808 GI/2023

(303)

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. 7]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 12—फरवरी 18, 2023, िजनवार/ माघ 23—माघ 29, 1944

No. 7]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 12—FEBRUARY 18, 2023, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 23—MAGHA 29, 1944

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 176.—जनक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी जनगम अजिजनयम, 1961 (1961 का 47) की िारा 6 की

उप-िारा (2) की िारा (ii) के साथ पठठत िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के खंड (घ) द्वारा प्रित् त िज‍ तयों का प्रयोग

करते हुए केन् रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री िािी के. वी., अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रीय कृजि और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक को उनके

नामांकन की अजिसूचना की तारीख से तीन साल की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो, जनक्षेप

बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी जनगम (डीआईसीिीसी) के जनिेिक मण्डल में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै।

[फा. सं. 8/3/2017-बीओ-II]

सुिमा ककंडो, संयुक्त जनिेिक

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28022023-243955

CG-DL-W-28022023-243955

304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2023

S.O. 176.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with

clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961

(47 of 1961), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Shaji K.V., Chairman, National Bank for

Agriculture and Rural Development as a Director on the Board of Directors of the Deposit Insurance and Credit

Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for a period of three years from the date of notification of his nomination or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 8/3/2017-BO. II]

SUSHMA KINDO, Jt. Director

कार्मिक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 177.—केंर सरकार, रािभािा [संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग] जनयमावली, 1976

(यथा संिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण

जवभाग के अिीनस्ट् थ कायािलय केंरीय अन् वेिण ब् यूरो के अिीन जनम् नजलजखत कायािलयों, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से

अजिक कमिचाठरयों ने हिंिी भािा का कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, अजिसूजचत करती िैः-

1. जविेि एकक, कोलकाता

2. आर्थिक अपराि िाखा-IV, कोलकाता

3. बैंककंग प्रजतभूजत एवं िोखािड़ी िाखा, कोलकाता

4. भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िाखा, श्रीनगर

[फा. सं. ई.-11017/1/2022-हिंिी]

एस. डी. िमाि, संयुक्त सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2023

S.O. 177.—Central Government in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of official languages [Use for

official purpose of union] Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007and 2011) hereby notifies the following

offices under the Central Bureau of Investigation, a subordinate office of Department of Personnel and Training

whose more than 80 percent staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi language:-

1. Special Unit, Kolkata

2. Economic Offences Branch –IV, Kolkata

3. Bank Securities and Fraud Branch, Kolkata

4. Anti Corruption Branch, Srinagar

[F. No. E-11017/1/2022-Hindi]

S. D. SHARMA, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

305

कृजि एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय

(कृजि अनुसंिान एवं जिक्षा जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 178.—केन् रीय सरकार, कृजि एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय, कृजि अनुसंिान एवं जिक्षा जवभाग,

रािभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के

अनुसरण में भा.कृ.अ.प.–राष् रीय मााँस अनुसंिान केन् र, चेंजगचेलाि, पोस्ट् ट बॉ‍ स सं.-19, बोडुप् पल, िैिराबाि-

500092 को, जिसमें 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमिचाठरयों ने जिन् िी का कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, एतिद्वारा

अजिसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं. 13-05/2020-जिन् िी]

बलराि, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 178.—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, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of

Agricultural Research & Education hereby notifies the I.C.A.R - National Research Centre on Meat,

Chengicherla, Post Box No.-19, Boduppal, Hyderabad-500092, where more than 80% of staff have acquired

the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-05/2020-Hindi]

BALRAJ, Under Secy.

वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाजणज्य जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 179.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाित (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का

22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ पठठत जनयाित (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम

12, के उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैससि क्वाजलटी सर्विसेि एंड सोलुिन्स (गोवा), घर

सं.- 1576, सुकलभटवाडी, एट पोस्ट्ट: रेडी, तालुक : वेंगुलाि, जिला: हसंिुिुगि, मिाराष्ट्र- 416517, (जिसे

एतद्पश्चात उक्त अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन विि की

अवजि के जलए,वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची

में जनर्ििष् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में

उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-।, अथाित लौि अयस्ट्क और बॉ‍साइट के जनयाित से पूवि

जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन रेडी पत्तन और ियगढ़ पत्तन में उ‍ त खजनि और अयस्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक

अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाित :

(i) यि अजभकरण, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाित (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन

जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयाित जनरीक्षण पठरिि द्वारा जनजमत्त नामजनर्ििष्ट

अजिकाठरयों को पयािप्त सुजविाएं िेगी;

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्ििष् ट अपने कायो का जनष् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक

(जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयाित जनरीक्षण पठरिि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलजखत रूप में, दिए

गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/1/2023 - जनयाित जनरीक्षण]

एम. बालािी, संयुक्त सजचव

306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2023

S.O. 179.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes, M/s Quality Services and Solutions

(Goa), H. No. -1576, Sukalbhatwadi, At Post: Redi, Taluk: Vengurla, District: Sindhudurg, Maharashtra-

416517, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for a period of three years with effect from

the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group

- I, namely Iron Ore and Bauxite, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated

20^th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Redi Port and Jaigad Port,

subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection

Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals

and Ores – Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by

such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection

Council may give, in writing from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/1/2023 - Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 180.— केन् रीय सरकार, रािभािा (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

साविजनक क्षेत्र के उपक्रम के जनम् नजलजखत कायािलयों, जिनके 80 या अजिक प्रजतित कमिचारी वृन् ि ने जिन् िी का

कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै:-

गेल गैस जलजमटेड, 3सरी मंजिल,

एमएस कॉम्पलै‍स, एस-44, न्यू बेल रोड,

बैंगलुरू-560054

गेल गैस जलजमटेड,

ए-7, 1ली मंजिल, गंगोत्री अपाटिमेंट,

एबी रोड, िेवास-455001

गेल गैस जलजमटेड,

प्लॉट नं. 2241, एचआईआईडीसी, औद्योजगक क्षेत्र,

फेि-II, जबस्ट्वाजमल-िथेरी रोड, राय

सोनीपत-131029

4. िजल्िया ठरफाइनरी टर्मिनल,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (जवपणन प्रभाग),

पीओ िजल्िया ठरफाइनरी,

जिला जमिनापुर (पूवि) – 721606

िजल्िया ठरफाइनरी बी,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (जवपणन प्रभाग),

ठरवर ररंग रोड, रािा मािव चक, पीओ खिांचक,

जिला जमिनापुर िजल्िया – 721602

6. भारत पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड,

प्रािेजिक कायािलय, ठरटेल िमिेिपुर बमािमाइन,

गुडिेड रोड, िमिेिपुर, झारखंड - 831007

[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.]

िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उप जनिेिक (रािभािा)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

307

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 180.—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 Gas Limited,

3rd Floor, MS Complex, S-44,

New Bel Road,

Bangalore – 560054

2. Gail Gas Limited,

A-7, 1st Floor, Gangotri Apartment, AB

Road, Dewas -455001

3. Gail Gas Limited,

Plot no. 2241, HIIDC, Industrial Area,

Phase-II, Biswamil-Jatheri Road, Rai

Sonepat-131029

4. Haldia Refinery Terminal,

Indian

Oil

Corporation

Limited

(Marketing Division), PO Haldia Refinery,

Distt. Midnapore (East) – 721606

5. Haldia Refinery B,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

(Marketing Division), River Ring

Road, Radha Madhav Chak,

PO Khjanchak, Distt. Midnapore

Haldia – 721602

6. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,

Regional

Office,

Retail

Jamshedpur

Barmine, Goodshed Road, Jamshedpur,

Jharkhand - 831007

[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL]

SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 181.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार प्रभारी, मैससस ररचर्सि एंर् क्रुर्ास गिगमटेर्, अंबत्तूर, चेन्नई, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और महासगचि,

अंबत्तूर औद्योगिक एस्टेट इंजीगियररंि कमसचारी संघ, िेंकटपुरम, अंबत्तूर,चेन्नई, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दसष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक न्द्यायागिकरण सह श्रम न्द्यायािय - चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदभस सं. 46/2017) को जैसा कक अिुिग्नक में

कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.01.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/153/2016-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2023

S.O. 181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2017) 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

Incharge, M/s Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. ,Ambattur ,Chennai and The General Secretary, Ambattur Industrial

Estate Engineering Employee’s Union, Venkatapuram, Ambattur OT,Chennai, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.01.2022.

[No. L-42011/153/2016-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

Thursday, the 30^th June, 2022

Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer

ID No. 46/2017

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Ambattur Industrial Estate

Engineering Employee’s Union

No. 8, Ramachandra Street

Venkatapuram, Ambattur OT

Chennai-600053 ….1^st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

M/s Richardson & Cruddas Ltd.

Represented by its Unit Incharge

69-D, 12^th Street, SIDCO Industrial Estate

Ambattur

Chennai-600098

…..2^nd Party/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocate, Sri V. Ajoy Khose

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Advocate, Sri R. Madanagopal

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/153/2016-

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 demand of General Secretary, Ambattur Industrial Estate Engineerin

Employee’s Union in seeking permanency to its members of temporary Lab staff

(Viz) S/Sh 1. V. Arun Kumar 2. K. Vijay Kumar 3. K. Seetharaman 4. V.

Mayakkaannan & 5. V.Raghuvaran in the establishment of M/s Richardson &

Cruddas (1972) Ltd., Chennai Unit is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they

are entitled to?

2. On receipt of the above reference from the Appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is

registered as ID 46/2017 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to

06.06.2017. Both parties appeared. The Second Party entered appearance. Vakalatnama was filed by the Counsel.

On the next date of posting i.e. on 23.06.2017, the Counsel for the First Party-Petitioner Union filed

Vakalatnama. The First Party was directed to file Claim Statement and Documents. Neither the General Secretary

of the Union nor any of the Petitioners turned up nor filed the Claim Statement resulting several adjournments

(almost 20) till the end of the year 2019. Further 6 adjournments were afforded to the First party Union in the

2020. The Petitioner Union failed to file the Claim statement. However, without resorting to any coercive action

against the First Party Petitioner’s Union, the Tribunal viewed sympathetically and suo-moto afforded

adjournments almost 6 in the year 2021 considering the prevailed though situation of Pandemic COVID-19. The

General Secretary of the First Party Union did not turn up. Not a single petition was filed for adjournment.

However, for the ends of justice, the First Party Union was afforded with some more opportunities by re-listing

the case on 05.01.2022 and 04.02.2022. None on behalf First Party Union appeared nor filed the Claim

Statement.

3. As such, in view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, it appears the First Party Union is not

interested to proceed with the case. On the other hand, the case is simply dragged to an extent of almost

approaching 5 years only due to non-cooperation of the First Party Union. Due to non-appearance and

participation in the proceeding by the First Party, this Tribunal is constrained to conclude the proceeding as it

deems there exists no dispute for adjudication in between the parties as per the reference.

In the result the ID case stands dismissed.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

309

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 182.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार कायसकारी गिदेिक, भारत हैिी इिेगरिकल्स गिगमटेर्, गत्रगचरापल्िी; गििेष अगिकारी, भेि

कॉम्प्िेरस कॉप िेबर कॉन्द्िैरट सोसाइटी, गत्रगचरापल्िी, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और सगचि, बीएचईएि

ििािा ओपंथा थोझीिािार िािा संिम, गतरुिेरुम्पबुर, गतरुगचरापल्िी, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक न्द्यायागिकरण सह श्रम न्द्यायािय-चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदभस सं. 121/2015) को जैसा कक अिुिग्नक में

[सं. एल-42011/07/2015-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2023

S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 121/2015) 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 Executive Director ,Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,Trichirappalli ;The Special Officer, BHEL

Complex Coop. Labour Contract Society, Trichirappali and The Secretary, BHEL Valaga Oppandha

Thozhilalar Nala Sangam, Thiruverambur, Trichirappalli, which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 16.01.2022.

[No. L-42011/07/2015–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 121/2015

Dtd: 01.12.2022

The Secretary

BHEL Valaga Oppandha Thozhilalar Nala Sangam

5, Dheen Complex, First Floor

Thiruverambur

Trichirappalli-620013 ….First Party – Petitioner Sangham

AND

The Executive Director

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Trichirappalli-620014

….First Respondent

The Special Officer

BHEL Complex Coop. Labour Contract

Society

24, Building BHEL

Trichirappali-620014

…Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the First Party Sangham

Advocate, Sri D. Veerasekaran

For the First Respondent

: Advocates, M/s Fox Mandal &

Associate

310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Second Respondent

Advocate, Mr. Y. Prakash

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/07/2015-IR

(DU) dtd. 04.09.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the demand of BHEL, Valaga Oppandha Thozhilalar Nala Sangam (BHEL

Contract Labour Union), Trichy to absorb and regularize the members of BHEL Complex

Cooperative Labourers is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is

registered as ID No. 121/2015 and notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to

30.09.2015

The First Party Petitioners Union under the name and style “ BHEL Valaga Oppandha Thozhilalar

Nala Sangham” (hereinafter be referred as First Party “Sangham”) pleads to have been affiliated to “Dravidar

Labour Union’, a Registered Labour Union with the object to look after the welfare of all members of Second

Respondent of BHEL Complex Cooperative Contract Society. There were 1121 members working under the

First Respondent “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd” (BHEL). It is contended by the First Party “Sangham” that in

order to reduce expenditure on work force, the First Respondent established Contract Labour System to carry

out the regular and permanent work without any hindrance and set up the “ BHEL Complex Coop Labour

Contract Society” (the Second Respondent) which is not a genuine one but created for the obvious purpose

through a sham and nominal arrangement between both the Respondents. This arrangement was made only to

deprive the workers from their absorption and all eligible entitlements including financial benefits. The

persuasive control is with the First Respondent. On account of their strategic position in the First Respondent,

the Second Respondent Society has exercised only minimal control. As such, almost all administrative functions

and all control over the employees of Second Respondent was under the domain of First Respondent. Besides

major portion of funds are provided by First Respondent to cater to the needs of its staff and work force. The

Wages and Bonus were also determined by the First Respondent.

It is further pleaded that the job carried out by the members of the First Party Sangham are regular in

nature as they performed the identical works alongwith the regular employees of the First Respondent. They

were issued with Identity Card/Punching Card for Attendance, Uniform, Safety Shoe, PF, ESI, Gratuity, Bonus

and Pension as provided to regular skilled workers of First Respondent.

The workers of one of such unit at Haridwar were made permanent whereas the members of the First Party

Sangham even though performing the job of perennial in nature, were never been treated equally nor paid with

equal salary/wage or any other benefits at par with the regular employees. By the passage of time, some of the

employees have already retired without getting any financial benefit. The grievances of the Petitioners- First

Party Sangham could not be ventilated before the Competent Authority as the officials of the Executive Body

were the nominated by the First Respondent. The persuasive control was always with the First Respondent.

The First Party Sangham prays to the Tribunal to impart necessary direction to the First Respondent

to regularize and to absorb the workers listed in Annexure-I (not available) with effect from the date of

joining of the respective employees with consequent relief i.e. continuity of service, differential wages and other

monetary benefits. It is submitted that there was no genuine contract in between the Respondents but a contract

was initiated for obvious purpose to deprive the Petitioners from their entitlement, thus the contract between

the Respondents is a sham and camouflaged to hide the reality.

The First Party Sangham accordingly claim their absorption and regularisation. Reliance is placed on

a plethora of judicial verdicts of the Honb’le Apex Court that is in the case of Food Corporation of India Vs.

General Secretary, FCI India Employees Union and Others and in the case of in Food Corporation of India

Vs. Workmen through the Convener and Another reported in 2018 LAB I.C 4002. Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, UKAI Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Others

in (1995) 5 SCC 27.

The First Party Sangham while claimed their regularization places reliance in the case of General Manager,

BHEL, Ranipet Vs. Canteen Workers Union, Chennai and 102 Others reported in 2015 II LLJ 12 (MAD).

The Learned Counsel also drew attention on the judicial verdict of the High Court of Judicature of Madras in

Writ Appeal No. 875 of 2010 dtd. 10.02.2005 2015 II LLJ 12 MAD. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

311

for the First Party Petitioner Sangham that the Hon’ble Court confirmed the Order of the Labour Court, Vellore.

The Labour Court directed the Management to regularize the Canteen Workers. It is submitted that the case in

hand is almost similar and identical to the above stated case and therefore the Petitioners of First Party Sangham

are entitled to the relief as sought for. The issue of maintainability of reference was challenged by the

Respondent at different Forum and set at rest when the Hon’ble Court in WA 163/2016 directed the Tribunal

to adjudicate the issue of maintainability of reference as “Preliminary Issue”. Thus, pursuant to the

Hon’ble Court’s direction in WA 163/2016 dtd. 28.07.2016, the Tribunal adjudicated the “Preliminary Issue” by

hearing both parties at length. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sangam found to have argued the matter

relying on a catena of judicial verdicts. The Tribunal adjudicated the Issue holding the reference as

maintainable vide Order dtd. 11.01.2017. The citations accordingly needs no more discussion.

Traversing the claim of the First Party Sangham, both the Respondents entered appearance filing their

Counter Statements separately with some pleadings on some common facts. The First Respondent BHEL is a

Central Public Sector Enterprise, having one of its manufacturing unit at Thiruchirappalli started operation in

the year 1964. It is engaged in manufacturing of High Pressure Boilers, Boiler Components, Valves, Seamless

Steel Tubes, etc. It has registered itself as a Principal Employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 and started functioning with more than 8700 permanent employees. At present, it engaged

around 98 Contractors who in turn are deploying about 2500 contract labourers daily in average. The Second

Respondent, the “BHEL Complex Coop. Labour Contract Society” is one of such Contractors, registered under

the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 and possesses the valid license under the CLRA Act, 1970.

Ever since the incorporation of the Second Respondent, it has been undertaking work-contracts for different

organizations, in or around Trichy i.e. for HAPP, NIT and First Respondent, BHEL. The Second Respondent

mostly gets work-contract from the Principal Employer-BHEL-First Respondent to perform menial and

unskilled jobs like cleaning and conservancy works of building, cleaning of factory shop floors, loading and

unloading, serving of water, snacks, tea and coffee, upkeep and cleaning of Office Furniture, Horticulture

activities, supply of tapals etc. and contends that none of such works are abolished or prohibited under the

CLRA Act. The First Respondent being the Principal Employer ensures disbursement of fair wages to all its

Contract Labour Force alongwith all benefits provided under various laws in force. All the Contractors,

including the Second Respondent have been paying the wages to the employees at the rate of Rs. 3,200/- to Rs.

4,100/- which is a mandatory condition stipulated by the First Respondent as part of the contractual terms

which is necessarily higher than the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Tamilnadu. The

Contract Workers are also covered under the Canteen facility.

Both the Respondents in their Counter Statements also categorically pleaded that the services of

employees of the Second Respondent Society are regulated by the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Society itself. The

provisions of CLRA Act are applicable to both the Respondents and both the Respondents scrupulously

followed it. The Second Respondent being a Cooperative Society under the Tamil Nadu Government has got

the separate entity to engage the employees and regulated by the Second Respondent Society itself. The First

Respondent never exercises control or supervision over the employees of Second Respondent who were

deployed to First Respondent as a measure of contractual obligation by the Second Respondent It is also

contended by both the Respondents that the periodical elections were conducted as per the notification of

Government of Tamil Nadu. In adherence to the bye-law, the Second Respondent is governed under the

Tamilnadu Co-op Societies Act.

The adult members who hailed from surrounding 10 villages attaining minimum age of 18 years,

irrespective of any educational qualification were engaged depending on contract of First Respondent, BHEL,

Trichy. The members were directly employed by the Second Respondent Society to perform the contractual

obligation made in between the First and Second Respondent. The funds are released as per the bills raised by

the Second Respondent in consonance to the “Work Contract“. Thus the contractual payments are accordingly

made by First Respondent to the Second Respondent. Accordingly, it is emphatically pleaded that there exists

no Employer-Employee Relationship in between the members First Party Sangham with the First Respondent. It

is further contended that in such case if any claim to regularisation or permanency or full membership or

improvement of service condition, whenever made and if maintainable, can only be claimed against Second

Respondent. The Learned Counsels for both Respondents advanced their respective argument placing reliance

on a plethora of judicial pronouncement (shall be discussed as per applicability), in support of their respective

pleadings that the claim of First Party Sangham as against First Respondent is without any basis and the case is

liable for dismissal.

10.

In view of the pleading of Thus the following issues are settled for a fair and proper adjudication.

(i)

Whether there exists any Employer-Employee relationship between the First

Respondent – “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.” (BHEL) and Members of the

Second Respondent, the “BHEL Complex Co-Op Labour Contract Society”?

312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii)

If the demand of the First Party Sangham for absorption and regularization of

its Members by the First Respondent-BHEL is legal and justified?

(iii)

To what relief the Members of First Party Sangham?

Issue No. (i) and (ii)

Since both the issues are inter-linked and inter-alia, taken up together for a common discussion.

11.

Both parties adduced oral evidence through their respective witnesses and advanced

arguments relying on several documents. Sh V. Shanmugam the General Secretary of the First Party Sangham

and one of the Petitioners viz. K. Rayar adduced evidence as WW1 and WW2 respectively in support of the

pleadings. 41 numbers of documents are produced and marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W41.

Both the Respondents filed documents separately. The First Respondent produced 22 documents marked as

Ext.M1 to Ext.M22 (for R1). The Second Respondent relied on 17 documents marked as Ext.M1 to Ext.M17

(for R2). The Additional General Manager, Shri K. Murali of First Respondent-BHEL led evidence as MW1.

The Second Respondent chose not to adduce any evidence on its side.

12.

Since the issues are to be adjudicated on the fact and law, the documents on record as well as the

evidence of the witnesses are meticulously scrutinized. As per the argument advanced by the Learned Counsels

for both parties it is to be seen, if the Second Respondent, M/s BHEL Complex Cooperative Labour Contract

Society Ltd. is a separate entity other than the First Respondent. Admittedly, the fact remains undisputed that

the Second Respondent obtained valid CLRA license from the Competent Authority who in terms of Section-13

of CLRA Act, 1970 (Page 251-252 of typeset of R2) has issued the same after due investigation of the

particulars furnished by the Second Respondent. It reveals that due license was granted on 30.04.2015 in favour

of the Second Respondent by the Licensing Officer, the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Accordingly, the work

contract from First Respondent was renewed for subsequent years in favour of the Second Respondent. The

further plank of contention of the Counsel for the Respondent is that as per the Byelaw (Ext.M12 of R2

stretches from Page No. 7 to 36 typeset) of Second Respondent, the membership of the Second Respondent

Society, was open to adult labourers who hail from 10 villages irrespective of their education. The documents of

R-2 under Ext.M8 discloses that WW1, none else the General Secretary of First Party Sangham has filled up the

Form for enrolling him as a “B” Class Member in the Second Respondent-BHEL Complex Cooperative Labour

Contract Society. It is further contended that the Second Respondent delivers the services by deploying its

members and employees as contract workmen in the First Respondent Company which comes within the

purview of the CLRA Act. The work orders are awarded to the Second Respondent Society by First Respondent

Company (Page 253-257 of typeset of R2). The Work Contract were for various Unskilled jobs, like

Housekeeping, Cleaning of Tables, Serving Tea, Loading-Unloading, etc. This fact reveals at Page 48-87 of the

typeset of the Second Respondent. At the outset, the relevant portion of evidence of WW1 is taken into

account. It is stated by WW1 that he has been discharging duties under BHEL since 01.04.1986 as a Skilled

Worker (Identity Card Ext.W14 stretches from Page 14 to Page 29 containing Identity-Cards of other

employees of typeset of the Petitioner). He further states that at present he has been working in the Storage

Material Movement Section, directly under the control of Deputy Engineer of First Respondent and working in

the particular section continuously for more than ten years to move materials through Fork-lift along with the

regular employees.

13.

Argument is well advanced by the Counsel for Respondent that the WW 1 was fully aware of the

terms and conditions contemplated in the Application Form itself and was conscious about the nature of job as

temporary and no right accrues in his favour to claim any relief .from First Respondent

Sri K. Rayar. WW2 corroborates stating that he worked under BHEL since 01.04.1986 (Identity Card at Page

17 of Ext.W14) He is continuously working almost for 14 years in the Safety Department in the Office of the

First Respondent. Initially, he got license for Light Motor Vehicle in the year 05.08.1987 and thereafter in the

year 1998 was issued with Heavy Duty Motor Vehicle license. Thereafter, he was shifted to Central Movement

Cell of Maintenance and Service Department for discharging duty as Driver. Ext.W13 is the Order dtd.

20.02.2002 of Manager CMC / M&S regarding utilization of service as Driver in absence of the Driver allotted

with duties on Roster basis in the same Department. Due to superannuation of other regular Drivers, at present

he is discharging the duty of a Driver. In this context, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent pressed his

argument that even if WW2 is claiming to have rendered his service as a Driver, the document under Ext.W13

discloses his such service was utilized in absence of the Driver engaged on Roster Basis. It is emphatically

argued by the Learned Counsel of Respondents that this stop-gap arrangement cannot be taken as an advantage

by the WW2 to claim a right of permanent job. Admittedly no order of appointment to him as driver is

furnished. Ext 13 is mere order of Department under the name ”Maintenance and Services Central Movement

Cell” regarding the stop gap arrangement. As such it can never be treated as an order of appointment. Besides

the mere fact of statement of both WW1 and WW2 that they alongwith other members have been provided

with the Identify Card, Punching Card for Attendance, Uniform, Safety Shoes, etc. as applicable to the regular

employees, would not suffice to hold that they were directly employed under the First Respondent. Attention

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

313

drawn on a bunch of documents under Ext.W14 (which stretches from Page 14 to Page 29) consisting 15 nos. of

Identity Cards of different employees including WW1 and WW2. Those documents / identity cards are

meticulously perused. It reveals even though the name of the First Respondent ,” The Bharat Heavy Electricals

Ltd.” appears on such Identity cards as “BHEL Identity Card”, those were issued by the Second Respondent

with its registered name as ”BHEL COMPLEX COOP. LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY LTD” which

appears on all those Identity Cards. On the other hand, all those Identity Cards were duly signed by the Member

of the Second Respondent and countersigned by the Chief Security Officer. It is well presumed that those are

issued by Second Respondent and not by First Respondent. In this context, the argument is well advanced that

at no stretch of circumstance, basing on such Technical Points, the First Party Member-Petitioners cannot claim

to have been employed by the First Respondent. The further plank of argument of the Learned Counsel for First

Respondent is that the evidence adduced by WW1 with regard to their engagement in various sections like, Gas

plants., stainless steel tube plants, (SSTP) pipe cutting , Hot mill, Cole Mill, Shipping, loading and unloading

factory Oxygen Plant (F.O.P),Canteen-cook, supply and service and cleaning floor, guest House, cannot be

categorized as Skilled job. The Second Respondent is solely responsible for issuance of such Identity Cards

under Ext.W14. It is under its domain of Second Respondent to reflect the nature of job as Skilled, Unskilled

and Semiskilled which is no way concerned to First Respondent. Undoubtedly, the Second Respondent is one of

the Contractors to outsource the manpower for First Respondent, thus, the name of the First Respondent must

occur on many relevant documents.

14. In this context, the argument advanced by the Learned Counsels in consonance to the evidence of

MW1, K. Murali is taken into consideration. The documents under Ext.W14 from Page 14 to 29 viz. are the

Identity Cards issued by the Second Respondent as against 15 members as Skilled Worker including WW1 and

WW2 viz. S/Sri (i) V. Shanmugham, WW1 (Worked at Material Stores), (ii) D. Seetharaman, Cook, (iii) S.

Johnson, Packing and Despatch, (iv) K. Rayar, WW2 (CMC, BHEL), (v) S. Senthil, Crane Operator, (vi) K.

Xavier Kennedy, Cook (vii) A. Arumugam, Gas Plant, (viii) John Peter, Attender, (ix) V. Ravi, Housekeeping,

(x) C.V. Anant Raj, Medical Attender, (xi) K. Kamaraj, Quality Control/SSTP, (xii) T. Stephen, Electrician. It

appears all these employees have been shown as Skilled Worker except one viz. D. Karikalan, Attender, shown

as Semi-Skilled Worker. None of such Identity Cards expresses the educational / academic qualification of the

members except two lady employees viz. S.R. Shanmugavadivoo and B. Geetha. (Vide Identity Card at Page

28-29 of Ext.W14) shown as Laboratory Technician / Skilled Worker. At the cost of repetition it is pertinent to

mention that there was no whisper of educational qualification of any of the members who were issued with

Identity Cards except Identity Cards of two Lady Members shown as Lab Technicians. But in those cases also,

the qualification was not reflected. Besides, in absence of any concrete proof, the First Party Sangam cannot

claim to treat the Member Petitioners as Skilled worker. It is pertinent to mention that the First Party fails to

file any supporting documents to prove that there are highly qualified employees as having Degree, Diploma,

ITI, Welder, Fitter, Blacksmith, Nurse and Ayas, rendering the skilled job. Both the Witnesses claimed that the

nature of their jobs are though perennial but were not treated at par with a regular employee. Undoubtedly it

reveals from the materials on record that the Second Respondent is responsible for issuance of such Identity

Cards in favour of its members. The First Respondent has got no role in this regard. The First Party

Member/Petitioners are debarred by the Byelaw (Ext.M12 of R2) to claim any entitlement simply because they

were shown as Skilled Worker by the Second Respondent.

15. So far the fact of the Second Respondent’s specific status is concerned , it would not be out of place

to mention that the Second Respondent is one of the 98 contractors and being issued with valid CLRA License,

undertook the contractual obligation to supply manpower to First Respondent. It is well evident that the Second

Respondent being an Independent Entity, has got separate Memorandum of Association and Byelaws (Ext.M12

of R2) and functions in a Licenced Building in BHEL township at Kailasapuram. It was governed by a Board of

Directors, elected from among the members, and was answerable to its General Body. In the year 2001,

pursuant to the amendment in Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, the existing elected body of the Society,

was discharged from further functioning and instead the Special Officer for the purpose of managing the affairs

of Second Respondent Society was appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Society, Government of

Tamilnadu from time to time by issuing specific Government Order for elections (from Page.15-23 of the

Additional typeset of R2). Ext.M8 of R2 is the recent order of appointment of Special Officer. Thus the Society

is functioning under the control and supervision of the Registrar of Co-operative Society, Tamil Nadu and not

under the control of First Respondent. It reveals from the documents on record that Government of Tamilnadu

directed all such Co-operative Society including the Second Respondent to conduct elections. But the

elections for filling of the Board could not be held since 2013, due to non-cooperation from the Trade Unions

including the First Party Petitioner’s Union (the Sangham). Attention drawn to the relevant communications

and orders at Page 24 to 39 and Page 240-241 of the typeset of the Second Respondent. It further reveals

thereafter the Government of Tamilnadu appointed one of the official of First Respondent to function as

Administrator for the Second Respondent. Such appointment of Administrator by the Government is an interim

arrangement awaiting the successful election of all eleven Board of Directors of Second Respondent. Thus, the

plea of First Party Sangham that the President and Executive members were selected by the First Respondent is

314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

strongly denied by both the Respondents. Such fact in issue remains undisputed, since not being challenged by

the Petitioner’s Sangham. No rebuttal evidence was also adduced by the Sangham.

16. In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, it is pertinent to mention that the Respondent

amply established the fact that the Second Respondent Society is having a “Separate Entity”, discharging the

contractual obligation pursuant to the contract held in between it and the First Respondent. The materials borne

out from the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, it is found that the Second Respondent deployed

outsourced unskilled manpower for doing several menial jobs under the contractual obligation. It functions in a

Licensed Building and has a separate entity other than the First Respondent. The First Respondent Company

has never exercised any control or supervision over the service of the Members of the Second Respondent

(revealed from Ext.M9 and Ext.M10). MW1 states that the First Respondent being the Principal Employer

ensures the payment of all statutory benefits to the employees engaged / outsourced by Second Respondent. The

wage rate was fixed by the First Respondent which is a mandatory condition stipulated as a part of contractual

term. Thus, the First Respondent ensures the payment of the Minimum Wages and in addition to that, the BHEL

Additional-Wages are being paid to the employees by its Contractor. As such, the First Respondent ensures the

fair wage which is not just Minimum Wages but extends the benefits to all employees including the employees

/ workforce employed by Second Respondent under various clause in force. It is further stated by MW1 that the

Second Respondent Contractor was provided with Work-Contract by the First Respondent Company which is

predominantly for Menial and Unskilled jobs. The services of employees of Second Respondent are regulated

by the Second Respondent Cooperative Society itself.

17. In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, the Petitioner miserably failed to establish the

existence of Employee-Employer relationship in between the Members of the First Party Union with the First

Respondent. Simply because the members of the Union are deployed / outsourced by the Second Respondent

for the First Respondent cannot hold good to say they are directly employed by the First Respondent. The

documents on record categorically discloses that the First Respondent, being the Principal Employer imparted

necessary directions/instructions to each of its Contractor for disbursement of fair wage, higher to the Minimum

Wages Act. This proven fact necessarily goes to show that the Second Respondent employed these members by

providing appropriate financial benefits. In such circumstance the First Party Union cannot derive any right out

of it to claim regularization and absorption in the First Respondent.

18. The First Respondent relies on the judicial verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Heavy

Electricals Ltd. Vs. Res Mohendra Prasad Jakhmola and Others dtd 20.02.2019 wherein their Lordships

adjudicated a number of Civil Appeals as in 1799-1800 of 2019 SLP (C) 33749-33750 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx Civil Appeal Nos. 1823-1824 of 2019 and SLP (C) 33798-33799 of 2014. While adjudicating

the above Civil Appeals including the case cited supra, their Lordships endorsed the guideline / observation

imparted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balabanta Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited

and Others (Manu/SC/0732/2014:2014(9)SCC 407). It was held that the relation of Employer –Employee

would include inter-alia (i) who appoints the worker (ii) who pays the salary / remuneration (iii) who

has the authority to dismiss (iv) who can take disciplinary action (v) whether there is continuity of

service (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision

19.

At the cost of repetition, it needs mention that the admitted undisputed fact remains that the

First Respondent engaged 98 Contractors and the Second Party Respondent is one of those Contractors who

provides manpower to the First Respondent. It is further well evident that the pays / remunerations have been

paid to such workforce by the Second Respondent on being provided with the necessary fund allocation from

the First Respondent towards its contractual obligation. So far the other clauses are concerned, it is also well

evident that these employees were never been appointed by the First Respondent nor any appointment letter was

issued to them at any point of time. These employees / the Petitioners, First Party Members of the Sangham

were engaged by the Second Respondent. Thus, the Second Respondent has got the authority to dismiss or to

take any disciplinary action, if occasion so arises. In this context, the Counter Statement filed by Second

Respondent is taken into account. The Second Respondent clearly mentioned that in case of any claim raised

by its employee for regularisation or permanency or full membership or improvement of service condition, if

maintainable, can only be claimed against Second Respondent and not against the First Respondent. So far the

claim of first Party Petitioner Sangham for regularization and absorption are concerned, the following fact

needs mention that the decision rendered in ONGC Vs Krishna Gopal and Others, and the PCLU case

dtd. 17.04.2015 is no longer valid, since by a subsequent order date 07.04.2020 wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court took up a batch of Civil Appeal including the case of ONGC Vs Krishna Gopal and Others, and the

PCLU case dtd. 17.04.2015 and held the previous order of the Apex Court suffer from a lot of infirmities

and required to be revisited. Thus, the batch of Civil Appeals were referred to the Larger Bench for decision

on the point of limitation, if there is any power lies with the Labour and Industrial Courts to order

regularization / absorption in absence of sanctioned posts.

20. Now it is to be seen whether the Principal Employer controls and supervises the work of the employees. So

far the disbursement of the salary / wages is concerned, it is much discussed in preceding paragraphs that the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

315

salaries/wages/remuneration were paid by the Second Respondent out of the funds allocated by the First

Respondent towards the contractual obligation. In order to establish the point regarding the control and

supervision on the First Party Member-Petitioners is concerned, the Tribunal places reliance on the Hon’ble

Apex Court’s judicial verdict in the case of International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air

Cargo Workers Union (SCC Page 388 Para 38-39). In the above judicial pronouncement in the relevant

paragraphs:-

Para-38, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily the

labour supplied by the Contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the

Principal Employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the Principal Employer,

if the salary is paid by the Contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the Contractor

and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the Contractor”.

Para-39, it is observed:-

“The Principal Employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a Contract Labour

when such labour is assigned / allotted / sent to him. But it is Contractor as Employer, who

chooses whether the worker is to be assigned / allotted to the Principal Employer or used

otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the Contractor, the ultimate supervision and control

lies with the Contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and

subject to what condition. Only when the Contractor assigns / sends the worker to work under the

Principal Employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the Principal Employer

but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the Contractor”.

21.

In view of the observation made by the Apex Court as cited above and the materials borne out from the

documents on record, undoubtedly speaks out the fact that the primary control is with the Contractor i.e. the

Second Respondent. It is pertinent to mention that the Second Respondent supplied the

workforce to the First Respondent to render Un-skilled jobs under the contractual obligation. Thus, the right to

regulate and ultimate supervision lies with the Second Respondent. Accordingly, even if the workforce as of

the Member-First Party Petitioners rendered their services under the direction / control of the First Party

Respondent - the Principal Employer is treated to be secondary control. The primary control is with the

Contractor who provides the workforce. As such, the primary and ultimate control and supervision lies with the

Second Respondent.

22. The Learned Counsel for First Party Sangham when argued that the Petitioners are victim of unfair labour

practice, per contra argument was advanced by the Counsels for both the Respondents. In this regard, the

relevant provisions of law as contemplated in the Industrial Disputes Act, is highlighted.

The expression ”Unfair Labour Practice” has been defined in Section-2(ra) which reads that any of the

following practices specified in the Vth Schedule under Clause10 comes within the purview of Unfair Labour

Practice.

The Vth Schedule in Clause 10 reads:

“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”.

Such practice is to be termed as Unfair Labour Practice.

23. In this context it is worth mention that the Second Respondent provided job facilities to Adult

Members attaining 18 years of age, irrespective of educational qualification in and around 10 villages in the

vicinity of First Respondent establishment at Trichy under a Contractual Obligation. The very action of the

Second Respondent in providing job facilities to the Adults of the nearby/surrounding villages was on “As is

where is basis”, Besides, the Second Respondent deployed its Members / workforce to work with the First

Respondent only under a Contractual Obligation. Those Adult Members were never been engaged as Badlis,

Casuals and Temporaries and allowed to continue as such just to deprive them of the statutory benefits but the

job facilities was provided with good intent to employ the youth of surrounding villages, as a welfare measure.

Such action of the Second Respondent cannot be construed to be an Unfair Labour Practice as does not attract

Schedule-V of Clause10, Section-2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

24.

In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs and the materials born out from the

documents on record, it is held that the First Party Sangham seriously failed to establish the Employer-

Employment relationship between the First Respondent and Members of First Party Sangham. Further in view of

judicial verdict in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mohendra Prasad Jakhmola (supra) the case of

the First Party Sangham is not tenable in the eye of law.

316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The issues (i) & (ii) are answered against the First Party Petitioner Sangham. As regards Issue No. (iii):

In the result the First Party Petitioner Sangham is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

The reference is answered against the First Party Sangham.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and corrected and pronounced in the open court on this day the 01.12.2022)

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner Sangam

WW1, Sri V. Shanmugham

WW2, Sri K. Rayar

For the First Respondent

MW1, Sri K. Murali

For the Second Respondent

Nil

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex.W1 15.05.1985

Certificate of registration for BHEL Valagam Contract Thozhilalar Nala Sangam.

Ex.W2 31.10.1996 Letter by the Executive Director, BHEL

for induction of LCS workers to the availability of sanction

Ex.W3 29.03.1996

Letter sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Puducherry relating to the Industrial Dispute between BHEL

Complex Co-Operative Labour Society Contract Workers Union and the

management of BHEL, Trichy over the demand

for increase in retirement age from 50 to 60 Years.

Ex.W4 24.07.2014

Notice of hearing date sent by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Puducherry to the Executive Director,

BHEL Valagam Oppandha

Thozhilalar Nala Sangam, Trichy relating to Industrial

Dispute between the Management of BHEL, Trichy and BHEL

Complex Co-Operative Labour Contract Society for

absorb and regularise the members of the BHEL Complex

Co-Operative Labours.

Ex.W5 18.10.1990

The Management of the BHEL nominates its

executive officers as the Board of Director to BHEL

Complex Co-Operative Labour contract Society Limited.

Ex.W621.05.2011

The letter of management, BHEL requested to the Registrar of Co-Operative Society,

Chennai for the appointment of Sh.G. Jesu, Manager/Personnel, BHEL,. Trichy the

present, Secretary as special officer for BHEL Complex Co-Operative Labour Contract

Society Limited, Trichy.

Ex.W725.05.2001

The order of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Trichy appointed Mr. G. Jesu,

Manager/Personnel, BHEL as a Special officer to the BHEL Complex Cooperative

Labour Contract Society Limited for a further period of six months from 25.05.2001 or

till the date which a new board is constituted i.e. 24.05.2005

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

317

Ex.W8

24.05.2005 The order of Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Trichy appointed Mr. G. Jesu,

Manager/Personnel, BHEL as a Special officer to the BHEL Complex Co-operative

Labour Contract Society Limited for a further period of six months from

24.05.2005 or till the date which a new board is constituted i.e. 18.06.2009.

Ex.W9.

Remittance of Annual premium of LIC for gratuity payment to LCS workers by the management of

BHEL.

Ex.W10.

18.06.2009 The order of Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Trichy appointed Mr. J.

Kirubakar Mitra, Deputy Manager/HR, BHEL as a special officer to the

BHEL Complex Co-Operative Labour Contract Society Limited for a

further period of six months from 18.06.2009 or till the date which a new

board is constituted i.e. 24.11.2011.

Ex.W11. 24.11.2011

The order of Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Trichy appointed Mr.

J. Kirubakar Mitra, Deputy Manager/Admn. BHEL as a special officer to

the BHEL Complex Co-Operative Labour Contract Society Limited for a

further period of six months from 24.11.2011 or till the date which a new

board is constituted i.e. 07.10.2015.

Ex.W12. 07.10.2015

The order of Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Trichy appointed Mr.

N.Karthikeyan, Senior Manager/Admn. BHEL as an Administrator to the

BHEL Complex Co-Operative Labour Contract Society Limited for a further

period of six months from 20.04.2015 or till the date which a new board is

constituted

Ex.W13.

20.02.2002

The management of BHEL issued instruction to utilizing the service of the

LCS workers K.Rayar for driving the heavy vehicle of BHEL.

Ex.W14.

- Details of LCS employees job nature in BHEL along with I.D. card for their

continous service more than 20 years.

Ex.W15.

17.12.2014

Documents relating to movement of material of BHEL by Mr. V.

Shanmugam, LCS worker the president of the petitioner union as skilled

workers in the BHEL Piping, Canteen, stores controlled by Senior Engineer

of the management.

Ex.W16.

25.09.2003.

Implementation of service weightage and graded wage payment to the LCS

workers by the management of BHEL.

Ex.W17.

14.08.2010

Increase overtime hours and pay extra wages for overtime works to the LCS

workers issued by the Management of BHEL.

Ex.W18.

01.04.2011

Duty schedule order to the LCS Security personnel

by the management of BHEL.

Ex.W19.

11.10.2013

The management of BHEL allotted Holiday duty to

LCS Employees along with BHEL Employees and

same is permitted by Inspector, L&O, BHEL.

Ex.W20.

08.08.2015

The Management of BHEL prepared a Shift roster for

LCS employees along with regular employees.

Ex.W21.

19.08.2015

The Management of BHEL issued a overtime duty

roster to the LCS employees along with BHEL

employees.

Ex.W22.

28.08.2015

The management of BHEL allotted duty to the LCS,

Employees alongwith regular employees for 2005,

01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015.

318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W23. 23.09.2015

The Management of BHEL allotted Holiday work

Bakrid to the LCS Employees and sent a holiday

duty pass as requested letter to the Chief Security

Officer, BHEL.

Ex.W24 23.09.2015

The Management of BHEL allotted Holiday work

Bakrid to the LCS Employees and sent a holiday

duty pass as requested letter to the Chief Security

Officer, BHEL.

Ex.W25 30.03.2015

The Management of BHEL issued a crane

manpower details of work for the employees of

BHEL and LCS employees for the period of April,

2005 (i.e. 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2015).

Ex.W26 29.08.2015

The Deputy Engineer, Cold Mill Production,

/BHEL/Trichy allotted duty to the LCS

Employees along with regular employees for September, 2015.

Ex.W27 29.08.2015

The Deputy Engineer, Cold Mill Production,

SSTP/BHEL/Trichy allotted duty Shift to the

LCS Employees for September,2015.

Ex.W28 17.10.2018

Holiday duty work allotted to the

LCS employees and BHEL, Trichy by Senior Manager,

MM stores, BHEL, Trichy (Holiday due Ayuthapooja).

Ex.W29 16.01.1998

The Chief Security Officer, BHEL issued a certificate

for appreciation of good work and attendance to Sh.S.

Selvaraj, LCS/Security/Township.

Ex.W30 24.07.2003

The Deputy Chief Security Officer, BHEL issued a

certificate for appreciation of good work to Sh.S. Selvaraj,

LCS/Security/Township.

Ex.W31 26.05.2005 The Chief Security Officer,

BHEL issued a certificate for appreciation of

good work to Sh.S. Selvaraj, LCS/Security/Township.

Ex.W32 27.05.2005

The Senior Security Officer, BHEL

appreciation the performance of Sh.S. Selvaraj,

CS/Security/Township and promoted him to the rank of Asst. Sergeant.

Ex.W33 12.11.2008

The Medical Head, BHEL Hospital issued

appreciation certificate to the LCS employees Sh.I. Victor,

for period 1994 to 12.11.2008 along with certificate of

Pharmacist qualification and he was provisionally

selected for Pharmacist on 13.11.1995.

Ex.W34 31.01.2013

The Chief Security Officer, BHEL issued a

certificate for appreciation of good work to Sh.M. Mohankumar,

LCS Sergeant.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

319

Ex.W35 17.06.2015

The duty roster for LCS Security Staff ‘’A” allowed by the

Inspector/Township, BHEL, Trichy.

Ex.W36 17.06.2015

The duty roster for LCS Security Staff ‘’B”

allowed by the Inspector/Township, BHEL, Trichy.

Ex.W37 17.06.2015 The duty roster for LCS Security Staff ‘’C”

allowed by the Inspector/Township, BHEL, Trichy.

Ex.W38 12.01.2010

BHEL, Haridwar Unit has given letter informing

about the absorption of 557 contract labours as permanent employees.

Ex.W39 28.05.2019

The Chairman and Managing Director,

BHEL message about the achieved profit for the year

2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

Ext.W40 -

Copy of Driving License of P. Rayar

Ext.W41 07.11.2015

Copy of Ad-hoc Payment to BHEL LCS from Administrator

Documents Marked:

On behalf of First Respondent

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ext.M1 ---

Work Orders

Ext.M2 ---

Letter from Petitioner to Deputy Commissioner Labour

Ext.M3 17.04.2021

Letter from Petitioner to Regional Labour

Commissioner with enclosures

Ext.M4 12.07.2014

Letter from Petitioner to Chief Labour Commissioner

Ext.M5 25.08.2014

Letter from Petitioner to Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ext.M6 06.12.2014

Letter from 2^nd Respondent to Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ext.M7 13.08.2014

Letter from 1^st Respondent to Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ext.M8 02.07.2020

Appointment of Special Officer in 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M9 09.02.2011

Certificate of Registration issued to 1^st Respondent

Ext.M10 29.05.2020

License issued to 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M11 13.01.2015

Failure report submitted by Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ext.M12 04.02.2015

Letter from Government of India to Respondents

Ext.M13 17.07.2017

Order passed in W.P.(MD) No.2330 of 2017

Ext.M14 05.04.2018

Order passed in W.A.(MD) No.1032 of 2017

Ext.M15 13.12.2018

Order passed in SLP No.18916 of 2018

Ext.M16 13.07.2016

Reply to RTI request

Ext.M17 02.09.2015

Reference of Dispute

Ext.M18 11.01.2017

Preliminary Award

Ext.M19 23.07.2015

Order passed in WP No.9271 of 2015

Ext.M20 20.07.2016

Order passed in W.A. No.163 of 2016 and W.P. No.34247 of 2015

Ext.M21 10.12.2015

Order passed in W.A. No.1667 of 2015

Ext.M22 23.09.2016

Order passed in SLP No.26891 & 26892 of 2016

Documents Marked:

On behalf of Second Respondent

320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ext.M1

Ext.M6

- S.18(1) agreements entered from time to time between

the 2^nd respondent and the Trade Unions including petitioner Union

Ext.M7

05.04.2013

Joint representation given by all unions of

BHEL Complex Cooperative Labour Contract Society regarding boycott of election

Ext.M8 -

Extract from Personal file of employees - Office

bearers of the Petitioner Union (Membership Form

Ext.M9

Nomination form, ESI form, Pay Slips, other documents)

Ext.M10 ---

Pay Slip for the month Dec’2018

Ext.M11

Balance sheet, P & L Account and Income and expenditure Account

of the 2^nd respondent (Audited by the Co-operative

Department of State of Tamil Nadu) for 3 Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14,

2014-15

Ex.M12 05.07.1978

Proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirappalli

Ext.M13 -

Enrolment form for class-‘B’ Membership in Society Submitted by PW-2

Ext.M14 -

Declaration and Application form for membership in Society submitted by PW-2

Ext.M15 -

PF Nomination submitted by PW-2

Ext.M16

11.11.1998 Application submitted by PW-2 to 2^nd Respondent Society seeking Driver job

Ext. M17 31.01.2018 Series of salary slip PW-2 issued by 2^nd Respondent

31.01.2020

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 183.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार मैससस अद्वैत टेकसिस इंगर्या गिगमटेर्, िई कदल्िी, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री िीरज

िोस्िामी, श्री कदव्य िोस्िामी, द्वारा जिरि मजदूर िाि झंर्ा यूगियि, िई कदल्िी, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दसष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायािय-1 िई कदल्िी के पंचाट (संदभस सं. 65/2020) को जैसा

कक अिुिग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2023

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/31/2020-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2023

S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2020) 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 M/s Advait Techserve India Ltd., New Delhi, and Shri Deeraj Goswami ,Shri Divy Goswami,

through, The General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 31.01.2023.

[No. L-42011/31/2020–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

321

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT DELHI-1

ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present : Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.) Presiding officer) CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No. 65/2020

Shri Deeraj Goswami S/o Lt. Hakim Goswami,

Shri Divy Goswami S/o Sh.Dheeraj Goswami rept.by

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

Regional Office -G-94, Mahavir Enclave,

New Delhi – 110045

…..Claimant

Versus

The Management of

M/s Advait Techserve India Ltd.

Branch H.NO.29,

First Floor East of Kailash Colony,

New Delhi-110048.

…..Management

None for the claimant

Shri Rajat Arora, AR for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No.42011/31/2020-IR(DU) dated 06.08.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the services of Shri Dheeraj Goswami S/o Late Shri Hakim Goswami and Divy

Goswami S/o Shri Dheeraj Goswami have been terminated w.e.f. 1.3.2019 by the

management of M/s Advait Techserve India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi illegally and/or

unjustifiably as raised by General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, New Delhi and if so, to what

relief are the workmen concerned entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in this

regard ?”

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 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 VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (RETD.), Presiding Officer

Date: 20.01.2023

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 184.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार मैटसन्द्स कंस्िरिन्द्स प्रा. गिगमटेर्, पगिम गिहार, िई कदल्िी; सहायक अगभयंता, सीपीर्ब्लल्यूर्ी,

िोिी रोर्, िई कदल्िी, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और महासगचि, समाजिादी कमसचारी संघ (रगज.), ियी

कदल्िी, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायािय-1 िई कदल्िी के पंचाट

(संदभस सं. 100/2019) को जैसा कक अिुिग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/13/2019-vkbZ-vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2023

S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2019) 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 Matsons Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,Paschim Vihar, New Delh; The Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Lodhi

Road, New Delhi, and The General Secretary, Samajwadi Karamchari Union (Regd.),New Delhi, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.01.2023.

[No. L-42011/13/2019–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present : Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding officer CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No. 100/2019

The General Secretary,

Samajwadi Karamchari Union (Regd.) C-60,

Harkesh Nagar, Okhla Tank,

Vishwakarma Public School,

New Delhi-110020.

….Claimant

Versus

Matsons Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

14/A, GH-10, Sunder Apartments,

Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-110087.

The Assistant Engineer,

CPWD, 12/217, T-Divisions, Lodhi Road,

Delhi – 110003 ….Management

None for the claimant

Shri Atul Bhardwaj, AR for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No.42011/13/2019-IR(DU) dated 04.04.2019 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

“1. Whether the termination of services of the workmen SH.Manoj and Praveen by the

management of Matsons Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor) and CPWD (Principal

Employer) is illegal / unjustified if so to what relief they are entitled to and what directions

are necessary in this respect ?”

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.

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 : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

323

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor 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 VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 20.01.2023

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 185.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार गिदेिक, िीप एंर् िुि ररसचस संस्थाि, टोंक , राजस्थाि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री

गिजय कुमार िमास,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj] (jktLFkku) (संिभि

सं. 72/1995 CIS NO 30/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/187/94-vkbZ-vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2023

S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/1995 CIS NO 30/2014) of the Central Industrial

Tribunal –Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Tonk, (Rajasthan) and Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, worker,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/187/94–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

अनुबंि

Presiding Officer

Gajendra Pal Mogha, RHJS

Central IT Case No.

72/1995

CIS No.

30/2014

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k

dzekad ,y&42012@187@94& vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad 15-12-1995

&&&

fot; dqekj 'kekZ iq= Jh jkt dqekj 'kekZ] pksiM+k eafnj ds ihNs]

ulZjh ds xsV ds lkeus] /kkSyiqj] jktLFkku

….izkFkhZ Jfed

324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

funs'kd] 'khi ,.M owy fjlpZ laLFkku ¼Sheep and wool Reserch Institute)]

vohdk uxj ¼ekyiqjk½] ftyk Vksad] jktLFkkuA

…vizkFkhZx.k

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh dku flag jkBkSM+

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh ,l-,l- glu

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh mijksDr vkKk dzekad ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq

bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gS &

“Whether the action of the management of Director Sheep and wool Reserch Institute,

AvikaNagar, Tonk, in terminating the services of shri Vijay kumar on 7-10-1998 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kksa dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls fnukad 27-

12-1995 dks LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd mldh fu;qfDr eLVjksy ij nSfud osru Hkksxh

deZpkjh ds :i esa fnukad 1-7-85 dks gqbZ Fkh rFkk Jfed dks ekg ds var esa U;wure osru vf/kfu;e ds

vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr nj ls osru Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed ls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh@pkSdhnkj dk

dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dk dk;Z ges’kk larks"kiw.kZ jgk FkkA izkFkhZ dh lsok,a fnukad 7-10-1988 dks fcuk

fdlh uksfVl ds ekSf[kd :i ls lekIr dj nh xbZA izkFkhZ dks ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa nwljs uke dk Jfed

fn[kkdj osru Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] ftlls eLVjksy esa Jfed ,d dys.Mj o"kZ 240 fnu iw.kZ ugha fn[ksa] tks

vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25^th] 25,Q dk

mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA var esa izkFkhZ ds ekSf[kd vkns’k fnukad 7-10-1988 ds rgr lekIr dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh

lsokvksa dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus rFkk osru o vU; ykHk

fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA

vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls tokc izLrqr dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 1-7-85 dks

nSfud osru Hkksxh etnwj ds :i esa yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ls vko';drk vuq:i vkdfLed dk;Z fy;k

tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa dHkh Hkh 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ

laLFkku vf/kfu;e dh ifjf/k esa ugha gksus ls m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk

vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSaA var esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s

tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed fot; dqekj }kjk fnukad 1-2-2016 dks Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k x;kA ysfdu

Jfed dks ftjg gsrq dbZ volj fn;s tkus ds ckotwn mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k

fnukad 12-7-2022 }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dh lk{; can dh xbZA pwafd izkFkhZ Lo;a ftjg gsrq mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS

vr% mlds }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i= iBuh; ugha gSA vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; ugha

gksus ls vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ lk{; is'k djuk ugha pkgus ij lk{; vizkFkhZ can dh xbZA mHk; i{kksa dh cgl

lquh xbZA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o v/;;u fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k }kjk cgl dh xbZ gS fd Jfed dks fcuk dksbZ uksfVl]

uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 7-10-1988 }kjk lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k] tks

vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q ,oa 25 th dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA vr% Jfed dks muds dk;Z ds vuq:i

osru dk Hkqxrku e; C;kt fnyk;k tkosA

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

325

vizkFkhZx.k ds izfrfuf/k }kjk cgl dh xbZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd

dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA Jfed }kjk vkdfLed dk;Z ds fy;s vko';drkuq:i fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed

}kjk vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha dh xbZ gS vr% Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

eSaus mHk; i{kksa }kjk fn;s x;s rdksZa ij euu fd;kA Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls tks fookn vf/kfu.kZ;

gsrq bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks iszf"kr fd;k gS] og Jfed dh fu;qfDr ,oa osru ls lacaf/kr gS] tks iw.kZr;k lk{;

dk fo"k; gSA ysfdu izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha dh xbZ gS

vkSj tks nLrkost is’k gq;s gSa mUgsa Hkh viuh lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha djok;k x;k gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a izkFkhZ ij Fkk

ysfdu izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ }kjk

izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ lk{; ds vHkko esa dksbZ jkgr ikus

dk vf/kdkjh ugha jg tkrk gSA fu"d"kZr% izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS &

jSQjsal rnuqlkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

xtsUnz iky eks?kk] U;k;k/kh'k

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 186.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार मुख्य महाप्रबंिक, दूरसंचार, भारत संचार गििम गिगमटेर्, सासुमती गिमिा, (गहमाचि प्रदेि);

उप-गिभािीय अगभयंता (गिद्युत), दूरसंचार, भारत संचार गििम गिगमटेर्, सासुमती गिमिा, (गहमाचि प्रदेि) के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री पीतांबर िाि, कामिार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंर्ीिढ़ के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 142/2014) को जैसा कक

अिुिग्नक में कदखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 09/02/2023 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025-07-2023-62-vkbZvkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2023

S.O. 186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sasumti, Shimla (H.P); The

Sub-Divisiona Engineer(Electrical), Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sasumti, Shimla, (H.P) and Shri

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

09/02/2023.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-62–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 142/2014

326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Registered On:-26.03.2015

Pitambar Lal S/o Hem Singh, R/o Village Bataher,

PO Baloh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi Himachal Pradesh.

...........Workman

Versus

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its

Chief General Manager, Telecom, HP Circle, Sasumti Shimla, HP.

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its

Sub-Divisional Engineer(Elect), Telecom, HP Circle,

Sasumti Shimla, HP …..Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-21.10.2022

The workman Pitambar Lal has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer that opposite party may be directed to reinstate the

workman from the date of illegal termination.

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition is that the workman was working as casual

labour cum Peon with the management at its office at Mandi, since Nov. 1994 on the office of Assistant

Engineer(Elect) Telecom, Mandi H.P. The workman has been paid his monthly salary on the ACG-17 Form. On

19.02.1999, the management issued a circular/notification vide letter no.Staff/S 1034/43 with regard to the

regularization/grant of TSM status to casual labours working with the various office of the management and

copy of which is annexed as Annexure W-1. The services of the co-workers who joined the management later

that the workman namely Sh. Tej Ram, Hans Raj, Jai Singh and many who were also drawing his salary on

ACG-17, were granted temporary status in the year 1999-2000. Sh. Dillu Ram, Mohan Lal, Rakesh Kumar,

Shiv Dass, Prem Lal, Halku Ram, Chauramani, Inder Singh were also granted temporary status, while working

in project wing of the management in pursuance to the letter dated 19.02.1999. Similarly the services of Prem

Lal, Hari Singh and many others were regularized after the grant of temporary status in the year 2002-2003

while they were working in the projects of the management. On 26.02.1999, 07.04.1999 and 23.09.1999

(Annexure W-2 to W-4) the management granted temporary status to workmen mentioned in the letters. On

10.05.2010(Annexure W-5) the workman served a legal notice upon the management for grant of TSM status

and other benefits but to no avail. On 17.05.2010 the management had internal correspondence clearly

mentioning the employment of the workman from November 1994 and again on 01.10.2001 till date. On

01.07.2010 the management did reply to the legal notice of the workman, admitting that the workman was

engaged on 01.11.1994 and copy of the reply to the legal notice dated 01.07.2010 is attached herewith as

Annexure W-6. On 31.12.2011 the services of the workman were terminated without assigning any reason

without giving any notice and without giving any retrenchment compensation. On 18.02.2015 the Ld. Assistant

Labour Commissioner issued certificate, enabling the workman to approach this Hon’ble Court under the

provision of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes(Amendment) Act, 2010(Annexure W-14). It is therefore,

prayed that the workman be reinstated in service from the date of illegal termination and granted the temporary

status as granted to similarly situated workers along with all consequential benefits and back wages from the

date of the illegal termination till the date along with an interest @ 18% per annum from the date it became due

till the date of final payment.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that the workman was engaged by the BSNL on

01.11.1994 and has worked upto 01.09.1995 and that too as and when required. He was not engaged against any

sanctioned post and as per Rules. After 01.09.1995 the workman has worked through private agencies as per

government procedure prescribed for hiring of labourer/personnel. There is no master and servant relation

between the workman and management. The claim statement filed by the workman is liable to be dismissed.

The workman has challenged the termination order dated 31.12.2011. The claim filed by the workman is barred

by law of limitation therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. Once the workman has not worked with the

management therefore the question of satisfactory work does not arise. The workman has not specified any

period from which office he has drawn wages on ACG-17. The workman was engaged by the BSNL on

01.11.1994 and he has worked upto 01.09.1995. After 01.09.1995 the workman has worked through private

agencies, following all the relevant rules for supplying skilled and unskilled labourers. The workman did not

completed 240 days with the management and he has worked with the management w.e.f. 01.11.1994 upto

01.09.1995 as and when required. There is no master and servant relation between the workman and the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

327

management. The workman has worked with the agencies and he has not arrayed the agencies as party in the

claim statement. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the present claim statement is liable to be dismissed

with costs.

The workman has not filed any replication against the written statement filed by the management.

Parties have been given opportunity to lead evidence. The workman/claimant has examined himself as

WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as W1 and relied on the documents Exb.W2 to W15 and has been

cross-examined by the learned counsel of management.

The management has examined Sh. Raghbir Singh, Executive Engineer, BSNL Electrical Division,

Mandi(H.P.), who has filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1 to

MW1/17 and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman.

I have heard the learned counsel of the workman Sh. Arun Batra and learned counsel of the

management Sh. D.R. Sharma and have gone through the records carefully.

Learned AR appearing on behalf of workman Sh. Arun Batra has contended that the workman was

engaged by the respondent-BSNL Company in Electrical Wing as casual labour at Mandi on full time basis and

was performing his duties with care and sincerity. Learned AR further argued that the workman has been paid

his monthly salary on ACG-17 Form. On 19.02.1999 the management issued a circular/notification with regard

to the regularization and to grant the status as casual labourers working with various offices of the management.

Other co-workers who have been appointed with the workman-Pitamber Lal has been granted temporary status

in the year 1999-2000 but the workman-Pitamber Lal was not granted temporary status. On 13.12.2011 without

any cogent reason the services of the workman was terminated without giving any notice though the workman

has completed 240 days in a calendar year in many years. On the other side, the management has argued that the

workman was engaged by the management of BSNL on 01.11.1994 and has worked upto 01.09.1995 as casual

labourer. Thus, it is a admitted fact that the initial engagement of the workman-Pitamber Lal with the

management was as a casual labour. It is also submitted on behalf of the management that the workman was not

engaged by the management against any sanctioned post and as per Rules. After 01.09.1995, the workman was

working with the management through private agencies as per Government procedure prescribed for hiring of

labourers and personal staff. Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the management that as a casual labour from

01.11.1994 upto 01.09.1995 the workman was in the direct employment of the management as a casual labour.

Thereafter, his services were being taken by the management through private agencies meaning thereby after

01.09.1995. Though, the workman was giving his services to the management-BSNL but was under the direct

control of private agencies. No replication has been filed by the workman against this version of the

management.

It is argued on behalf of the management that the claim statement filed by the workman is liable to be

dismissed as the termination order was passed on 31.12.2011 and claim petition has been filed by the workman

which is barred by Law of limitation. It is admitted fact that the workman-Pitamber Lal was terminated on

31.12.2011 and this claim petition has been filed by the workman on 26.03.2015. This claim petition has been

filed as Industrial Dispute under Section 2(a) 2 of Amended ID Act, 1947. The Act amended in the year 2010

by Act No.24 of 2010 which was came into force w.e.f. 15.09.2010. It is admitted fact that this claim petition

has been filed under Section 2(a) sub-Clause 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended in the year

2010. Section 3 of sub-Section 2(a) is reproduced as below:-

“(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before

the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-section (1).”

10. Thus, the management has vehemently argued that this case is time barred. It would be pertinent to

mention here that no replication by the workman has been filed against this. If we calculate the time period, it is

apparent that this case has been filed beyond the period of limitation as the workman was termination on

31.12.2011 upto 31.12.2014, the period of three years finished, meaning thereby there was an opportunity

before the workman to file his claim petition upto 31.12.2014. Since this claim has been filed on 26.03.2015 it

is apparent that this case has been filed on the completion of limitation period. Thus, it is very clear that the

claim filed by the workman is barred by Law of limitation of three years. Since the case is time barred and this

Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond of three years, the case is liable to be dismissed. Therefore,

the claim petition filed by the workman is liable to be dismissed and declined as it is barred by limitation. File

after completion be consigned in the record room.

11. Let copy of this award be sent to Central

Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947.

J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 187.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार चीफ पोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर िनरल, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात); डाक अिीक्षक, भावनगर (गुिरात), के प्रबंितंत्र

के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और िाखा सजचव, रेलवे एवं डाक कमिचारी संघ,वासना, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि के

पंचाट (संिभि सं. 185/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40011/03/2018-vkbZvkj -(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 185/2018) 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, Ahmedabad (Gujarat); The Superintendent of Post, Bhavnagar

(Gujarat), and The Branch Secretary, Association of Railway and Post Employees, Vasna, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-40011/03/2018–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 : 10.01.2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 185/2018

1. The Chief Post Master General,

GPO, Relief Road,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380001.

2. The Superintendent of Post,

Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar HO,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)-364001.

….First Parties

The Branch Secretary,

Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Bhattha Cross Road,

Vasna, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380007.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party employer : None

Adv. for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-40011/03/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.12.2018 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:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

329

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Branch Secretary, Association of Railway & Post Employees,

Ahmedabad against the management Postal Department, Suptd. Of Post Offices, Bhavnagar

Division to reinstatement of Sh. K. M. Sarvaiya & 03 others in post of postman with

continuity of service and with full backwages & other consequential benefits is fair and

justified? If yes, then what relief Sh. K. M. Sarvaiya & 03 others, workmen are entitled to &

what other direction are necessary in the matter?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responded for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

04.12.2018. Notice Exh. 2 was issued to the parties, wherein the parties were asked to submit their pleadings. A

period of over four years has elapsed, yet no statement of claim has been filed as directed by the Ministry. It

appears that the Second Party workman is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the demand of the Branch Secretary, Association of Railway & Post Employees, Ahmedabad

against the management Postal Department, Suptd. Of Post Offices, Bhavnagar Division to reinstatement of Sh.

K. M. Sarvaiya & 03 others in post of postman with continuity of service and with full backwages & other

consequential benefits is not fair and justified. The concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief. ”

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication

U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 188.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार भारतीय कृजि अनुसंिान पठरिि,डीिीआर कृजि भवन, नई दिल्ली ; जनिेिक ,मूंगफली

अनुसंिान,राष्ट्रीय मूंगफली अनुसंिान केंर, िूनागढ़; प्रिासजनक अजिकारी, राष्ट्रीय मूंगफली अनुसंिान केंर, िूनागढ़,

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री गोहवंि भाई िसाभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर , िूनागढ़,

के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-

अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 58/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/37/2018-vkbZ-vkj –(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2018) 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 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ; The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Shri Govindbhai Jasabhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via Timbawadi,

Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/37/2018–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 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No-58/2018

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

…. First Parties

Sh. Govindbhai Jasabhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

42012/37/2018-IR (DU) dated 30.05.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of the services of workman, namely, Shri Govindbhai Jasabhai

w.e.f. 01/01/2014 (working as Casual labour w.e.f. 16/01/1991) by the Management of

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Directorate of Groundnut Research) Junagarh

Gujarat is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and to what

extent?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

30.05.2018. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the termination of the services of workman, namely, Shri Govindbhai Jasabhai w.e.f.

01/01/2014 (working as Casual labour w.e.f. 16/01/1991) by the Management of Indian Council of Agricultural

Research (Directorate of Groundnut Research) Junagarh Gujarat” is legal and justified.

3. 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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 189.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार भारतीय कृजि अनुसंिान पठरिि, डीिीआर कृजि भवन, नई दिल्ली; जनिेिक, मूंगफली अनुसंिान,राष्ट्रीय

मूंगफली अनुसंिान केंर, िूनागढ़; प्रिासजनक अजिकारी, राष्ट्रीय मूंगफली अनुसंिान केंर, िूनागढ़, के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती िीरुबेन िीवाभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर, िूनागढ़, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि

सं. 90/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/77/2018-vkbZ-vkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

331

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/2018) 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 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ; The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Hiruben Jivabhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via Timbawadi,

Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/77/2018–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 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 90/2018

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

…. First Parties

Smt. Hiruben Jivabhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/77/2018-IR (DU) dated 04.10.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-

Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh in terminating the services of Smt.

Hiruben Jivabhai, casual labour w.e.f. 01.01.2014 (working since 21/6/1995 as per

version of management) is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

04.10.2018. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the action of the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Directorate of

Groundnut Research, Junagadh in terminating the services of Smt. Hiruben Jivabhai, casual labour w.e.f.

01.01.2014 (working since 21/6/1995 as per version of management) is legal and justified.”

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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 190.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती भावनाबेन भरतभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर ,

िूनागढ़, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-

अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 89/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/72/2018-vkbZvkj –(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/2018) 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 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ;The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Bhavanaben Bharatbhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via

Timbawadi, Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/72/2018–IR -(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Sunil Kumar Singh-I,NPresiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 89/2018

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

333

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

….First Parties

Smt. Bhavanaben Bharatbhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/72/2018-IR (DU) dated 04.10.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-

Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh in terminating the services of Smt.

Bhavanaben Bharatbhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014 who was working as Casual labour w.e.f.

02/05/1993 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and to what extent?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

04.10.2018. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the action of the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Directorate of

Groundnut Research, Junagadh in terminating the services of Smt. Bhavanaben Bharatbhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014

who was working as Casual labour w.e.f. 02/05/1993 is legal and justified.”

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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 191.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार भारतीय कृजि अनुसंिान पठरिि, डीिीआर कृजि भवन, नई दिल्ली ; जनिेिक, मूंगफली अनुसंिान,

राष्ट्रीय मूंगफली अनुसंिान केंर, िूनागढ़; प्रिासजनक अजिकारी, राष्ट्रीय मूंगफली अनुसंिान केंर, िूनागढ़, के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती कुसुमबेन रजतलाल, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर, िूनागढ़, के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि

के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 170/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/74/2018-vkbZvkj –(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 170/2018) 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 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ;The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Kusumben Ratilal, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via Timbawadi,

Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/74/2018–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 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 170/2018

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

…First Parties

Smt. Kusumben Ratilal,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/74/2018-IR (DU) dated 12.11.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Council of Agriculture

Research (DGR), Junagadh Gujarat in terminating the services of workman

namely Smt. Kusumben Ratilal w.e.f. 01.01.2014 who was working as Casual

labour w.e.f. 19/01/2009 is legal and justified? If not, what relief this workman is

entitled to?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

335

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

12.11.2018. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the action of the management of Indian Council of Agriculture Research (DGR), Junagadh

Gujarat in terminating the services of workman namely Smt. Kusumben Ratilal w.e.f. 01.01.2014 who was

working as Casual labour w.e.f. 19/01/2009 is legal and justified.”

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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 192.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार भारतीय कृजि अनुसंिान पठरिि, डीिीआर कृजि भवन, नई दिल्ली ; जनिेिक, मूंगफली अनुसंिान, राष्ट्रीय

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती िांताबेन िेिीभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर, िूनागढ़, के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-अिमिाबाि के पंचाट

(संिभि सं. 35/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/42/2018-vkbZvkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

relation to The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ;The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Shantaben Jeshibhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via Timbawadi,

Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/42/2018–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 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No-35/2019

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

….First Parties

Smt. Shantaben Jeshibhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/42/2018-IR (DU) dated 30.01.2019 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of the services of workman, namely, Smt. Shantaben Jeshibhai

w.e.f. 01.01.2014 (working as Casual labour w.e.f. 25/07/1995) by the Management of Indian

Council of Agricultural Research (Directorate of Groundnut Research) Junagarh Gujarat is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and to what extent?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

30.01.2019. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation “ the termination of services of workman, namely, Smt. Shantaben Jeshibhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014

(working as Casual labour w.e.f. 25/07/1995) by the Management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research

(Directorate of Groundnut Research) Junagarh Gujarat is legal and justified.

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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 193.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार भारतीय कृजि अनुसंिान पठरिि,डीिीआर कृजि भवन, नई दिल्ली ; जनिेिक ,मूंगफली अनुसंिान,राष्ट्रीय

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती कंचनबेन सोमाभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर, िूनागढ़, के बीच अनुबंि

(संिभि सं. 47/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/78/2018-vkbZvkj –(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

337

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

relation to The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ;The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Kanchanben Somabhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via

Timbawadi, Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/78/2018–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 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 47/2019

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

….First Parties

Smt. Kanchanben Somabhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

…Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/78/2018-IR (DU) dated 04.02.2019 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-

Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh in terminating the services of Smt.

Kanchanben Somabhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014 who was working as Casual labour w.e.f.

30/07/2009 without following the provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to and to what extent?”

338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

04.02.2019. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the action of the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Directorate of

Groundnut Research, Junagadh in terminating the services of Smt. Kanchanben Somabhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014

who was working as Casual labour w.e.f. 30/07/2009 without following the provisions of Section 25F and 25G

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified.”

3. 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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 194.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती प्रभाबेन रमेिभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर, िूनागढ़, के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि के

पंचाट(संिभि सं. 49/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/76/2018-vkbZvkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

relation to The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ;The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Prabhaben Rameshbhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via

Timbawadi, Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/76/2018—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 2^nd November, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 49/2019

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

339

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh – 362001.

…. First Parties

Smt. Prabhaben Rameshbhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

…Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/76/2018-IR (DU) dated 12.02.2019 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Council of Agriculture Research-

Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh by terminating the services of Smt.

Prabhaben Rameshbhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and without following the provisions of

Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responded for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

12.02.2019. The notice Ex. 2 was served on second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second party

was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded more

than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman

is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the action of the management of Indian Council of Agriculture Research-Directorate of

Groundnut Research, Junagadh by terminating the services of Smt. Prabhaben Rameshbhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014

and without following the provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and

justified.”

3. 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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 195.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती दकरणबेन गोहबंिभाई, वनकरवास, द्वारा ठटम्बावाड़ी, इवानगर, िूनागढ़,

अिमिाबाि पंचाट (संिभि सं. 55/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/34/2018-vkbZ-vkj –(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

relation to The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, DGR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Director of

Groundnut Research, National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh ;The Administrative Officer, National

Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and Smt. Kiranben Gobindbhai, Ivanagar, Vankarvas, via

Timbawadi, Junagadh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

14/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/34/2018–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 2^nd January, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 55/2019

1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,

DGR Krishi Bhawan,

Raishina Road, Opp. Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Director of Groundnut Research,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

3. The Administrative Officer,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,

Post Box No.-05, Ivanagar Road,

Junagadh - 362001.

…First Parties

Smt. Kiranben Gobindbhai,

Ivanagar, Vankarvas,

Via Timbawadi,

Junagadh – 362001.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri H. R. Raval

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42012/34/2018-IR (DU) dated 26.07.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

““Whether the action of the management of Indian Council of Agriculture Research

(Directorate of Groundnut Research) Junagadh in terminating the services of

workman, namely, Smt. Kiranben Gobindbhai w.e.f. 01.01.2014 who was working as

Casual labour w.e.f. 10/09/1993) is legal and justified? If not, what relief this workman is

entitled to?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responds for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

26.07.2018. The notice Ex. 2 was served upon second party by acknowledgement Ex. 3, wherein the second

party was asked to submit the statement of claim on 21.06.2019. Second Party / workman has been afforded

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

341

more than 10 opportunities to file its statement of claim, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party /

workman is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the action of the management of Indian Council of Agriculture Research (Directorate of

Groundnut Research) Junagadh in terminating the services of workman, namely, Smt. Kiranben Gobindbhai

w.e.f. 01.01.2014 who was working as Casual labour w.e.f. 10/09/1993)” is legal and justified.

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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 196.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार सिायक जनवासी प्रबंिक, मैससि जिि एंड रूफ कंपनी (इंजडया) जलजमटेड, मुंबई, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, मििूर मिािन संघ, िामनगर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 184/2018) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/133/2017-vkbZ-vkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 184/2018) 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 Assistant Resident Mnager, M/s.Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited, Mumbai, and The

General Secretary, Majdoor Mahajan Sangh,Jamnagar, which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-42011/133/2017–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 : 10.01.2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 184/2018

The Assistant Resident Mnager,

M/s.Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited,

Priyadarshini Building, Eastern Express Highway,

Mumbai – 400022.

…First Party

The General Secretary,

Majdoor Mahajan Sangh,

210-A-One Complex,

Opp. Engineer Office, K V Road,

Jamnagar – 361001.

…Second Party

Adv. for the First Party employer : None

342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Adv. for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-42011/133/2017-IR(DU) dated 17.12.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand by workman Sh Vivek Pratap Singh, working as Junior

Mechanic from 15.07.2005 till his retrenchment on 12.12.2016, of reinstatement in

services in the Management of Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited along with

other consequential benefits is fair, just & legal? If so, to what benefits the workman

is entitled to and to what extent?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responded for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

17.12.2018. Notice Exh. 2 was issued to the parties, wherein the parties were asked to submit their respective

claims under reference. A period of over four years has elapsed, yet no statement of claim has been filed as

directed by the Ministry. It appears that the Second Party workman is not interested to proceed further in the

matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the demand by workman Sh Vivek Pratap Singh, working as Junior Mechanic from

15.07.2005 till his retrenchment on 12.12.2016, of reinstatement in services in the Management of Bridge &

Roof Company (India) Limited along with other consequential benefits is not fair, just & legal. The concerned

workman is not entitled for any relief.”

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication

U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 197.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार कमांडेंट (िेिी), कमांडर के कायिकारी अजिकारी, मेससि तटरक्षक डीएच‍यू-1 (गुिरात), पोरबंिर,

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सजचव, गुिरात अद्धिसरकारी औद्योजगक कमिचारी संघ, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात),

अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 62/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-14011/20/2017-vkbZvkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

relation to The Commandant (JG),Executive Officer for Commander,M/s. Coast Guard DHQ-1 (Guj),

Porbandar, and The Secretary, Gujarat Ardhsarkari Audhyogik Karmachari Sangh, Ahmedabad (Gujarat),

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-14011/20/2017–IR -(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

343

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated : 19.01.2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 62/2019

The commandant (JG),

Executive Officer for Commander,

M/s. Coast Guard DHQ-1 (Guj), Post Box No.25,

Porbandar – 360575.

…First Party

The Secretary, Gujarat Ardhsarkari Audhyogik Karmachari Sangh,

15, Shashi Apartment, Near Swaminarayan Avenue,

Jawaharnagar, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007.

….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party employer : Shri Bhagyoday Mishra

Adv. for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-14011/20/2017-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2019 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Commandant Coast Guard DHQ-1

(Gujarat) Porbandar by not regularizing the service of Sh. Anil Bundalia, designated

as Part time Driver and not paying minimum wages is legal? If so, what relief the

concerned workmen, Sh. Anil Bundalia, is entitled to and from which date and what

other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. First Party employer represented through Assistant Commandant

Shushri Shakshi Sharma who has appeared in person along with her Lawyer Shri Bhagyoday Mishra. Second

Party/Workman is absent despite sufficient service vide Ex.4. The reference dates back to 15.02.2019. A period

of about four years has elapsed. The workman has neither turned up nor filed his Statement of claim despite

service. It appears that the Second Party workman is not interested to proceed further in the matter. The referred

claim of the workman is not substantiated by any evidence.

2. The reference is answered against the workman accordingly.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication

U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 198.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार मुख्य मिाप्रबंिक, पजश्चमी िूरसंचार पठरयोिना, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, सांताक्रुि (पजश्चम),

मुंबई; उप मिाप्रबंिक, पजश्चमी िूरसंचार पठरयोिना, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री एस.िी. भट्ट, कामगार, द्वारा सर्किल सजचव, बीएसएनएल मििूर संघ,

अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-

श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 110/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40011/01/2012-vkbZvkj –(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110/2012) 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 General Manager,Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Santacruz (West),

Mumbai ; The Dy. General Manager,Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Ahmedabad

(Gujarat), and Shri S. G. Bhatt, Worker, through The Circle Secretary, BSNL Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-40011/01/2012 –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 11^th January, 2023

Reference (CGITA) No. 110/2012

1. The Chief General Manager,

Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

B Wing, Administrative Building, Telecom Juhu Road,

Santacruz (West), Mumbai

2. The Dy. General Manager,

Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Gujarat Area, 2^nd Floor, M/W Building,

Behind Telephone Bhawan, CG Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) ….First Party / Employer

The Circle Secretary,

BSNL Mazdoor Sangh,

5, Madhuvan Bunglows, Ghodasar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

(For the workman Shri S. G. Bhatt) …Second Party / Union / Workman

Advocate for the First Party / Employer

: Shri N. K. Trivedi

For the Second Party / Workman

: Shri Sunil G. Bhatt

(Party in person)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-40011/01/2012–IR(DU) dated 20.07.2012 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Western

Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Mumbai and Dy. General Manager,

Western Telecom Project Gujarat area, BSNL Ahmedabad in not granting ty-status

by considering his service for the period from 7.11.89 to 17.12.1993 to Shri S.G.

Bhatt, casual labour at par with his juniors and not regularising his services and

granting re-employment instead of reinstatement contrary to orders of Industrial

Tribunal is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

345

1. The reference dates back to 20.07.2012. At the very outset, it is worth mentioning that initially the

workman filed a case no. 456/1995 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad which was dismissed

for lacking jurisdiction. Thereafter a reference no. 67/2000 was received in the then Central Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad, which passed an ‘award’ on merit vide order dated 30.07.2002 and ordered the reinstatement of

the workman Shri Sunil G. Bhatt on his original place as daily wager without back wages and the termination

order dated 28.08.1992 was set aside on the ground of being unjust and illegal. The employer, instead of

reinstatement, reemployed him and did not treat his continuity of service and as such, no consequential benefits

were given to the workman, hence this reference.

2. The workman has filed his statement of claim at Ex. 4 with the averment that he was employed as

casual labour on 01.06.1988 and worked till 20.08.1992. He was permitted leave of absence from 21.08.1992

(mistakenly typed as 21.09.1992) to 24.08.1992 and further got it extended from 25.08.1992 to 27.08.1992 due

to his father’s fatal accident. The employer illegally terminated him w.e.f. 28.08.1992. He has averred that

despite award dated 30.07.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for his ‘reinstatement’, he was

reemployed on 18.07.2003 contrary to the award and denied him continuity of service and consequential

benefits. The workman has further pleaded that the employer did not consider him for the grant of temporary

status at par with his junior casual labours under the existing departmental scheme, which was circulated by

letter dated 07.11.1989. The workman has specified that two of his juniors / casual labours Mr. J. N. Patel and

Mr. B. B. Thakore who joined after him on 01.08.1988, were given benefit of temporary status / regularization

under the existing departmental scheme. The request of the workman for granting temporary status /

regularization was turned down by the employer on the behest that the Tribunal has not passed specific order in

respect of his continuity of service. Prayed for treating the period from 22.08.1992 to 17.07.2003 as continuous

service and for consequential benefits and for the grant of status of regular mazdoor / temporary regular

mazdoor at par with co-workers / juniors under the said scheme.

3. The first party no. 1 and 2 / employers have jointly filed their written statement at Ex. 9 denying the

averment of the workman’s claim and pleaded that the workman was not in the employment of the first party

from 21.08.1992 as he was not entitled to any leave for the duration from 22.08.1992 to 27.08.1992. It is further

pleaded that the Tribunal, in its award passed in Reference (ITC) No. 67/2000, has not given any direction

regarding continuity of service / break period, hence his service was not treated as continuing one. It is further

stated that due to break in service, the workman was not entitled for any benefit of existing departmental

scheme for the grant of temporary status / regularization, hence, prayed to dismiss the workman’s claim.

4. The workman filed his additional pleadings Ex. 10 in line with his original claim refuting attempted

clarifications given in the written statement by the first party / employer.

5. The workman filed documentary evidence detailed as under:

Sl.

No.

Name / Details of the document

Date

Document

Number

Document

Type

Remarks

Order from AGM (Admn.) O/o CGM, WTP, Mumbai

to Shri Sunil G. Bhatt

15.07.2003

Annexure 3

Original

Unsigned letter from DET, M/W Project, Ahmedabad

to Dy. General Manager, Ahmedabad

18.07.2003

Annexure 4

Xerox

Work resumption report by Shri S.G. Bhatt

18.07.2003

Annexure 5

Xerox

Letter from Asstt. D.G. (Pers-IV), New Delhi to The

Chief General Manager, BSNL, Mumbai

08.07.2003

Annexure 6

Xerox

Letter from Dy. G.M. (P&A), O/o CGM, WTP,

Mumbai to The General Manager (Estt.), BSNL

Corporate Office, New Delhi

27.04.2011

Annexure 7

Xerox

Letter (reminder II) from General Manager (HQ),

Mumbai to The General Manager (Estt.), BSNL

Corporate Office, New Delhi

02.08.2010

Annexure 8

Xerox

Letter from Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi

The

Secretary,

Industrial

Tribunal,

Ahmedabad along with xerox copy of award dated

30.07.2002 (Gujarati Language) passed in ITC Case

No. 67/2000

16.08.2002

Annexure 9

Xerox

English translation of award

30.07.2002

Annexure 10

Xerox

Order no. 270/6/84-STN from D.G. (P&T), New Delhi

to All Telecom / Districts etc.

30.03.1985

Annexure 11

Xerox

346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Order no. 269-64/83-STN from DoT, New Delhi in

respect of regular absorption of casual mazdoors in

Group ‘D’ posts

23.04.1987

Annexure 12

Xerox

Order no. 269-29/87-STN from DoT, New Delhi in

respect of regularization of casual labourers

01.11.1988

Annexure 13

Xerox

Casual Labour (grant of temporary status

regularization)

1989

scheme

enforceable

from

01.10.1989

Annexure 14

Xerox

Report of Additional Solicitor General, GOI, New

Delhi

Illegible

Annexure 15

Xerox

Order no. 269-4/93-STR from DoT, New Delhi in

respect of casual labourers (grant of temporary status

and regularization) etc.

17.12.1993

Annexure 16

Xerox

Extract from Tele-Gujarat May 2004 issue

05.05.2004

Annexure 17

Xerox

RTI report with annexures from CPIO & Add. G.M.

(TP), Gujarat Area, Ahmedabad

30.03.2011,

04.04.2011 &

07.04.2011

Annexure 18-

Xerox

Reminder letter from Shri Sunil G. Bhatt for the grant

of temporary status

22.11.2006

Annexure 21

Xerox

Government orders regarding service benefits to casual

labours

14.05.1968 &

10.03.1986

Annexure 22

Xerox

Office Memorandum of D/o Telecom, New Delhi

30.09.2000

Annexure 24

Xerox

Record of discussions between three federations &

CMD, BSNL

02.01.2001

Annexure 25

Xerox

Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2009 in BSNL Jammu V Teja

Singh

16.01.2009

Annexure 26

Xerox

Adm. letter no. 269-3/92-STN from DoT, New Delhi

21.10.1992

Annexure 27

Xerox

Letter from Dy. General Manager (P&A), Mumbai for

regularization of casual labourers / TRM etc.

01.11.2011

Annexure 28

Xerox

RTI report with annexures

04.04.2011 &

07.04.2011

38 & 39

True Copy

RTI report from Western Telecom, Gujarat Area,

Ahmedabad to Shri Sunil G. Bhatt with annexures

08.04.2016

Original

6. The second party / workman Shri Sunil G. Bhatt has deposed himself at Ex. 11 in his oral evidence.

7. The first party / employer has filed documentary evidence detailed as under:

Sl.

No.

Name / Details of the document

Date

document

Number of

Document

Type

Remarks

Letter no. 269-94/98-STN-II dated 29.09.2000 from Assistant

Director General (STN), D/o Telecom, New Delhi reg.

Regularization of casual labourers with annexures

29.09.2000

Ex.

21/1,

Ex. 21/2 &

Ex. 21/3

Xerox

Letter reg. discussions between three federations & CMD

BSNL etc. with annexures

02.01.2001

Ex. 21/4 &

Ex. 21/5

Xerox

8. The first party / employer has got Mr. Rajesh M. Wani, Divisional Engineer,Telecom, Microwave

Project, M/W Building, Navrangpura, BSNL, Ahmedabad, examined in oral evidence at Ex. 20.

9. Perused the records and heard Shri N.K. Trivedi, advocate for the first party / employer in addition to

his written argument at Ex. 24 and the workman Shri Sunil G. Bhatt, in person, at his written request at Ex. 26

in addition to his written arguments at Ex. 17, Ex. 18 and argument dated 08.03.2018 (without exhibit/number).

10. The main point for consideration under reference is as under:

“Whether the workman is entitled for the grant of temporary status / regularisation by treating his service

in continuity from 07.11.1989 to 17.12.1993 at par with his juniors? If yes, the effect thereof?”

11. The workman, in his written submissions, has mentioned that the first party / employer has

intentionally not complied the award of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2002 passed in Reference (ITC) No. 67/2000

by not treating continuity in service. Consequential benefits like grant of temporary status / regularization at par

with his juniors and co-workers, has not been granted to him. He has requested to direct the employer to treat

his continuity of service and grant all consequential benefits.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

347

12. Ld. Counsel for the first party / employer has argued that there is no order of Tribunal in respect of the

continuity of service; hence the workman is not entitled for any claimed benefits. The employer has cited

Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors V Umadevi and ors, 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Jammu V Teja Singh, Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 7803/2006) [order dated

16.01.2009]. Teja Singh (supra) has reiterated the law laid down by Umadevi (supra).

13. It is pertinent to mention here that an award dated 30.07.2002 was passed by the Central Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 67/2000 between the parties on merit. Admittedly, none of the

parties has challenged the award at any higher forum; hence, this award has become final.

14. According to the award dated 30.07.2002, it was held that the workman had worked as a daily wager

for 240 days during 12 months before his retrenchment. The Tribunal, in its operating part of the award, has

clearly directed that the second party Shri Sunil G. Bhatt be reinstated without any back wages on his original

place as a daily wager and the termination order dated 28.08.1992 was set aside on the ground of being unjust

and illegal.

15. The workman in his deposition at Ex. 11 has supported the averment of his claim and specifically

pleaded that his juniors / casual labours Mr. J. N. Patel and Mr. B. B. Thakore, employed on 01.08.1988, have

been granted temporary status of regular mazdoor from 25.06.1993 according to the departmental scheme of

1989 circulated by the letter dated 07.11.1989 from the Department of Telecom, New Delhi and both these co-

workers were regularised from 01.04.1999 and 09.12.1999 respectively, whereas the present workman Sunil G.

Bhatt has neither been granted temporary status of regular mazdoor nor regularised under the scheme. The first

party / employer has not been able to get anything adverse from the cross-examination of this witness.

16. The employer’s witness Mr. Rajesh M. Wani, examined at Ex. 20, has not denied the grant of

temporary status / regularization of aforesaid two casual labours, who were junior to present workman. Hence it

is abundantly clear that co-workers / junior casual labours have been given benefit of the departmental scheme

for granting temporary status to casual labours. However the witness stated that after the judgement dated

10.04.2006 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), the scheme for grant of temporary status and

regularisation framed by the Department of Telecom and others, is not legally tenable now.

17. In this view of above, the judgement passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in

Virendrabhai Chaudhari and 35 ors. V Union of India and ors., SCA 13222/2014 (DB) is relevant. This case

was filed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court on behalf of 36 workmen. Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat

High Court vide its order dated 23.02.2015, referred its earlier judgement dated 12.01.2015 passed in Ashok

Virambhai Kargatia V Union of India, in Special Civil Application No. 9721/2014. The relevant Para 15 reads

as under:

“......Even in the constitutional bench judgement in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V Umadevi

(supra), the Supreme Court has kept a window open for consideration of regularisation of those workmen who

had rendered more than 10 years of service. While doing so, it was, of course, provided that such benefit would

not flow in favour of litigious employees. The basis of this was that one who enjoyed interim protection of

Courts successively by challenging termination from service, cannot then argue that having rendered continuous

service for years together, he should be considered for regularization. The facts of the present case were starkly

different. The petitioner had to battle before different Courts for having his termination declared illegal. Once

such declaration was made, he was entitled to full benefits flowing from the final directions of reinstatement

with continuity. Such judgement of the Industrial Tribunal had become final. The department could not have

taken shelter of the exclusion clause contained in the judgement of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.

Umadevi and others (supra) nor could have the Tribunal non-suited the petitioner on this ground. To reiterate,

the petitioner had succeeded before the Court of competent jurisdiction in establishing that his termination by

the department was illegal with further direction for reinstatement with continuity. That being so, he was

entitled to all consequential benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that he was not covered by the scheme

of temporary status and regularization in service. They have also not denied that other employees engaged after

him have got such benefit of temporary status and regularization long back. Unfortunately, since the case of the

petitioner for reinstatement got tangled in one legal dispute after another, the final direction for reinstatement

got delayed. He, therefore, did not get the same benefits which his co-workers and juniors received......”

18. According to the letter no. E-42/casual labour/2014-15/40 dated 20.11.2015, issued by AGM (Adm.),

BSNL, Bhavnagar, it is traced that the first party / employer filed SLP (C) No. 18828/2015 before Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India against the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat

High Court in above referred SCA No. 13222/2014, Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.10.2015,

has dismissed the said SLP. Hence the effect of Umadevi (supra) has already been examined by Hon’ble

Supreme Court itself, sustaining the order of Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in above Special

Civil Application No. 13222/2014.

348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19. As far as the absence of phrase ‘continuity in service’ in award dated 30.07.2002 is concerned, the

intention of the first party / employer can be gathered from the letter dated 15.07.2003 as annexure-3, issued by

A.G.M. (Adm.), O/o CGM, WTP, Mumbai, which speaks to offer reemployment to Shri Sunil G. Bhatt instead

of his reinstatement. The workman, under compulsion, resumed duty w.e.f. 18.07.2003 according to the

resumption report dated 18.07.2003 (annexure-5). The first party / employer has not treated continuity of

service in respect of the workman. The effect of setting aside the dismissal order and placing the workman on

original place clearly indicates that on reinstatement in service after setting aside the order of termination,

notional continuity of service could not have been denied for consequential benefits to workman.

20. For the better understanding of the term, ‘reinstatement’, The case of Panchabhai Motibhai Rebadiya V

State of Gujarat, 2022 (174) FLR 413 (Guj.), is relevant. In this case of ‘reinstatement’ without back wages,

there was no mention of ‘continuity of service’. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that if it is not expressly

denied, it has to be read into the award. Respondents should have given the benefit of continuity of service to

the employee from the initial date of appointment. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court referred Nandkishore Shravan

Ahirrao V Kosan Industries (P) Ltd., 2020 (165) FLR 587 (SC), wherein the preposition of law was reiterated.

In that case, the Labour Court had not specifically denied the continuity of service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that the appellant would be entitled to continuity of service. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has also

defined the term ‘reinstatement’ in Vasantika R. Dalia V Baroda Municipal Corporation, 1998 (78) FLR 453

(Guj.), as to means reinstatement with the continuity of service unless specifically denied. Denial of relief of

back wage does not mean denial of continuity of service. In Executive Engineer, Panchayat (R & B) Division V

Punabhai Govindbhai, 1994 (1) CLR 64 (Guj.) (DB), Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held

that ‘reinstatement’ of daily wager would mean maintaining his position in the seniority list with continuity of

service as per his ranking in the seniority list. Hence, it is abundantly explicit that under the award dated

30.07.2002, ones the workman was reinstated and the order of termination was set aside, the positive and

constructive effect of the order in respect of ‘continuity in service’ was clear. The employer should have pro-

actively complied the award for the advancement of justice.

21. The action of the management of the first party / employer in not granting ‘temporary status’ by

considering the service for the period from 07.11.1989 to 17.12.1993 to Shri Sunil G. Bhatt, casual labour, at

par with his juniors and not regularizing his service on granting reemployment instead of reinstatement contrary

to the order of Industrial Tribunal is not at all justified. The point for consideration under reference is decided in

favour of the workman, hence he is entitled to the claimed relief.

22. According to various written submissions of the workman, it appears that he has superannuated on

30.09.2017 and suffered justice for about 21 years despite the award dated 30.07.2002 passed in his favour.

Under the circumstances, the first party employers are directed to grant the benefit of temporary status and

regularization of the second party workman Shri Sunil G. Bhatt notionally in terms of the scheme of the

department from the respective date when his immediate juniors received such benefits treating his continuity in

service notionally with all consequential benefits including retiral benefits if any, within two months from the

date of publication of the award.

23. The reference is answered 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 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 199.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार क्षेत्रीय अजिकारी, केंरीय माध्यजमक जिक्षा बोडि, क्षेत्रीय कायािलय, अिमेर (राि.), के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अिोक कुमार कुमावत, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योजगक

न्यायाजिकरण ,अिमेर, fookn esa अिमेर, के पंचाट आई टी (केंरीय)-14@2020¼lhvkbZ,l&56@2020½ को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14/02/2023

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-63-vkbZ-vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award I.T.(Central)- 14@2020 ¼CIS &56@2020½ of the Labor Court and

Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Ajmer- (Raj.) and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

349

Shri Ashok Kumar Kumawat, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 14/02/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-63–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

अनुबंि

& lh-vkbZ Vh-vkj- 14@2020

lh vkbZ ,l ua- 56@2020

& ,ts&8@2@2020&vkbZvkj fnukad 10-12-2020

Ashok Kumar Kumawat House no. 1-CHA-11,

Janta Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

…izkFkhZ

The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary

Education, Regional Office, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer(Raj.)

…vizkFkhZ@fu;kstd

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Jh fot; feJk] vf/koDrk A

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh 'kksfHkr iar vf/koDrkA

fnukad 7-10-2022

1- Je foHkkx] dsanz ljdkj }kjk bl vf/kdj.k ds vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu jsQjsal izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

"Whether the action of the Management of Regional Officer, Central Board of

Education Regioanl office, Ajmer in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar

Kumawat w.e.f. 01-11-2019 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workmen is entitled and from which date?

2- jsQjsal izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ i{k dks uksfVl tkjh djus ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls LVsVesaV

vkQ Dyse is'k fd;k x;k rFkk vizkFkhZ dks uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 8-11-2021

dks ,d izkFkZuki= is'k dj dFku fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse mi eq[; Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;

vtesj ds }kjk tkjh fook|d ds vuq:i ugha gksus ls fujLr fd;k tk;s vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk LosPN;k i{kdkj

cuk, tkus ls ewy Dyse izdj.k dks [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA mDr izkFkZuki= dk tokc izLrqr

djus ds mijkar izkFkhZ i{k us tkfgj fd;k fd mudh vksj ls jsQjsal eas la'kks/ku ds fy, iz;kl fd, x, Fks

fdUrq mi Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj ds i=kad ,ts&8¼2½@6@2020&vkbZvkj fnukad 11-8-2022 ds i=

ftldh ewy izfr fnukad 19-9-2022 dks U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dj dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mi Je vk;qDr]

dsUnzh; vtesj us ekeyk dksVZ esa yafcr gksus ,oa muds Lrj ij dksbZ vkSj cnyko laHko ugha gksuk crkrs gq,

jsQjsal esa la'kks/ku ls badkj dj fn;k gSA

3- izkFkhZ us e; vf/koDrk vkt U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj dFku fd, x, gS fd jsQjsal

vi;kZIr gksus ls os iqu% jsQjsal dk;Zokgh dj iqu% LVsVesaV vkQ Dyse is'k djuk pkgrs gSA vr% bl izdj.k

dks iqu% is'k djus dh vuqefr nsrs gq, uksV&izsl ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA सभी

i{kksa dks lquk x;kA izkFkhZ dh izkFkZuk vuqlkj iqu% is'k djus dh lqfo/kk nsrs gq, ;g izdj.k uksV&izsl ds

vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4- vr% mDr foospukuqlkj mDr funsZf'kr fookn esa izkFkhZ dh izkFkZuk vuqlkj iqu% LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse

is'k djus dh lqfo/kk nsrs gq, ;g izdj.k uksV&izsl ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt djrs gq, dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugh

vokMZ ¼No Dispute Award) ikfjr fd;k tkrk Gsa

5- vokMZ fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad 7-10-2022 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;kA

vokMZ dh izfr fu;ekuqlkj dsanz ljdkj dks okLrs xtV esa izdk'ku izsf'kr dh tkos A

jkes'oj izlkn pkS/kjh] U;k;k/kh'k

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 200.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार ऑदफसर कमांहडंग, 340 कंपनी ए.एस.सी (आपूर्ति) 56 ए.पी.ओ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और श्री िाम नारायण, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 67/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 07/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-14012/02/2013-vkbZvkj-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2023

S.O. 200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Officer Commanding , 340 coy, A.S.C (Supply) 56 A.P.O, and Shri Rama, Worker which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07/02/2023.

[No. L-14012/02/2013–IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. JYOTI KUMAR TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

ID No. 67/2013

Registered on:-10.06.2013

Sh. Rama, S/o Shri Dayal Chand,

B-16/200, Shahi Samadha, Patiala, Punjab ….Workman

Versus

1. Officer Commanding, 340 Coy,

A.S.C. (Supply) 56 A.P.O.

….Respondent/Management

Appearance

For the Workman:

None

For the Management :

Sh. Anish Babbar, Ld Counsel for Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

351

AWARD

Passed On:- 23.12.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.L-14012/02/2013-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013, under clause

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

the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of the Officer Commanding 340 COY, A.S.C.

(Supply) in terminating the services of Sh. Rama S/o Sh. Dayal Chand, Ex-Casual worker

w.e.f. 24.07.1998 is justified or not? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above

Industrial Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-

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

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

and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule

10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.

2. Despite the directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was

provided to the workman and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman for

appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is deemed to have been

served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as undelivered.

3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities but none turned up. This shows that the workman is

not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance none appeared on behalf of the workman to prove

his cause against the respondent/management. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a

‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.67/2013.

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

Act for publication.

JYOTI KUMAR TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 201.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार मेससि स्ट्टील अथॉठरटी ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमटेड, फरीिाबाि (िठरयाणा) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और श्री तुलसी ित्त, फरीिाबाि (िठरयाणा) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय-2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 78/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/45/2013-vkbZ-vkj (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2023

S.O. 201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 78/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Steel Authority of India Limited, Faridabad (Haryana) and Shri Tulsi Dutt,

Faridabad (Haryana) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

16.02.2023.

[No. L-29012/45/2013–IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 78/2014

Date of Passing Award- 24^th January, 2023.

Between:

Shri Tulsi Dutt,

…..Workman

S/o Late Shri Ganga Dutt,

C/o- Shri Hoob Lal Yadav, General Secretary, Mercantile,

Employees Association, House No. 530,

Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar,

PO Amar Nagar, Faridabad, 121003.

Versus

M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,Steel Stock Yard-I,

Sector-5, Mathura Road,

Faridabad (Haryana),

Faridabad.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Subhash Chandra

For the Workman

(Advocate)

Ms. Jaya Tomar

For the Management

(Advocate)

AWARD

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

existing between employer i.e. the management of Steel Stock Yard-1, 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- 29012/45/2013 (IR(M) dated 03/04/2014 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether applicant Shri Tulsi Dutt is the workman of the Management of the

Manager, M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd, Faridabad? If yes, whether the action of

the management in terminating the service of Sh. Tulsi Dutt w. e. f. 1.08.2007 is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to”

As narrated in the claim petition, the claimant workman was working as the canteen boy in the

establishment of the management since December 1986 on a monthly salary was Rs 2500/-. His place of work

was Steel Stock Yard-I , Sec 5 Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. On 1.08.2007, his service was terminated by

a verbal order and he was not allowed to perform his duty which amounts to termination of service. At the time

of termination no notice of termination, notice pay or termination compensation was paid to him. The

management even did not pay his duty pay and overtime wage for the month of July 2007. The provisions of

sec 25F, 25G and 25H, were not complied, which amounts to unfair labour practice. During the period of his

employment, his service record was unblemished and no disciplinary action was ever taken against him. He was

working under the supervision and control of the management and getting his monthly salary from the said

management. Thus the claimant has prayed for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of

service.

In the written statement filed, the Respondent has challenged the merit of the claim on various grounds

including the maintainability of the proceeding. It has been stated that no employer employee relationship exists

between the Respondent and the claimant as at no point of time the later was employed by them. Neither he was

issued any letter of appointment nor paid salary/wage by the Respondent Management for the alleged period of

employment. Thus the allegation of illegal termination of service or subjecting him to unfair labour practice is

unfounded. SAIL is a public sector undertaking having it’s own Rules and procedure for appointment. No post

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

353

like canteen boy ever exists in the establishment of the Management. The claimant was never appointed as the

canteen boy in the stock yard or the branch sales office Faridabad. For SAIL, once a person is appointed, he is

issued with the appointment letter followed by allotment of employee code No. the person is required to sign

the attendance Register maintained in the office where he works. He is being paid salary by SAIL and salary

slip is issued him at the end of the month. The claimant has failed to produce any of the documents nor any

other evidence to prove his relationship with the management as it’s employee. The grievance of illegal

termination raised twice by the claimant before the special secretary, labour Dept, Govt. of Haryana was

rejected twice for want of evidence. On that ground alone the claim is not maintainable. Moreover, the dispute

raised is not an Industrial Dispute and the claimant has no cause of action to raise the dispute. Hence the

management prayed for rejection of the claim.

The claimant filed rejoinder denying all the stand taken by the Respondent in the written statement.

On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

1- Whether Sri Tulsi Dutt is the workman of the management M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd,

Faridabad? if so, it’s effect.

2- If yes, whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Sh Tulsi Dutt w.e.f.

01.08.2007 is legal and justified? If so, it’s effect.

3- To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date.

The claimant examined himself as WW1 and produced a series of documents, which are photocopies

of the letter written by the claimant to the in-charge of SAIL Faridabad requesting payment towards the food

supplied on different dates. Those three letters have been exhibited as WW1/1 to WW1/3 and A-1 TO A-21.

Besides those, the claimant has filed photo copies of several vouchers of different dates evidencing payment of

canteen subsidies of the yard employees of SAIL, through one Rajpal Singh. The documents also include

payment vouchers showing payment to the claimant for serving tea and coffee to the guests in the stock yard of

SAIL at Faridabad. The Respondent examined one A. K. Srivastav, the AGM of SAIL as MW1, who produced

the letters of the Special Secretary, Dept of Labour, Govt. of Haryana addressed to the claimant intimating that

the documents filed by the claimant do not prove his status as an employee of SAIL Faridabad. The reply filed

by the Respondent before the labour commissioner during the conciliation has also been filed along with the

evidence. Those documents were marked as MW 1/1 to MW 1/3.

The learned AR for the management during argument emphasized that the burden lies on the claimant

to prove employer employee relationship, when the Respondent has specifically denied the same. The

documents produced by the claimant no way proves the said relationship. When the claimant was not employed

by the Respondent, the allegation of illegal termination is a misconception of fact and liable to be dismissed

with cost, since the claimant was sufficiently informed by the special secretary, Govt. of Haryana that his claim

to be an employee of SAIL is un founded. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble SC in the case of

Workmen of Nilgiri coop Mkt Society vs. State of Tamilnadu and others, and in the case of Shambhu and

others vs. Sugan Drycleaners and others, decided by the Hon’le High Court of Delhi, he also argued that in

absence of convincing evidence the Tribunal cannot accept the claim qua employer employee relationship.

In his counter argument the learned AR for the claimant submitted that in the case of Chief Regional

Manger, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs. PO, CGIT Chandigarah and Others the Hon’ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana , on similar facts, came to hold that when the Respondent terminated the service of the

workman without complying with the provisions of ID Act and failed to produce the original documents, the

same amounts to unfair labour practice and the workman is entitled to the relief sought for.

It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant in this case had filed an application seeking a direction

to the management to produce the original documents. But the Respondent denied possession of the documents

on the ground that the claimant was never employed by them. Hence by order dated 18/10/2016, the claimant

was given the liberty of adducing secondary evidence.

FINDING

ISSUE No. 1

This being the most important issue having decisive effect on the other issues has been taken up for

consideration first. The claimant in the claim statement and in the affidavit filed as evidence has stated that he

was appointed as a canteen boy in the yard of the Management at Faridabad in the month of December 1986 on

354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a monthly salary of Rs 2500/- and had worked continuously till 01.08.2007, when his service was terminated

illegally by a verbal order. During the employment he was working under the supervision and control of the

Respondent to the utmost satisfaction of the employer. The Management in the WS disputed the stand of the

claimant as an employee of the Management. In the WS as well as the witness of the Management has stated the

SAIL being a public sector undertaking has it’s own rules and procedure for Recruitment. Once a person is

recruited and appointed, he is granted an employee no. he also gets his salary paid by SAIL and at the end of the

month salary slip is granted to him. He is required to sign the Attendance Register maintained by the

management. But the claimant since failed to produce any evidence of that nature, the employer employee

relationship is not proved.

The claimant during cross examination has admitted in clear terms that no letter of appointment was

given to him and his service was terminated by a verbal order. He also admitted that SAIL, in order to fill up the

vacancies, usually makes advertisement in local newspaper and also invites candidature through the

employment exchange. He has also admitted that his claim as an employee of SAIL was rejected by the special

secretary, Labour of Govt. of Haryana. On the basis of this evidence, the management has stated that the

employer employee relationship is not proved. But on behalf of the workman it was argued that the litigation is

being fought between two un equals. The management is in possession of all the relevant documents. But

intentionally suppressed the documents, so that the claim of the workman will be defeated.

Admittedly the claimant was not issued the letter of appointment, employee ID or salary slip, which is

ordinarily issued to an employee. In such a situation the workman is required to adduce other evidence

suggesting employer employee relationship. The Hon’ble SC in the case of Ram Singh vs. Union Territory,

Chandigarh (2004)1SCC126, held that:-

“in determining the relationship of employer and employee, no doubt control is one of the important

tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. In order to determine the said relationship, all other relevant facts

and circumstances are to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract.”

In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Ltd, AIR 2015 SC 375, The Hon’ble SC again held

that:-

“the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish employer employee relationship would

include inter alia (i)who appoints the worker, (ii)who pays the salary/remuneration, (iii)who has the authority

to dismiss (iv)who can take disciplinary action, (v)whether there is continuity of service (vi)extent of control

and supervision.e if there is complete control and supervision.”

With regard to the facts of this case, no appointment letter was issued to the claimant. Hence the

claimant had to lead other evidence to prove the employer employee relationship. He has not examined any

witness to prove his relationship with the management. No documentary evidence has been placed on record to

show that the claimant workman was getting his salary/ remuneration from the Management. The documents

filed by him are nothing but some written representation to the head of the Management of SAIL at Faridabad,

requesting release of fund for the food supplied by him to the labours, Truck Drivers and other employees. The

other documents filed show that the employee’s food subsidies were released in favour of the claimant for the

food supplied and the same was not paid directly but through another person. The vouchers filed by the

claimant only show the payment of the food value, value of Gas Cylinder ect to him. But these documents no

way prove that the claimant was getting salary as claimed by him from the Management. These documents only

prove that the claimant was getting the reimbursement of the food cost, supplied to the employees of the

management and the management was releasing the food subsidies payable to the employees to the claimant

supplying food to those employees. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant no way proves

that the claimant was working under the supervision and control of the Management. The documents only prove

that the claimant was the supplier of food from the canteen to the employees. There is absolutely no evidence to

believe that the claimant was discharging his work under the supervision and control of the Management. Hence

from the totality of the evidence adduced by the witnesses examined by both the parties, the only conclusion is

that the claimant has not succeeded in proving his relationship with the Management as it’s employee. This

issue is accordingly answered against the claimant workman.

ISSUE No. 2&3

While discussing the evidence with regard to issue No 1 it has already been held that the relationship

of the Respondent and the claimant as employer and employee has not been proved. Since the Management is

not the employer of the claimant, it cannot be held that the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by

the Management. Hence Issue no. 2 is answered against the claimant. For the finding arrived in respect of Issue

No 1 & 2, it is held that the claimant workman is not entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered against the claimant. He is held not entitled to the relief

sought for. 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 : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

355

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 202.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार मेससि ओ.एन.िी.सी. जलजमटेड, मेिसाना (गुिरात) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री

िवािरहसंि आर. िट, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं

श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि के पंचाट (संिभि सं. 13/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/37/2018-vkbZ-vkj (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2023

S.O. 202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s ONGC Limited, Mehsana, (Gujarat) and Shri Jawaharsing R. Jat, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.02.2023.

[No. L-30012/37/2018–IR (M)]

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 : 18.01.2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 13/2019

The General Manager,

M/s ONGC Limited, KDM Bhawan,

Palavasna, Mehsana (Gujarat)-384003.

…. First Party

Shri Jawaharsinh R. Jat,

C/o. R. C. Pathak, B-4, Sterling City,

Nr. Tulip School, Bopal,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380058.

…Second Party

Adv. for the First Party employer : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-30012/37/2018-IR(M) dated 17.12.2018 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Shri Jawaharsinh R. Jat against the management of ONGC Ltd.,

Mehsana to reinstate him in the ‘security guard’ job with full back wages and continuity of

services with all consequential benefits is fair, legal & justified? If yes, then what relief Shri

Jawaharsinh R. Jat is entitled to and from which date? What other directions are necessary in

this matter?”

356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Today, the matter was called out. First Party employer represented through Ld. Counsels Shri K. V.

Gadhia and Shri M. K. Patel. None responded for Second Party / Workman. The reference dates back to

17.12.2018. The notice Ex. 2 was served on both the parties vide acknowledgements Ex. 3 and 4, wherein the

second party was asked to submit the statement of claim on 05.11.2019. A period of over three years has

elapsed, yet no statement of claim has been filed as directed by the Ministry. It appears that the Second Party

workman is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The referred dispute is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the

observation that “the demand of Shri Jawaharsinh R. Jat against the management of ONGC Ltd., Mehsana to

reinstate him in the ‘security guard’ job with full back wages and continuity of services with all consequential

benefits is not fair, legal & justified. The concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.”

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication

U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 203.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार एलएसिी स्ट्काई िेफ (इंजडया) प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िेवनािल्ली, बंगलुरु के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और के एन श्रीजनवास, िेवनािल्ली, बैंगलोर नाथि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, पंचाट (एप्लीकेिन न.-01/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/03/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)- 2]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2023

S.O. 203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Application No. 01/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri K N Srinivas,

Devanahalli (Bangalore North) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 16.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/03/2023-IR(M)-2]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT BENGALURU

DATED

: 17^th JANUARY 2023

Present : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Application No. 01/2015

I Party

II Party

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India)

Pvt.

Ltd.,

Kempegowda

International

Sh. K N Srinivas,

C/o Mallikarjuna House,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

357

Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Prashanth Nagar, Near Indian

Petrol Bunk, Devanahalli,

BANGALORE NORTH

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K R Anand

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

ORDER

1. The petition is filed under Sec 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity

‘the Act’) by the Applicant Employer i.e., LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited seeking approval for dismissal

from service of Sh. K N Srinivas.

2. After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of

Industrial Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have

signed voluntarily and satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to

accept the settlement. Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice. In view of the

settlement arrived by both the parties in CR No. 07/2012, the Application does not survive.

3. Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter

voluntarily and prayed to pass order in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both

the parties. Since the C R No. 07/2012 which was pending before this Tribunal has been settled by way of the

Joint Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.12.2022 by both the parties by Award dated 17.01.2023 passed by

this Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the matter is disposed off in terms of

the settlement filed by both the parties. Transmit.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 204.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

जनयोिकों और एलएसिी स्ट्काई िेफ्स स्ट्टाफ एंड वकिसि, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, के पंचाट (सी.आर. न.-07/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-11012/12/2011-vkbZ-vkj (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2023

S.O. 204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (C.R. No. 07/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and LSG Sky Chefs Staff and Workers

Union, (Bangalore) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

16.02.2023.

[No. L-11012/12/2011-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

At BENGALURU

DATED : 17^th JANUARY 2023

Present : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

C R No. 07/2012

358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 18, 2023/ MAGHA 29, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

II Party

The President,

LSG Sky Chefs Staff and Workers Union

(R), No. 141, 7^th Cross, Shabari Nagar Road,

Ramakrishna Hegde Road, BANGALORE –

560 075.

The General Manager,

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Bangalore International Airport,

Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearances

I Party :

Kum. Maitreyi Krishnan

Advocate

II Party :

Sh. K R Anand

Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-11012/12/2011-IR(M) dated

27.02.2012 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following

Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the workman of the management of M/s. LSG Sky Chefs (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Bangalore in fixing the shift timings as per the Annexure-1 contrary to the provisions of

Factories Act, 1948 is legal and justified? Whether the same amounts to overlapping

shifts and legal?

What relief the application union is entitled to?”

2. After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of

Industrial Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have

signed voluntarily and satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to

accept the settlement. Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

3. Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.12.2022 in the present

matter voluntarily and prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly

signed by both the parties. Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms

of the settlement is passed accordingly. Transmit.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 205.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

जनयोिकों और श्री िगिीि टी िे, िाला िोबली, बंगलुरु के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, के पंचाट (एप्लीकेिन न.-02/2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/03/2023-vkbZ-vkj (एम)-3]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2023

S.O. 205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Application No. 02/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri Jagadish T J, Jala

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 18, 2023/माघ 29, 1944

359

Hobli (Bangalore) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

16.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/03/2023-IR(M)-3]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT BENGALURU

DATED : 17^th JANUARY 2023

Present : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer (i/c)

Application No. 02/2017

I Party

II Party

The Management of LSG Sky Chef

(India)

Pvt.

Ltd.,

Kempegowda

International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560300.

Sh. Jagadish T J,

Sokkappa Building, Shree Rama

Temple Front, Mailanhalli Village,

B K Halli Post, Jala Hobli,

BENGALURU – 562 149.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K R Anand

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity

‘the Act’) by the Applicant Employer i.e., LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited seeking approval for

dismissal from service of Sh. Jagadish T J.