appointment of the workman with the company.
It no where submits that the services of the workman were transferred from Reliance Company to Alkatel
Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd. There is no other document filed or proved by the workman
showing that the services of any workman of Reliance Company was transferred to Alkatel Lucent Managed
Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd at any point of time as alleged by him. The applicant workman could not prove in his
evidence that juniors to him were appointed by any documentary evidence , there is only his self serving
statement which is not sufficient in this respect. In these circumstances, his recruitment after giving him
recruitment compensation cannot be faulted in law. Hence the reference deserves to be answered against the
workman and is answered accordingly.
8.
The action of the Management of Alkatel Lucent Managed Solution(India)Pvt.Ltd in
determining the services of Shri Shiv Baghel after paying retrenchment compensationis held to be legal and
proper.
9.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Shiv BAghel w.e.f. 4-12-2014
and retrenchment compensation given to him is held to be just and legal.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
10.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 17-10-2022
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1367.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक (ओ एंड एम) एिटीपीसी, गबलासपुर (सी.जी.); अपर प्रबंिक और मािि संसािि (प्रमुख),
मैससि एरा इंफ्रा इंजीगियररंि गलगमटेड, िोएडा (यू.पी); पररयोजिा प्रबंिक, एरा इंफ्रा इंजीगियररंि गलगमटेड
एिटीपीसी, गबलासपुर (सी.जी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष, छत्तीसिढ़ कमिचारी मजदूर एकता
संघ, गबलासपुर, छत्तीसिढ़,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/46/2017) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित
करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 26/11/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/03/2017- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/46/2017) 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 The President, Chhattisgarh Kramchari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 26/11/2022.
[No. L- 42011/03/2017- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
3022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/2017
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA H.J.S.(Retd.)
Smt. Padmani Bai,
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.
The Project Manager,
Era Infra Engineering Ltd. NTPC,
Seepat Site, P.O. Ujjawal Nagar
Bilaspur. C.G. – 495555
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 17th day of October-2022)
1.
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-42011/03/2017 – 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. Padmani Bai w/o Shri Chatur Lal 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, 16 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1368.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3023
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la- 51/2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/379/2003- आई.आर(सी.एम-II)
रािेन्र मसंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2022
S.O. 1368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/11/2022.
[No. L-22012/379/2003 -IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol
REFERENCE CASE No. 51 oF 2004
Parties: Management of Patmohna Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Dilip Muchi
Representatives:
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate.
For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
Industry:
Coal. State:
West Bengal. Dated: 21.10.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/379/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute
between the employers that is the Management of Patmohna Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and
the workman Dilip Mochi for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Patmohna Colliery of M/s. ECL in
dismissing Sri Dilip Mochi ignoring his treatment papers and prayer is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled? ”
1.
After receiving Order No. L-22012/379/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2004 of the aforementioned
Reference framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication, a Reference
case No. 51 of 2004 was registered on 14.10.2004. Notices were issued to the Management of Eastern
Coalfields Limited as well as the Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Union, representing the workman,
directing them to file their statements of claim along with relevant documents and list of witnesses in support of
their respective claims.
2.
The Management and union representing the workman filed written statements on 10.06.2005. In the
written statement of the workman it has been averred that Dilip Muchi was a permanent employee of the
company posted as U.G. Loader at Patmohna Colliery of M/s. ECL having UM No. 142177. His date of birth is
30.08.1969 and date of appointment is 27.07.1992. It is disclosed that Dilip Muchi absented from his duty under
Eastern Coalfields Limited from 29.12.1995 to 10.05.1996 i.e. for a period of four months and eleven days only
due to his illness. He informed the Management of ECL about his illness but in spite of such illness the
Management dismissed him from service. According to the workman he was Charge Sheeted on 10.05.1996 for
3024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
his absence from his duty and he sent his reply to the company but Management did not allow him to join his
duty and held a Departmental Enquiry in which he participated and informed the reasons why he was unable to
attend his duty. Documents related to his medical treatment were also produced but his explanation was not
considered and he was finally dismissed from service w.e.f. 26.07.1996.
3.
According to the workman the punishment of dismissal from service is very harsh and an extreme
punishment which should not be awarded against the workman for his absence from duty for a period of four
months and eleven days due to illness. It is contended that the punishment imposed is therefore disproportionate
to the nature of default. The workman further contended that he belongs to weaker section of the society being a
member of Schedule Cast and is unaware about rules and regulations of the company from which the
Management should have taken a lenient view and allowed him to join his duty. Further case of the workman is
that he is an illiterate person having no source of income as such his family members are spending their days in
starving condition. It is urged that the Eastern Coalfields Limited considered a number of cases where workmen
who absented from duty for more than one year were reinstated in service but in his case, the employee was
dismissed for his absence for a shorter period. The workman has challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and prayed for his reinstatement in service and the payment of back wages with all consequential benefits.
4.
The Management of M/s. ECL in their written statement, submitted by Agent of B.M.P. Group,
Sodepur Area, M/s. ECL has admitted that the petitioner Dilip Muchi was a permanent employee of Patmohna
Colliery of M/s. ECL. It is their case that the workman was Charge Sheeted under Ref. No. PM/C-6/58/748
dated 10.05.1996 for his unauthorized absence from duty. The workman replied to the charge and claimed to
have been sick during that period. A Departmental Enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found the
workman guilty of misconduct. The competent authority after perusing the Enquiry Report found nothing to
show any leniency and dismissed Dilip Muchi in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order.
5.
Instant dispute was agitated by the union on 10.03.2003 after passage of seven years without showing
any reason for delay. The Management contended that the grounds for absence disclosed by the workman was
not found reliable. Furthermore, the union has no locus standi to represent the workman as the concerned
workman was not a member of union. According to the Management the dismissal of Dilip Muchi from service
is justified and legal. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
6.
In the instant case Dilip Muchi filed his affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined at length on behalf
of the Management. The letter of dismissal being Ref. No. PMC/C-6/92/1312 dated 26.07.1996 issued by
Manager, Patmohna Colliery of M/s. ECL has been admitted in evidence as Exhibit WE-I. The letter of Deputy
Chief Personnel Manager dated 18/19.07.1996 relating to dismissal of Dilip Muchi with immediate effect is
marked as Exhibit WE-II. The report of the Enquiry Officer dated 29.06.1996 has been marked as Exhibit WE-
III. The representation of the workman regarding his illness, that he was suffering for Tuberculosis (T.B.) has
been marked as Exhibit WE-IV. The Notice of enquiry dated 07.06.1996 issued to the workman has been
marked as Exhibit WE-V. Charge Sheet issued to the workman dated 10.05.1996 and the explanation submitted
by the workman for his absence from duty has been marked as Exhibit WE-VI. Copies of medical
prescriptions dated 29.12.1995, 15.03.1996, and 15.05.1996 have been produced before this Tribunal but the
same has not been marked as Exhibits as the author of such documents has not been examined to establish their
veracity.
7.
The concerned workman in his affidavit has stated that copy of Enquiry Officer’s report and second
Show cause notice were not issued to him before his dismissal and he was not provided with the opportunity to
respond. The witness further stated that he used to reside at Jamuria but his place of work at Patmohna Colliery
was far away from his place of residence as such during his illness he could not reach the colliery. The
workman / petitioner stated that the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited considered a number of cases of
dismissal on the charges of absenteeism and on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement signed by the
Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen represented by unions on 22.05.2007 the
employees below forty-five years of age and who were dismissed for being absent for a period of nine months
were reinstated. It is the case of the workman that he did not have any ill intention to remain absent from his
duty. Accordingly, he may be allowed to join and his full wages may be released. In course of cross-
examination the witness deposed that he was medically treated by Dr. Kajal Chatterjee, a private practitioner at
A. B. Pit Colliery. He also admitted that there is a doctor of Eastern Coalfields Limited in Patmohna Colliery
but he did not go to him for his medical treatment. Furthermore, Akhalpur P.H.C. is nearest to Jamuria village,
but he did not even go there for his treatment. A suggestion was given to the witness that the Medical
Certificates produced by him have been purchased, but the witness denied the same. During evidence the
workman did not examine Dr. Kajal Chatterjee to prove that he was actually suffering from Tuberculosis. The
witness has not produced any confirmatory Test Report to establish that he was suffering from Tuberculosis at
the relevant time.
8.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the Management argued that the workman was dismissed due
to his unauthorized absence for a period of four months and eleven days. After service of notice for enquiry
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 17, 2022/अग्रिायण 26, 1944
3025
(Exhibit WE-V) dated 07.06.1991 the workman participated in the enquiry but failed to adduce convincing
evidence to establish that he was suffering from Tuberculosis during such period of absence. Opportunity was
given to the workman to be represented and assisted by any other co-worker during the enquiry but he did not
avail the same. Though he was absent from 29.12.1995 the name of the workman did not appear in the sick list
of the colliery, which implied that he did not inform about his illness to the company. During the Departmental
Enquiry Mr. Mangalmoy Sarkar, Leave Clerk and Mr. V. K. Batabyal were examined for the Eastern Coalfields
Limited Management. Dilip Muchi also examined himself as a defence witness. He admitted about his absence
from duty from 04.10.1995 to 10.05.1996 which is more than four months and eleven 11 days as claimed by the
workman. He stated that he was under the medical treatment of Dr. Kajal Chatterjee, a private practitioner who
was treating him for Tuberculosis. As there was no adult male member in his family intimation could not be
given to his office. In course of cross-examination, he deposed that he did not like to engage his co-worker to
assist him at the time of enquiry nor did he want to cross-examination the Management Witness. Learned
advocate for Management argued that the workman has admitted his unauthorized absence and could not
produce any convincing documents to establish his case of illness. Accordingly, Manager of Patmohna Colliery
of M/s. ECL on the basis of the report of the Departmental Enquiry has rightly dismissed the workman from
service w.e.f. 26.07.1996 i.e. the date of issuance of the letter of dismissal.
9.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Union, representative of the workman
controverted the argument advanced on behalf of the Management and submitted that the workman was absent
for a period of four months and eleven days due to his illness and the Management should have leniently
considered the case of the workman. It is argued that in the Memorandum of Settlement under section 12(3) of
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, arrived between the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workmen, represented by various Trade Unions dated 22.05.2007, in Point No. 7 Management agreed to
reinstate the employees who were dismissed from service for the reason of absenting for a period for nine
months and were below the age of forty-five years and such matter would be considered on merit. It is
contended that the workman absented for a shorter period and his case should be considered for re-instatement.
10.
It is also argued on behalf of the workman that the delinquent employee was not served with a copy of
the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty, which is a harsh and
extreme punishment. Mr. Rakesh Kumar urged that this is a fit case where the workman should be reinstated in
his service and should receive back wages and all consequential benefits.
11.
I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence led by the parties.
Undisputedly the workman was absent from his duty from 29.12.1995 to 10.05.1996, i.e. the date of issuance of
Charge Sheet without any intimation. The workman having received the Charge Sheet which disclosed his
unauthorized absence, causing dislocation of Company’s work and inconvenience, participated in the
Departmental Enquiry. He claimed to have been suffering from Tuberculosis and that he was under the medical
treatment of one Dr. Kajal Chatterjee. The witness could not produce proper document to establish that he was
suffering from Tuberculosis. The concerned doctor who was only a registered medical practitioner has not been
examined. The medical prescriptions were not admitted in evidence as the author of such documents was not
examined to verify the same.
12.
In view of such facts and material the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding that the petitioner was guilty
of unauthorized absence causing dislocation of Company’s work.
13.
In my considerate view the Management went disarray after the stage of enquiry when without
supplying a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report and any second Show cause notice, the Manager of Patmohna
Colliery of M/s. ECL dismissed the workman from service without giving him any opportunity of hearing
before imposing extreme punishment of dismissal.
14.
In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan, 1999 (61) FLR, 376, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “When the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee
has a right to receive the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion
with regard to the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary
Authority takes its decision on the charges, is denial of opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and
is a breach of Principle of natural justice”. Before passing an Order of termination it is therefore mandatory to
issue a Second Show cause notice to the employee in order to provide an opportunity to the workman to plead
for either no penalty or lesser penalty.
15.
In the case of Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India Vs. B. Karunakar; Appeal
(civil) 3056 of 1991, the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “It will thus be seen that where
the Inquiry Officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages.
The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence,
Inquiry Officer's report and the delinquent employee's reply to it. The second stage begins when the
disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority
3026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2022/ AGRAHAYANA 26, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached. The employee's right to
receive the report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of the
inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence
in the disciplinary proceedings.” It is therefore crystal clear that before the Disciplinary Authority of Eastern
Coalfields Limited issued the letter dated 26.07.1996 dismissing Dilip Muchi with immediate effect, the
provisions of supplying a copy of Enquiry Officer’s Report to the employee has not been complied. Therefore,
there is an evident breach of the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited
decisions. The order of dismissal of Dilip Muchi w.e.f. 26.07.1996 is therefore vitiated.
16.
In the subsequent years a Memorandum of Agreement was entered between the Trade Unions
representing the workmen in the collieries of Eastern Coalfields Limited and Management of Eastern Coalfields
Limited on 22.05.2007, where it was agreed that the Management would re-instate the employees who were
dismissed for the reason of absenting for a period of nine months and were below forty-five years of age. In the
instant case which occurred about ten years prior to such Memorandum of Settlement was signed the workman
was below forty-five years of age and he was absent for less than nine months. Therefore, it is a fit case where
the Management should have considered the punishment imposed upon the workman in a lenient manner. An
extreme measure has been adopted by the Management in dismissing a permanent employee for absenting from
service, though he may not have been able to satisfactorily establish that he was suffering from illness during
such period. It is therefore apparent that though the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 can have no
retrospective effect, the fact that Natural Justice has been violated entails reinstatement of the workman, if he is
otherwise fit and willing to perform.
17.
in such view of the matter I find and hold that the order of dismissal passed against the workman in
letter Ref. No. PMC/C-6/92/1312 dated 26.07.1996 is violative of natural justice and is hereby set-aside. The
Management of Patmohna Colliery of M/s. ECL is directed to issue notice to the workman Dilip Muchi for his
reinstatement in service within a period of two months from the date of publication of Notification of Award
under section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The period of absence from duty due to dismissal from
service from 29.12.1995 till the date of reinstatement shall be treated as Dies non. The workman shall not be
entitled to any back wages or consequential relief for the period during which he did not render any service due
to such disqualification. Accordingly, an Award is passed in favour of the workman for his reinstatement in
service simpliciter.
Hence,
ORDER
Let an Award of reinstatement of the workman in the same post be passed in the light of my above
findings. Copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and
necessary action. The Reference is accordingly disposed of.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, 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.
MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Date: 2022.12.29 15:14:24 +05'30'