898 GI/2023

(433)

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. 8]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 19—फरवरी 25, 2023, िजनवार/ माघ 30—फाल्गुन 6, 1944

No. 8]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 19—FEBRUARY 25, 2023, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 30—PHALGUNA 6, 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, 21 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 237.— बैंककारी जवजनयमन अजिजनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 53 की उप-िारा (1)

द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय ररिवव बैंक की अनुिंसा पर,

12 जसतम्बर, 2020 को भारत के रािपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii) में प्रकाजित जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग, जवत्त

मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की 9 जसतम्बर, 2020 की अजिसूचना संख्या का.आ.755 में जनम्नजलजखत संिोिन करती िै,

नामत:-

उि अजिसूचना में “सरकारी रािपत्र” िब्िों से आरंभ िो रिे तथा “िेयर िारण करने से िै” से समाप्त िो

रिे भाग को जनम्नजलजखत से प्रजतस्ट्थाजपत दकया िाएगा, नामत:-

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-09032023-244159

CG-DL-W-09032023-244159

434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“9 जसतम्बर, 2023 से एक वर्व की अवजि के जलए अथवा इसके प्रजतसंिरण तक, िो भी पिले िो,

आईसीआईसीआई बैंक जलजमटेड पर लागू निीं िोंगे, ििां तक इसका संबंि आईसीआईसीआई लोम्बाडव िनरल

इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड की चुकता पूंिी के 30% से अजिक राजि का िेयर िारण करने से िै।”

यि अजिसूचना 9 जसतम्बर, 2023 से प्रवृत्त िोगी।

[फा. सं. 7/16/2022-बीओए-I]

ज्ञानोतोर् राय, अवर सजचव

रटप्पणी: 9 जसतम्बर, 2020 की अजिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 755 को भारत के रािपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii)

में 12 जसतम्बर, 2020 को प्रकाजित दकया गया था।

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2023

S.O. 237.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry

of Finance, Department of Financial Services number S.O. 755 dated the 9^th September, 2020, published in the

Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 12^th September, 2020, namely:—

In the said notification, for the portion beginning with the words “the paid-up capital of” and ending with

the words “whichever is earlier”, the following shall be substituted, namely:—

“the paid-up capital of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited for a period of one year with

effect from 9^th September, 2023 or till its revocation, whichever is earlier.”.

2. This notification shall come into force with effect from the 9^th day of September, 2023.

[F. No. 7/16/2022-BOA.I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

Note: The notification number S.O. 755 dated the 9^th September, 2020 were published in the Gazette of India,

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 12^th September, 2020.

कार्मवक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 238.—केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की

उपिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित् त िज‍ तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री राि कुमार भास्ट्कर ठाकरे, अजिव‍ ता को,

दिल् ली जविेर् पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंरीय अन्वेर्ण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी सं. 223

2021 ए 0003 में मुंबई के जवजभन्न न्यायालयों में अजभयोिन का संचालन करने के जलए, जिसके अंतगवत

तत्समय प्रवृत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय या भारत के उच्चतम

न्यायालय के समक्ष उि मामले से उद्भूत दकसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य कायवािी भी िै, पि ग्रिण

करने की तारीख से तीन वर्व की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूववतर िो,

जविेर् लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयु‍ त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/17/2022-एवीडी-II ]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

435

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2023

S.O. 238.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajkumar Bhaskar

Thakare, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of CBI case RC No. 223 2021 A

0003, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), in various courts

in Mumbai including appeal, revision or other proceeding arising out of the said case before any Appellate or

Revision Court established under any law for the time being in force or before Supreme Court of India for a

period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/17/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 239.— केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िज‍ तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री आर. मल्लैया, अजिव‍ ता को, दिल् ली जविेर् पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंरीय

अन्वेर्ण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत, जनम्नजलजखत सारणी में यथा उजल्लजखत मामलों के जलए अजभयोिन का संचालन करने

िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्व की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूववतर िो,

जविेर् लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयु‍ त करती िै, :--

सारणी

ि.सं.

सीबीआई मामला आरसी सं.

न्यायालय का नाम

आर.सी 14/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

आर.सी 17/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

आर.सी 19/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

आर.सी 20/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

आर.सी 21/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

आर.सी 8/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

आर.सी 9/ई/2013

न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट प्रथम श्रेणी, अंकोला, कनावटक

[फा. सं. 225/23/2022-एवीडी-II ]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2023

S.O. 239.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri R. Mallaiah, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (CBI), as mentioned in the Table below, for a period of three years from the date of the

assumption of charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier :-

TABLE

Sl. No.

CBI Case RC No.

Name of the Court

RC 14/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

RC 17/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

RC 19/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

RC 20/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RC 21/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

RC 8/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

RC 9/E/2013

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola, Karnataka

[F. No. 225/23/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 240.—केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िज‍ तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री पाथवसारथी आनंि स्ट्वरूप पजत, अजिव‍ ता को झारखण्ड उच्च

न्यायालय, रांची के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेर् पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंरीय अन्वेर्ण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत दकए गए मामलों से

उद्भूत अपील, पुनरीक्षण तथा अन्य जवर्यों और उनसे संबंजित या उनके आनुर्ंजगक मामलों के अजभयोिन का

संचालन करने के जलए उनकी जनयुज‍ त की तारीख से तीन वर्ों की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी

पूववतर िो, जविेर् लोक अजभयोिक जनयु‍ त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/32/2021-एवीडी-II ]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2023

S.O. 240.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Parthsarthy Anand

Swaroop Pati, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeal, revision and other

matters arising out of the case instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of

Investigation), and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, before the High Court of Jharkhand,

Ranchi for a period of three years from the date of appointment or until further order, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/32/2021–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

उपभो‍ ता मामले, खाद्य और सावविजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय

(खाद्य और सावविजनक जवतरण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 241.— केन् रीय सरकार रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में उपभो‍ ता मामले, खाद्य और सावविजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय (खाद्य और

सावविजनक जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलजखत कायावलय, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक

कमवचारीवृन् ि ने जिन् िी का कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को रािपत्र में अजिसूजचत करती िै:-

: केन् रीय भंडारण जनगम

आई.सी.डी., पटपड़गंि

दिल् ली-110096

[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-जिन् िी(321924)]

रािेन् र कुमार, संयु‍ त सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

437

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2023

S.O. 241.—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 office under the administrative

control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food & Public

Distribution), whereof more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

: Central Warehousing Corporation

ICD, Patparganj

Delhi-110096

[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi(321924)]

RAJENDER KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 242 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार निदेशक और अन्य, िेशिल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ फार्ाास्युटटकल एजुकेशि एंड टरसर्ा, र्ोहाली (पंजाब);

प्रबंध निदेशक, र्ेससा सांर्ी नसक्योटरटी कंपिी प्राइवेट नलनर्टेड, र्ंडीगढ़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री गुरर्ेल ससंह,कार्गार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सह-

श्रम न्यायालय-1 र्ंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 133/2013) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, को प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 07/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-55-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2023

S.O. 242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/2013) 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 The Director and anothe, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali

(Punjab);The Managing Director, M/s Sanchi Security Company Private Ltd. , Chandigarh and

Shri Gurmail Singh, Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 07/02/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-55- -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, PRESS DEPOT

BUILDING, 2^RD FLOOR, SECTOR 18, CHANDIGARH.

ID No. 133/2013

Registered on:-13.12.2013

(Directly Filed under Section 2-A)

Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Phuman Singh, Unskilled Mali, Resident of Village

438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and Post Office Mataur, Tehsil and District Mohali ….Appellant

Vs.

National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research,

S.A.S. Nagar, District Mohali (Punjab) through its Director and another

M/s Sanchi Security Company Private Ltd. SCO No.358,

Sector 44-D, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Col. A. Malhi ….Management

Appearance:-

For the Workman -

Sh. R.P. Rana AR for Workman

For Respondent No.1- Sh. P.K. Mutneja AR for Respondent No.1

For Respondent No.2- None for Respondent No.2

AWARD

Passed On:-01.11.2022

1. The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, in pursuance of the certificate issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central) Chandigarh, dated

12.09.2013. The workman has filed demand notice U/s 2-A, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in regard to

illegal termination by the Respondent with prayer for reinstate into service, with full back wages along with

consequential benefit.

2. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

3. Respondent has moved an application through AR Sh. Pawan Kumar Mutneja Ld. Advocate with Sh.

V.S. Mahal, with affidavit with the prayer that present application be allowed and Tribunal be pleased to dismiss

the present reference, on the ground that three persons, namely, Satnam Singh, Avtar Singh and Hari Ram had

preferred different writ petitions bearing CWP No.5949 of 1999, CWP No.7930 of 1999 and CWP No.6645 of

1999 respectively. These writ petitions were dismissed on 30.10.2012 by the Hon’ble High Court. They then

moved an application for modification of the above-said order, which was disposed on 01.02.2013 and copies of

the orders dated 30.10.2012 and 01.02.2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court are annexed. Moreover liberty was

given only to the three petitioners, who had preferred the writ petitions. The demand notice has been preferred by

persons other than the said three persons. Even the demand notice was not maintainable. Section 2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act was amended in the year 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010. It has also been stated in the application

that amended Section 2A of the I.D. Act for the first time gave a limitation to the controversy. Limitation period

is only three years.

4. The present reference is not maintainable on account of limitation and Tribunal could not have

entertained the application for reference. Moreover, the present reference was not maintainable on account of

delay and latches. As per the applicant, his service came to an end in the year 1999. The present reference has

been made after a period of 14 years by moving an application before this Hon’ble Court in the year 2013. The

reference itself is not maintainable on account of delay and latches. Furthermore, it has also been stated that the

applicant itself alleges that he was employee of the Contractor and as such the Contractor has not been impleaded

as a party. Thus, the present reference deserves to be dismissed.

5. Reply has been filed on behalf of the workman to application dated 08.01.2019, filed by Respondent

No.1. It has been stated that contention of para is wrong and hence, denied that only three persons have preferred

writ petition. However CWP 5949 of 1999 was filed by 44 workers and CWP 7930 was filed by 5 workers

including present workman. Thus contention made in this para is wrong and denied that only liberty was given to

three workers. Moreover in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Steel Authority

of India V/s National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) ACC1 liberty was given by Hon’ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana in the above mentioned CWP vide order dated 01.02.2013 to the workers to have a remedy

as in the decision of the Supreme Court. It has also been stated that, the demand notice was not maintainable in

view of amendment made in Section 2A of I.D. Act w.e.f 15.09.2010. However, it is submitted that workers

apprehending their termination and for regularisation of their service filed CWP No.5949 and CWP NO.7930 of

1999 before Hon’ble High Court which was taken up for hearing on 05.05.1999 in which notice was issued to the

respondents for 01.09.1999. On 14.05.1999 when the respondent No.1 received notice from Hon’ble High Court

he did not allowed workman and others to enter the gate of NIPPER and thus orally terminated the service of the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

439

workman along with other Not only this, against illegal action workers also approached to labour Inspector

Mohali on 15.05.1999 who informed to the workers on 18.05.1999 that your complaint will be filed before the

ALC (Central) Sector 9, Chandigarh and thus workers approached ALC (Central) Sector-9, Chandigarh by filing

complaint that since workers have filed writ petitions regarding regularization of their service against respondents

before Hon’ble High Court. Additionally, parties to await the decision of Hon’ble High Court, copy of the order

dated 28.05.1999 passed by ALC (Central) Sector 9, Chandigarh is annexed. Therefore, there is no delay in filing

demand notice in view of facts and circumstances explained above. It is also stated that the application filed by

the respondent No.1 /management may kindly be dismissed with cost of view of the facts and submission.

6. The workman Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Phuman Singh has engaged as Unskilled Mali on 01.12.1995 by

the Institute being shown to be engaged by the Contractors his services was terminated orally on 14.05.1999. It is

admitted fact that the workman has filed this case on 13.12.2013 in this Tribunal. As per provision of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947, vide amendment which was inserted by Act No.24 of 2010 Section 3 with effect from

15.09.2010, new provisions has been added as follows:-

“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

of specified in sub-Section (1)’’.

7. The services of workman was terminated admittedly on 14.05.1999 and case has been filed on

13.12.2013, which is not within limitation period of three years. As such this Tribunal have no power to condone

the delay. Application of the opposite party is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the case is time barred and the

claim is declined and rejected as time barred.

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

Act for publication.

J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 243.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार निदेशक, अनखल भारतीय आयुर्वाज्ञाि संस्थाि, भोपाल, र्ध्य प्रदेश, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

नियोजकों और श्री नवजय बलदे, कार्गार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/62/2019) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, को

प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-67--vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/62/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, and Shri Vijay

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

17/02/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-67-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/2019

Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S.(Retd.)

Shri Vijay Balde,

E-8/19, Commercial Area,

Pragya Sagar Apartment,

Trilanga, Bhopal – 462039.

….Workman

Versus

Director,

All India Institute of Medical Science,

Saket Nagar, Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh – 495689

……Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 30^th day of September-2022)

As per letter dated 15/10/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,

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

Notification No. J-1(1-2)/2019-IR. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Isha Protectional Security Guard Pvt.

Ltd. Bhopal (working in the Establishment of M/s AIIMS, Bhopal) in terminating the

services of workman Shri Vijay Balde w.e.f 25.10.2018 is legal, just and proper? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman Shri Vijay Balde is entitled to?"

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

them. Ist party workman failed to appear and participate in reference proceeding despite of repeated notices.

2^nd party management appeared but did not file any Written Statement.

3. Since the initial burden to prove claim is on workman in which he has failed, reference deserves to be

answered against him and is answered accordingly.

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

per rules.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDING OFFICER

DATE: 30-09-2022

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 244 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार र्ुख्य र्हाप्रबंधक, दूरसंर्ार, र्.प्र. पटरर्ण्डल, होशंगाबाद रोड, भोपाल ; टी.डी.ई., ब्यावरा,

राजगढ़ (र्.प्र.), के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री निसार अहर्द, कार्गार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/61/2001) को जैसा

कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2023

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40012/76/2000-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

441

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 244.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/61/2001) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecom, M.P. Circle, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal; The T.D.E.,

Biaora,Rajgarh-(M.P.) and Shri Nisar Ahmed, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-40012/76/2000-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/2001

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

Sh. Nisar Ahmed

S/o Abdul Ajij

R/o Kurawar Mandi,

District Rajgarh(MP)

….Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, M.P.Circle,

Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462001.

2. The T.D.E.,

Rajgarh at Biaora,

Rajgarh(M.P.)

….Management

AWARD

(Passed on 26-7-2022

As per letter dated 27-3-2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

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

Notification No.L-40012/76/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Management of Chief General manager, Telecom in

terminating the services of Sh. Nisar Ahmed S/o Sh. Abdul Ajij w.e.f. September-

1991 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled.”

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

have filed their respective statement of claim/defence.

2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was engaged as a helper by

Management in the year 1987 and continued till September-1991 when his services were terminated by the

Management without any notice or compensation though he worked for more than 240 days continuously in

every year including the year preceding the date of his termination. Thus his termination is violative of Section

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The workman has prayed that setting aside his termination, he be

reinstated with back wages and benefits.

3. According to the management, the workman was engaged as a casual labour in the year 1987 by

Management for specific period and specific work, with a condition that his services has come to an end

automatically after completion of the work. He was not engaged on regular basis, against any vacant sanctioned

post or by following rules and procedure of recruitment. He never worked for 240 days or more continuously in

any year including the year preceding the date of his termination, hence, his dis-engagement without notice or

compensation is not against law. The management has prayed that the reference be answered against the

workman.

The Workman has filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has proved his Employment

Exchange Care as Exhibit W-1. He has not been cross-examined by the Management. The management has

442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

filed earlier affidavit of Rajmani Khan S.D.E. Administration and Ramgopal Sinsinwar SDE Legal but could

not produce them for cross-examination, hence ultimately filed Affidavit of its witness Mohd. Feroz Ahmed ,

Assistant General Manager Legal and has been cross-examined by the workman.

I have heard arguments of Shri Arun Patel, learned counsel for the workman. None was present from

the side of the Management. They were given opportunity to file written Argument, which they did not avail . I

have gone through the record.

The reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

Before entering into any discussion on merit, Section 25B and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947 is required to be produced here:-

Section 25 B:-

Definition of continuous service.-

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that

period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may

be interrupted on

account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or

a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the

workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of

clause (1) for a period

of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in

continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman,

during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which

calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i)

one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a

mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six

months, if the

workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date

with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed

below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any

industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given

one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of

notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for

every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;

and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or

such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the

Official Gazette.]

The initial burden to prove his continuous engagement for 240 days or more in any year lies on the

workman. The workman has examined himself and has stated that he worked for 240 days in every year till the

date of his termination. He has not been cross-examined by Management. On the other hand, the Management

witness, though has stated in his cross-examination in form of affidavit that the workman never worked

continuously for 240 days or more in any year but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he was never

posted in the office where the workman worked. He never saw the muster roll for the said period. He further

states that he has prepared his affidavit on the basis of earlier affidavit kept in the file. Also that he did not

produce any document to support that the workman had worked continuously for 240 days or more in any year .

Learned Counsel for the workman has referred to judgment of Hon. The Apex Court in the case of

Director Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda AIR(2010) SC 1236 wherein it

has been held that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis and he would have difficulty in accessing

the office documents like muster roll etc. when the workman claims and disposes that he has worked for 240

days the burden shifts to employer to prove that he did not work for 240 days or more in that year.

10.

In another judgment Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan(2015) 12 SCC 754, it has been held by

Hon’ble the Apex Court that withholding of documents i.e. muster roll by the employer may result into drawing

adverse inference against the Management. In the light of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the

case cited above, the claim of the workman that he continuously worked for 240 days and more in every year

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

443

including the year of his dis-engagement is held proved. Admittedly since no notice or compensation was given

at the time of dis-engagement, the termination of the workman is held violative of the Section 25F of the Act.

11.

In the light of the finding recorded above, the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled

since the workman was not appointed following any recruitment procedure against sanctioned vacancy, his

reinstatement will not be legally admissible remedy. Accordingly he is held entitled to compensation keeping

in view the tenure of his engagement and other facts and circumstances mentioned here in the case in hand , a

lump sum compensation in lieu of his claims computed at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) will meet

the ends of justice to which the workman is held entitled to recover within 30 days from the date of notification

of the Award in official gazette failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of publication of Award

till the date of receipt of Award.

12.

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

A. The action of the management “of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating

the services of Sh. Nisar Ahmed S/o Sh. Abdul Ajij w.e.f. September-1991 is held to be

unjustified.

B. The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation in lieu of his claims

computed at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to which the workman is held

entitled to recover within 30 days from the date of notification of the Award in official

gazette failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of publication of Award

till the date of payment.

13.

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

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 26-7-2022

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 245 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार वटरष्ठ डाकघर अधीक्षक, खटीकपुरा, इंदौर (र्.प्र.), के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और र्हासनर्व,

र्ध्य प्रदेश राष्ट्रीय र्जदूर कांग्रेस (आई.टी.यू.सी.), टी.टी. िगर, भोपाल (र्.प्र.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/82/2019) को जैसा

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-68-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/82/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Khatikpura, Indore (M.P.) and The General Seceretary, Madhya

Pradesh Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress, (ITUC), TT Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.), which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-68-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/82/2019

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

The Madhya Pradesh Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress(ITUC)

Through: General Seceretary, 312, Lucky Plaza

2^nd Floor,TT Nagar,Bhopal(M.P.)-462003.

`…Workman

Versus

The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office,

109, Mahatma Gandhi road,

Khatikpura,

Indore (M.P.)-452003.

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16^th day of August-2022)

As per letter dated 28-11-2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Office of the Deputy Chief Labaour Commissioner (Central), Block No.10, Civil Centre, Marhatal, Jabalpur

(M.P.), the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as

per Notification No. F. No. J-1(1-16)/2019-IR. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Kya Pravar Adheekshak, Dakghar, Indore Shehar Mandal, Inore dwara Shri Ritesh

Lashkari evam 44 anya(Pareshesht B ke anusar)karya se band kiye jaana(karya se

prethak keye jaane)evam maah April 2019 ka vetanman bhugtan na kiya jaana uchhit

hai?Yadi nahi to kya kaamgar Apne purv ke karya par use stithi mein maah april 2019

ko vetan sahet neyojan tatha sambandhit anutosh paane ka adhikari hai?” .”

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

of notice the workman did not appear. He did not file any written statement of claim.

2. The management filed vakalatnama of Advocate Shri S.K.Mishra and Shri Manoj Singh but did not

file any statement of defense, inspite of much time given.

3. Since the initial burden to plead and prove their case is on the workmen. They have not filed any

evidence in this respect. The reference deserves to be answered against the workmen, holding their claim not

proved and is answered accordingly.

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

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

B. The workmen are held entitled to no relief.

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

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 16-8-2022

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 246 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

नियोजकों और श्री र्ंरकांत र्ोनहतकर, कार्गार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/63/2019) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है,

को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-66-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

445

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/63/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, and Shri

Chandrakant Mohitkar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-66-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2019

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S.(Retd.)

Shri Chandrakant Mohitkar, Artist,

56, Adhyapak Layout,

Hingana Road, Nagpur,

Maharashtra – 440036.

…Workman

Versus

Director,

All India Institute of Medical Science,

Saket Nagar, Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh – 495689

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 30^th day of September-2022)

1. As per letter dated 15/10/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

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

Notification No. J-1(1-3)/2019-IR. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Isha Protectional Security Guard

Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (working in the Establishment of M/s AIIMS, Bhopal) in

terminating the services of workman Shri Chandrakant Mohitkar w.e.f 20.12.2018

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

Shri Chandrakant Mohitkar is entitled to?"

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

them. Ist party workman failed to appear and participate in reference proceeding despite of repeated notices.

2^nd party management appeared but did not file any Written Statement.

3. Since the initial burden to prove claim is on workman in which he has failed, reference deserves to be

answered against him and is answered accordingly.

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

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 30-09-2022

446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 247.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार सदस्य सनर्व, रेशर् बोडा, कपडा र्ंत्रालय, सरकार भारत सरकार, सीएसबी कॉम्प्लेक्स, बैंगलोर;

निदेशक, केंरीय रेशर् बोडा, कपडा र्ंत्रालय, सरकार ऑफ इंनडया, रांर्ी, झारखंड ; सहायक निदेशक, केंरीय तसर

अिुसंधाि प्रनशक्षण संस्थाि, (नवस्तार केंर), केंरीय रेशर् बोडा, कटघोरा, नजला कोरबा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

नियोजकों और श्री र्ंगल रार्, कार्गार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/ R/112/2004) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, को

[सं. एल-42012/272/2003-vkbZvkj (सीएर्-II)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/ R/112/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Member Secretary, Silk Board, Ministry of Textile ,Govt. of India, C.S.B.Complex, Bangalore

;The Director, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textile, Govt. Of India, Ranchi, Jharkahand; The Assistant

Director, Central Tasar Research Training Insitute, (Extension Centre),Central Silk Board, Katghora, District

Korba , and Shri Managal Ram, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/272/2003-IR(CM-II)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/112/2004

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Managal Ram

S/o Shri Baula Ram

Village Rampur, Via Katghora

Korba-Chhattisgarh.

…Workman

Versus

The Member Secretary,

Silk Board,Ministry of Textile ,

Govt. of India,C.S.B.Complex

B.T.M.Lay Out, Medivala,

Bangalore-560068

The Director,

Central Silk Board,

Ministry of Textile,Govt. Of India

Village & PO Piska Nagadi,

District Ranchi ,Jharkahand.

The Assistant Director,

Central Tasar Research Training Insitute,

(Extension Centre),Central Silk Board,

Village & PO Katghora,District Korba

….Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

447

AWARD

(Passed on 15-7-22.)

As per letter dated 8/11/2004 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

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

Notification No.L-42012/272/2003-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central Tasar Research and Training

Institute(under Silk board) in terminating the services of Shri Mangal Ram, S/o Shri

Baula Ram and regularising the services of his juniors, overlooking his seniority is

legal and justified?if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? .”

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

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was working in Rampur farm

under the management Central Silk Board under NA/OP No.3 since 1980, OP No.3 is under direct control of

OP NO.1 & 2 and on their instructions, he was engaged by OP No.3 for working for so many years. Every year,

the management collected EPF subscriptions from the wages regularly till 2001 but never supplied EPF slips

except a few slips that too reluctantly. Being in service of the management since 1980 till 2001. The workman

claimed regularization but terminated the services of the applicant workman orally under the oral order. The

workman raised a reference before ALC(C) Bilaspur on 16-1-2003. After FOC, reference was made by

Appropriate Authority to this court. According to the workman, he worked for a period of more than 240 days

in continuous employment of the management even in the year preceding his date of termination. No enquiry

was held by management before his disengagement. He was not given any notice or compensation before his

disengagement hence his disengagement is against law. Workman is unemployed since then. Accordingly

workman has prayed for his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits as well as regularization setting

aside his termination.

The case of the management as taken in their joint written statement of defence is that in view of the

activities carried out by the management, it is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. hence the

reference is not maintainable as such before this Tribunal. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centres

(BSM & TC), set up by management conduct rearing and seed preparation activities. Such seasonal activities

generally run for 45-50 days in one spell and whole of the year it extends upto more than 150 or 180 days in 3

spells in any year. For this seasonal work, the basic seed multiplication and training centers (BSM & TC)

engaged seasonal workers on rotation basis on the basis of availability. They are discontinued from work after

the season is over. These workers are neither terminated nor retrenched but are kept on panel and are called for

work during seasons for limited period according to requirement. The workman was never appointed against the

post but only was engaged to do seasonal work as mentioned above. Hence his termination is not bad in law as

his case falls under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, also it has been pleaded that in the light of decision of

Supreme Court in the State of MP and others versus Lalit Kumar Verma 2007(1)SCC 575 & State of

Karnataka Vs Umadevi 2006(4)SCC-1 the reference be answered against the workman.

In his rejoinder, the workman has mainly denied the case of management in its Written Statement of

defence and has alleged that the management is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. The

disengagement of workman is violative of Section 25-F of the Act hence illegal and arbitrary.

At the stage of evidence, workman Shri Lalsingh examined himself as witness. He was cross-

examined by management.

Management has filed affidavit of its witness but did not produce him for cross examination on various

dates granted for this. hence closing the evidence of management, argument from both the sides were heard and

records have been perused by me.

7. From perusal of record in the light of rival argument, following issues come up for determination in this

case:-

(1) Whether the OP management is industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial

Dispute Act?

(2) Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of applicant

workman and regularizing the services of his juniors overlooking his seniority is

justified in law and fact.

(3) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief or not?

448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. Issue No.1-

Before entering into merits on this point, Industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act is

being reproduced as follows:-

“INDUSTRY”

MEANS

ANY

BUSINESS,

TRADE,

UNDERTAKING,

MANUFACTURE OR CALLING OF EMPLOYERS AND INCLUDES ANY

CALLING, SERVICE, EMPLOYMENT, HANDICRAFT, OR INDUSTRIAL

OCCUPATION OR AVOCATION OF WORKMEN.

9. Though the learned counsel for management has submitted that the management is not an

industry as defined in the Act but I am not inclined to accept his argument on the ground that firstly the

activities of the institute are integrated and it does not come under the exemptions to Section 2(j). In

the light of principle of laid down above by the constitution bench of Hon. Supreme Court in

Bangalore Water Works Vrs A.Rajappa Case- 1978 AIR 548, 1978 SCR (3) 207, OP No.3 is held

industry in the Act. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

10. Issue No.2- Before entering into any discussion on merits on this point, some legal provisions

are being reproduced.

Section 2(oo)

“Retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of workman for

any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicted

way

disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in

that behalf; or

Section 2 (bb)-

termination of the service of the workman as a result of the on-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c)

termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;

Section 25 B:-

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a workman

shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is,

for

that

period,

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of

sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out

or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a

period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under

an employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually

worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the

case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty

days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period

of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in

the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and

twenty days, in any other case.

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman

employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons

for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been

paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

449

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall

be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed

year of continuous

service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such

authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the

Official Gazette.]

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of

workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be

recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and

the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as

may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of

India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer

themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.

Thus as it is evident from the legal provisions referred to above, that the workman will have to prove

that he was engaged by management and was in continuous employment for a period of 240 days or more in the

year preceding the date of his termination.

11. Learned counsel for management has submitted that the reference is vague in itself as it does not

mention the date of termination of workman. True it is that date of termination of workman is not mentioned in

the reference resulting into complications in deciding the factum of continuous employment in the year

preceding the date of termination of workman but as the case is pending since 2004 and this point has been

raised at this stage, justice requires that help of pleadings be sought on this point because it is not justice to

punish the workman for a fault which he has not committed. According to the workman, he was terminated in

the year 2001 as is stated in his statement of claim in Para-2. He also does not disclosed the date of his

termination in his pleadings. The case of management is that workman was simply engaged for short period due

to contingency of work on casual basis, hence there was no question of his termination.

12.In his affidavit on oath, workman has stated that he was first engaged in 1980 and remained in

continuous employment till 15-7-99. He was terminated on 16-7-99

13. Learned counsel has referred to case J.Yashoda Vs. K.Sobharani 2007(5)SCC-730, Kamla Devi

Vs Vandana 2016(2)MPLJ-324. On this point wherein it has been held that for adducing secondary evidence, it is

necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of original documents and conditions laid down in Section

65 must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Learned counsel for workman has submitted that the

workman proved these photocopy documents under order of the Court dated 17-10-2016.

14.

The settled principle of law is that strict rules of proof do not apply in cases/ proceedings

under Industrial Dispute Act and Industrial Dispute (Central Rules) 1957 apply to the proceedings before

Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts. The cases referred to by learned counsel for management are not

concerned with industrial adjudication. Inspite of the fact that it is undisputed that the procedure regarding

conducting of case and recording evidence as well as proof must confirm to basic principles of natural justice

and evidence as well as proof accepted universally. It is true that in the case in hand, there is nothing on record

to show that the primary evidence was not available and the permission to prove by way of secondary evidence

was granted by my learned predecessor only on the ground that strict rules of proof do not apply in such cases.

But even if these records are perused keeping in view the fact that the fact in issue is whether the workman had

completed 240 days in continuous employment of the management in the year preceding the date of his

termination. These documents in all show that the workman had worked upto 1992-93 for which number of

days in every year have been mentioned. Hence in such a situation, only the self serving statement of the

workman which no where declares the exact date of his termination from service is not sufficient to hold that

the workman had completed 240 days in continuous employment of the management in the year preceding the

date of his disengagement. Accordingly it is held that continuous employment of the workman for a period of

240 days or more in the year preceding date of his termination is not proved. Hence his termination cannot be

held violative of Section 25-F.

450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15. On the other hand the ground taken by workman in his statement of claim that juniors to him

were regularized in service but there is no evidence on this point, hence on this ground also, the

termination cannot be held as bad in law.

16. On the basis of above discussion, the termination of the workman is held justified in law and fact.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

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

A. The action of the management of Central Tasar Research and Training

Institute(under Silk board) in terminating the services of Shri Mangal Ram, S/o

Shri Baula Ram and regularising the services of his juniors, overlooking his

seniority is held to be legal and justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

18.

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

Employment as per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 15-7-2022

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 248 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार अधीक्षण पुरातत्वनवद्, भारतीय पुरातत्व सवेक्षण , ियापल्ली वीआईपी क्षेत्र, भुविेश्वर सर्काल,

भुविेश्वर-(उडीसा); अधीक्षण पुरातत्वनवद्, भारतीय पुरातत्व सवेक्षण,सं. जे/10, अिुपर् िगर, रायपुर-(छ.ग.);

सहायक संरक्षक, भारतीय पुरातत्व सवेक्षण,भरतिगर, नबलासपु-(छ.ग.) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री

रूपेंर कुर्ार शर्ाा,कार्गार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

जबलपुर पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/ R/50/2006) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती िै

जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/124/2005-vkbZvkj (सीएर्-II)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/ R/50/2006) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Nayapalli VIP Area,

Bhubaneshwar Circle, Bhubaneshwar-(Orissa);The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of

India, No. J/10, Anupam Nagar, Raipur-(Chhattisgarh);The Assistant Conservator,Archaeological Survey of

India, Bharatiyanagar , Bilaspur-(C.G.) and Shri Roopendra Kumar Sharma,Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/124/2005-IR (CM-II)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

451

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2006

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Roopendra Kumar Sharma,

S/o Shri Sampat Prasad Sharma,

Village & PO Sildaha

Thana Patharia, Tehsil Mungeli,

Bilaspur (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Superintending Archaeologist

Archaeological Survey of India

Nayapalli VIP Area, Bhubaneshwar Circle

Bhubaneshwar(Orissa).

2. The Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

No.J/10, Anupam Nagar,

Raipur(Chhattisgarh).

3. The Assistant Conservator

Archaeological Survey of India,

Bharatiyanagar,

Bilaspur(C.G.)

….Management

AWARD

(Passed on 28-9-2022)

As per letter dated 11-8-2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

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

Notification No.L-42012/124/2005-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in

terminating the services of Shri Rupendera Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 3-9-2001 is

legal and justified?if not,to what relief the workman is entitled?” .”

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

have filed their respective statement of claim/defence.

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

under the Management on 7-11-2000 and worked continuously till 3-9-2001 when he was terminated under an

oral order of management without any notice or compensation. He filed a petition before the Labour Court

Bilaspur for his wages which was granted and he was paid wages for this period by the Management.

According to the workman, he had attained permanent status by working for 240 days in every year, hence his

termination is against law. It is further his case that the workman junior to him are still retained by

management. Accordingly he has prayed that holding the action of Management terminating his services

against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.

3. The case of the Management is mainly that he and other two workers were engaged for a very short

period with usual object against specific conservation work and system. They were paid wages on the rates

fixed by Labour Commissioner as per Minimum Wages Act. They were appointed as chowkidar. Their wages

could not be paid in time due to administrative exigency which was paid later on under the orders of Labour

Court. They were not appointed following the recruitment procedure against regular vacancy, hence their

termination is not against law. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the

workman.

452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. The workman has filed copy of judgment of Labour Court, money receipt of payment which has been

paid to the applicant workman under the order of Labour Court. Workman Rupendra Kumar Sharma has

examined himself as examination-in-chief. Opportunity of cross-examination was given to Management but

they have not preferred to cross-examine the workman.

5. The Management has not filed any evidence.

6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for workman and management and have gone through the

record.

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

There is an uncontroverted affidavit of the workman without any cross-examination stating that he

worked from 7-11-2000 to 31-12-2001 as this statement is against his pleadings in his statement of claim

wherein he has stated that he worked till 3-9-2001. The receipt regarding payment of wages to the workman

filed by the workman himself Exhibit W-2 also states that he was paid wages from 6-11-2000 to 2-9-2001. The

order of Labour Court also states the same facts in this respect. In absence of any evidence to counter the fact

that the workman worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination continuously is held

proved. Since no notice or compensation was given to him before his termination, his termination is held in

violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947

Since the workman was a daily wager, not appointed against regular vacancy following the recruitment

procedure, he cannot be held entitled to be reinstated . Keeping in view the nature of his appointment and

tenure of his work, he is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000 from Management in lieu of all

his claims payable to him by the Management within 30 days from the date of publication of Award in Official

gazette, failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of publication till payment.

10.

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

A.The action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in

terminating the services of Shri Rupendera Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 3-9-2001 is

held not legal and justified.

B.The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000 in

lieu of all his claims payable to him by the Management within 30 days from the

date of publication of Award in Official gazette, failing which interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of publication till payment.\

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

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 28-9-2022

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 249 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार निदेशक, क्षेत्रीय अिुसंधाि प्रयोगशाला, हबीबगंज िाका, भोपाल-(र्.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष, आर.आर.एल. दैनिक वेटि भोगी कर्ार्ारी संघ, बाग र्ुगनलया, भोपाल (र्.प्र.), के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर पंचाट (संिभव सं.

CGIT/LC/R/39/2006) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/212/2005-vkbZvkj (सीएर्-II)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

453

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 249.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/39/2006) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Director, Regional Research Laboratory, Habibganj Naka, Bhopal-(M.P.) and The President,

R.R.L.Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangh, Bagh Mughalia, Bhopal (M.P.), which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/212/2005-IR (CM-II)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/2006

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

R.R.L.Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangh

LIG-SR-541 Katara Hills,

Bagh Mughalia,

Bhopal (M.P.)

….Workman

Versus

The Director,

Regional Research Laboratory

Habibganj Naka

Bhopal (M.P.)

….Management

AWARD

(Passed on 14-11-2022.)

As per letter dated 31/7/2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

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

Notification No.L-42012/212/2005-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sisodia for his reinstatement and

issuing of appointment letters to him and 94 others(as per list enclosed) by the

Regional Research Laboratory and declaration of them as permanent employees is

legal and justified? If yes, to what relief they are entitled? .”

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

have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.

According to the workman Union, the Applicant workman No.1 who is also the President of the Union

along other 94 applicant workmen are working continuously from the date of their first appointments for more

than 240 days in every year and have attained the status of permanent employees. The Management did not

Award them permanent status nor did the Management regularize their services. They formed an Association in

the year 2004 and raised their demand but in order to desist the applicant workmen from raising their lawful

demands the applicant workman No.1 who is also the President of the Association was orally terminated by the

management. He raised a dispute in this respect, thereafter M/s Trio Securities and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd.,

Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi informed them that he has been terminated from Regional Research Laboratory i.e.

Management No.1 and 2 to CMC. According to the Workman Union, they are employees of the Management

of Regional Research Laboratory and not of any Security Agency. When a dispute was raised before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner by workman Union, the Management took a stand that these workman are

contractors employees which is factually incorrect. The workmen are engaged as helpers, peons, Technical

Assistantants, Chowkidars, Gardeners, Waterman, Drivers, Lab Assistants, Sweepers, Plumber etc. by the

454 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management of Regional Research Laboratory. According to the workman Union the termination of the

services of the applicant workman No.1 Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya who is also the President of the Union is

against law because no notice or compensation was given to him . Further the action of the Management in not

classifying and declaring the applicant workman as their permanent employees is also against law. Accordingly,

it has been prayed that the reference be answered in favour of the applicant workmen Union.

In its written statement of defense, the case of the management is firstly that the Management of

Regional Research Laboratory is not an Industry under Industrial Disputes Act,1947, hence the reference is not

maintainable before this Tribunal. Secondly the workmen were not employed by the Management of Regional

Research Laboratory, hence there is no question of their services by the management and their reinstatement.

According to the Management, there is not relationship of workman and employer between the parties. Also it

has been pleaded that the Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute and that the present dispute has

been raised only with a view to secure appointment through back door entry. According to the management,

the applicant workmen are contractor employees engaged through contractor and Management has no role to

play in this respect. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the

workman Union.

The Management has filed and proved documents, Exhibit M-1, letter of Director of the Management

dated 31-10-2005 to Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking direction to contractor to obtain necessary license

from Management in Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition)Act,1970. Exhibit M-2 is the certificate of

Registration of contractors Exhibit M-3 is annual Report of Management as Principal Employer sent to

Registering Office as per contract rules. Exhibit M-4 is Annexure of annual returns. Exhibit M-5 is work order

dated 5-12-2006 to Contractor M/s Bharat Security Services for house keeping services in the laboratory.

Exhibit M-6 to M-11 are job contracts for providing man power for horticulture, cleaning, gues house and

canteen services issued to M.s Shramik Kalyan Samiti and M/s Bharat Security Services for the year 2005-

2006. Exhibit M-12 is work agreement for cleaning with M/s Bharat Security Services executed in the year

2006 for one year. Exhibit M-13 to M-16 are letters awarding contract to M/s Bharat Security Services for

house keeping, security services, horticulture services, cleaning, guest house and canteen services respectively.

Exhibit M-18 is another letter by Director of the Management to the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking

direction to the Contractors to get necessary licences ExhibitM-18 to M-20 and Exhibit M-21, M-22, M-23 to

M-30 are different documents of M/s Bharat Security Services showing that they deposited employees

provident fund dues of their employees and raised bills in the year 2006-2007.

The Management has filed affidavit of its witness Shri S.K.Gupta, controller of Administration who

never appeared for cross-examination, hence his affidavit cannot be read in evidence in support of

management. The Management has filed another Affidavit of its witness Somnath Majumdar, Administrative

Officer. He has been cross-examined by workman side. The Management has further examined its another

witness Radheshyam Namdeo Waghmare, Administrative Officer, Hemant Kumar Malviya, Proprietor of M/s

Bharat Security Services. These witness have also been cross-examined by the Workman Union.

The workman side has filed affidavit of 37 witness out of which only applicant workman witness

Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya, President of the Union Ramesh Chandra Rajkumar, Chandrakant Bhat, have cross-

examined by management. Rest of the witness did not appear for the cross-examination. The workman Union

has further filed job care for workshop Exhibit W-1 four papers and also filed I.D.cards, some photographs.

I have heard learned counsel for the workman Union Shri Ashok Shrivastav and Shri A.K.Shashi,

learned counsel for the Management. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the following issues come up for determination, in

the case in hand:-

(1) Whether the Management of Regional Reseach Laboratory is Indusrtry as defines

under Section 2J of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947?

(2) Whether the workman Union has locus standi to raise the present dispute?

(3) Whether their exists a relationship of workman and employer between the applicant

workman and Management of Regional Research Laboratory?

(4) Whether the action of Management in retiring the services of the applicant workman

Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya, the President of the Union is legal?

(5) Whether the applicant workman are entitled to be given status of permanent

employee of the Management of Regional Research Laboratory?

ISSUE No.1:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

455

The learned Counsel for the management has submitted that the Regional Research Laboratory is not an

Industry in Industrial Disputes Act,1947. It is part and parcel of and is under regulation and control of council

of Scientific and Industrial Research which is an autonomous body and a Society registered under the Societies

Registration Act. According to the learned counsel for Management, the Regional Research Laboratory is

involved in High level research activities of no profit basis in the area of fibre technology, waste utilization,

design capability and other related activities. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the question

whether the Council of Scientific and Research CSIR as well as its subsidiaries are Industry as defined under

Section 2J of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 is referred to larger Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court which is

pending hence on this ground also the management of Regional Research Laboratory cannot be held to be an

Industry under Section 2J of the Act.

10.

On the other hand , learned counsel for the Workman Union has referred to a Seven Judges Bench

decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Anr. vs.

A.Rajappa & Others, AIR 1978 SC 553, and has submitted that this judgment is still in force. Learned

Counsel further submits that only because this point has been referred to a larger Bench, the decision of Hon’ble

the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Anr(supra) does not become in-

operative. I am in agreement with this argument of learned counsel for the Workman Union, hence the

argument of learned counsel for the Management that since this issue has been referred to Larger Bench of

Hon’ble the Apex Court, hence the principle laid down in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage

Board & Anr(supra) cannot be applied has no leg to stand and is rejected accordingly. The following

observation of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Anr (supra) is

being reproduced as follows:-

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Anr. vs. A.Rajappa & Others, AIR 1978 SC 553,

wherein it has been held that

” Research Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does.

The employer is the institution, the employees are the scientists, para-scientists and other

personnel. Is scientific research service ? Undoubtedly it is. Its discoveries are valuable

contributions to the wealth of the nation. Such discoveries may be sold for a heavy price in

the industrial or other markets. Technology has to be plate for and technological inventions

and innovations may be patented and sold. In our scientific and technological age nothing

has more cash value, as intangible goods and invaluable services, than discoveries. For

instance, the discoveries of Thomas Alva Edison made him fabulously rich. It has been said

that his brain had the highest cash value in history for he made the world vibrate with the

miraculous discovery of recorded, sound. Unlike most inventors, he did not have to wait to

get his reward in heaven; he received, it munificently on this gratified and grateful earth,

thanks to conversion of his inventions into, money a plenty. Research benefits industry.

Even though a research institute may be a separate entity disconnected from the many

industries which funded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an Organisation, propelled

by systematic activity, modeled on co-operation between employer and employee and

calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit

individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth. It follows

that research institutes, albeit run without profit-motive, are industries.”

11.

Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act ,1947 is also being reproduced as follows:-

[(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling

of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or

industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;

12.

Hence in the light of the principle laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Anr (Supra) the Management of Regional Research Laboratory is held to

be an industry under Section 2J of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

13.

ISSUE NO.2:-

The dispute has been raised by the Workman Union of Regional Research Laboratory and Dainik Vetan Bhogi

Karmachari Sangh. Names of the applicant workman is in the annexure to the reference. The statement of

claim have been jointly filed by 95 applicant/workmen under their signatures. They have jointly engaged the

services of their counsel . Hence the dispute whether the Union has locus standi to raise the reference loses

significance in such a situation. Moreover the Union is a registered Union. Applicant No.1 is the President of

the Union , hence has no locus standi to raise the present dispute also. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

ISSUE No.3 & Issue No.4:-

The respective pleadings of the parties on this issue has been detailed earlier. The workmen who have filed

their affidavit have consistently stated that they have been working since last 10 to 12, 13 to 15 and 15 to 20

years from the date of filing of their affidavit before this Tribunal i.e. May-2009 to July-2009. Also that when

the Management did not regularize them, they raised dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner. The

workman Witness Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya who happens to be the President of the Workmen Union and other

workmen witness Ramesh Chandra Raikwar who has been cross-examined by Management have stated that the

workmen Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya has been working since 1989 continuously till 16-9-2004 when he was

illegally terminated from services whereas witness Ramesh Chandra Raikwar has submitted that he has been

working since last 10 years as skilled labour with the management and is still working. Workmen Awdhesh

Kumar Sisodiya has further stated that this institute was established in the year 1982. He and other workmen

have been working since then continuously but they have not been granted service benefits admissible to regular

employees of the Management. Hence they established a Union in the year April-2004 of which the workman

Shri Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya is the President and raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. Thereafter, the Management terminated the services of the President of the Union Shri

Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya on 16-9-2004 ignoring his continuous service for the last 15 years without any notice

or compensation.

15.

This witness has stated that he had been working as a Helper on machine. He was interviewed for the

job in the year 1989. He was not issued any appointment offer in writing. He was paid on monthly basis . He

and other workmen were paid by Management. He further states that the other workmen were engaged by

whom he does not know and that the Management wanted to transfer his services and services of applicant

workmen to private agencies but they refused . He pleads ignorance that the Management used to engaged

private security agencies for security, housekeeping , cleaning, horticulture, canteen and guest house services.

16.

The workman witness Shri Ramesh Chandra Raikwar also states that he has been working as a skilled

labour since last 10 years. He admits in his cross-examination that he had not filed any written job application

with the Management. His name was not sponsored by any Employment Exchange. He further states that he

was appointed by Management of Regional Research Laboratory. He is still continuing with the Management.

He does not know whether his provident fund is being deposited with the management of Regional Research

Laboratory of by contractor. Another workmen witness Shri Chandrakant Bhatt examined by the workman

Union has stated that he was appointed on 6-5-1997 as Project Assistant by Management. He was issued

appointment letter and has been continuously working with the Management but has not been granted benefits

admissible to regular employees. He has proved his appointment order and appointment letter. He states in his

cross-examination that he was appointed for every six months, he was reappointed and this way his

appointment is continuing. He further states that research work goes on in different Projects after completion of

one project he allotted another. He also states that he does not know that services of canteen , security, house

keeping cleaning, horticulture and guest house have been given to contractors . He pleads ignorance of the fact

that as to who deposits his provident fund.

17.

ON the other hand, the Management witness Somnath Mazumdar states that these applicant workmen

are in fact contractor employees. Contracts have been given to different security agencies on day to day basis

for security, housekeeping, cleaning, canteen, guest house and horticulture. This witness has proved tender

documents , work orders and payment bills. Another Management witness Radheshyam Waghmare has also

supported the case of the Management and corroborated the statement of previous Management. He denies that

contractors were not engaged before 2006. Two contractors Surendra Verma owner of M/s Sharamik Kalyan

Samiti Security Agency and Vipin Kohli Partner of M/s Trio Security Intelligence Agency have filed affidavit

as Management witness. They have appeared for cross-examination, hence their statements cannot be read in

favour of Management. However, the documents which these two contractors have referred i.e. Exhibit M-6

and Exhibit M-8is the workman agreement of guest house and canteen for the year 2006. Exhibit M-22, M-29

and M-30 also relate for the year 2006. Exhibit M-41 is for the period after 2008.

18.

An another Management witness Hemant Kumar Malviya, Proprietor of Security Agency M/s of

Bharat Security Services who has been cross-examined by workman side has proved tender documents and

work agreements relating to the year 2006.

19.

Now a comparative analysis of oral statement of documents filed and proved by parties goes to show

that Management has engaged security agency for the work of cleaning, horticulture, guest house,

housekeeping and canteen services. The oldest contract document/work order filed and proved by management

is of M/s Ravi Security which is of the year 1998. The case of the workman Union and the workman witness is

that they were appointed since 1989 and before to 1997 and have been working continuously with the

management. It also comes out from evidence on record that some of the applicant workman have been working

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

457

and rendering service other than those service of cleaning etc. which was taken by Security Agency, according

to the management witness. If so, the factual situation arises from the evidence on record is that the applicant

workman were first engaged as a daily wager by management . They continued as daily wager for the last10 to

15 years, thereafter the Management decided to out source the witness regarding cleaning, security, house

keeping, guest house, horticulture and canteen services and work contracts were awarded to different

contractors. Also it comes out that the services of the applicant workman who were earlier working as daily

wagers engaged by Management of Regional Research Laboratory were transferred to different contractors at

different times who were awarded work agreements for works mentioned earlier and thus applicant workmen

who were engaged as daily wagers since 10 to 15 years in activities , other activities outsourced, continued

with the Management of Regional Research Laboratory.

20.

In the light of the proved fact that the applicant workman continuously worked for 10 years or more

with the Management as a daily wager, they were entitled to notice/compensation as provided under Section

25F and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, before their services were disengaged by

Management and some of the applicant workman were engaged by contractors for activities as mentioned in

their work agreements. The action of the Management in disengaging their services without any

notice/compensation is held to be in violation of Section 25F and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947. On the basis of above, mentioned facts, Issue No.3 and Issue No.4 are answered accordingly.

21.

ISSUE NO.5:-

There is on record a Scheme named as Casual Workers Absorption Scheme,1990 applicable on casual workers

of CSIR which provide guidelines for absorption of casual workers in different CSIR Laboratory which is

issued vide CSIR Letter No.1/(20/86-E II) dated 4-10-1990 and CSIR Letter No.3/(58/87-E II/V) dated 30-3-

1990. According to this Scheme, casual workers engaged initially through Employment Exchange and other

wise than through employment exchange on the date of issue of the instruction i.e. on 1-1-1990 completing 240

days in the immediately preceding calendar year are entitled to be absorbed as per normal procedure of

recruitment prescribed for the post including qualifying in the Trade Test if any. There is nothing on record that

those applicant workmen who were covered under this Scheme were considered for absorption under this

Scheme by management or not? One of them is the President of the Union who has been working since 1989.

Hence such workmen are entitled to be considered for their absorption in the light of these Scheme.

22.

So far as the remaining workmen are concerned, since they were not appointed by following any

recruitment procedure, hence they can be held entitled only to a lump sum compensation to be paid by the

Management to them. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, including the period of

tenure these applicant workmen have worked with the management, a lump sum compensation of

Rs.2,00,000(Rs.two lakh only) each in lieu of and as final settlement of their claims to be paid by the

Management will meet the ends of justice. The applicant workman are held entitled accordingly. Issue No.5 is

decided accordingly.

23.

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

A.The demand of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sisodia for his reinstatement and issuing of

appointment letters to him and 94 others(as per list enclosed) by the Regional Research

Laboratory and declaration of them as permanent employees is held not legal and justified.

B.Each workmen is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000(Rs.two lakh only)

in lieu of and as final settlement of their claims within 30 days from the date of publication of

award in the official gazette, failing which interest @6% p.a. from the date of notification till

realization.

C.the workman covered in the guidelines for absorption of casual workers in different CSIR

Laboratory issued vide CSIR Letter No.1/(20/86-E II) dated 4-10-1990 and CSIR Letter

No.3/(58/87-E II/V) dated 30-3-1990 are held entitled to be considered for absorption with the

management.

24.

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

per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 14-11-2022

458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 250 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार क्षेत्रीय निदेशक, केंरीय भूजल बोडा (निकट), पर्पेडी िाका, रायपुर- (छ.ग.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और श्री रुकेश बघेल, कार्गार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभव सं. CGIT/LC/R/1/2011) को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, को

[सं. एल-42012/133/2010-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2023

S.O. 250.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/1/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to The Regional Driector, Central Ground Water board (NCCR), Pachpedi Naka, Raipur-(C.G.), and

Shri Rukesh Baghel, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/133/2010-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/1/2011

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Rukesh Baghel

Behind Madhua Pille Schoo,

New Ganj Mandi,

Mandi Gate Pandri Tarai

Raipur(C.G.)

….Workman

Versus

The Regional Driector,

Central Ground Water board(NCCR)

Reena Apartment

2^nd Floor Pachpedi Naka,

Raipur(C.G.)

….Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18-10-2022)

As per letter dated 15-12-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

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

Notification No.L-42012/133/2010-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Regional Director, Central Ground

Water Board, Raipur(C.G.) in verbal terminating the services of Shri Rukesh

Baghel w.e.f. April, 2009 is legal and justified?if not to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from what date? .”

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

459

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

with the Management in the year 1995 by management against vacant and regular post and worked

continuously till April-2009 when his services were orally terminated without any notice or compensation and

without any just and reasonable cause. The procedure of last come and first go was not followed in his

termination; hence his termination is bad in law. Accordingly he has prayed that holding his termination bad in

law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits. The case of the Management is

mainly that firstly the Management of Central Ground Water Board, Raipur is not an industry as defined in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Secondly, the workman was engaged by management in this office on part time

basis for cleaning work as and when required. This engagement was purely on casual basis. The Management

also admits the workman worked during the period from 1995 to April-2009 but as a daily wager was paid on

daily basis. The Management defended that the workman was in engagement of Management for a period of

240 days or more in any year till date of termination of his services. Hence according to the Management, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman.

3. The workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief and has been cross-examined by the

Management.

4. The Management has filed affidavit of C.Paul Prabhakar, Regional Director as his examination in

chief. He has been cross-examined by workman and management has further filed copies of memo issued by

Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources stating that this Management is a non-commercial office,

contingent bills 50 in number regarding payments made by the Management to the workman and other daily

wagers during the period.

5. I have heard arguments of learned Counsel shri S.K.Mishra for workman and Shri P.Shankaran,

learned counsel for the Management. I have gone through the record as well.

6. The reference itself is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.

7. The fact that the workman worked from 1995 till April-2000 is not disputed ,what is disputed is that

according to the workman he was appointed against a regular vacancy where as according to management he

was a daily wager casual labour paid on daily basis and according to the management he never completed 240

days in continuous service in any year.

8. The contingent bills around 50 in number show that firstly the workman was paid on monthly basis

and secondly he was not paid according to the days he worked. These bills coupled with the statement of the

workman on oath establish the fact that hew was in continuous employment for 240 days in every year

including the year preceding the date of his termination. It is also not disputed that he was not issued any prior

notice before his recruitment nor was he paid any compensation,. According to the management it decided the

job of safaiwala to be taken by outsourcing though Agency, hence the workman was done away with the

Management. ON the other hand, the Management witness as stated nothing to prove its case that the workman

did not work continuously for 240 days , hence holding that the workman has successfully proved his

continuous engagement for 240days in every year including the date preceding the date of his termination has

been terminated by Management without giving any notice or compensation, which is in violation of Industrial

Disputes Act,1947.

9. As regards the contention of the Management that it is not an industry as defined in Industrial Disputes

Act, it cannot be accepted in the light of Seven Judges Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the Bangalore

Water Institute and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajapaa and Another(1978) SCC 548).

10.

As regards the relief admissible to the workman, the judgment of Hon’ble the Chhattisgarh High Court

in Writ Petition No.486/2013 has been referred to in this respect. This is with respect to the present

Management and another workman who was a daily wager who worked for five years as a daily wager, he was

awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation in lieu of full and final settlement of his claims. The workman in this case

in hand has worked for as many as 14 to 15 years from 1995 to 2009. Hence has is held entitled to double of

the amount i.e. 1,50,000/- as full and final settlement of his claims. Only in the light of the facts that he was not

appointed firstly against a sanctioned vacancy by following recruitment procedure.

11.

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

The action of the management of Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board,

Raipur(C.G.) in verbal terminating the services of Shri Rukesh Baghel w.e.f.

April,2009 is held to not just and proper.

The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in

settlement of all his claims to be paid by the management within 30 days from date of

460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

publication of Award in the official gazette, failing which interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of Award till payment.

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

as per rules.

P. K. S RIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 18-10-2022

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 251 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार प्रबंधक, र्ैससा इरकॉि इंटरिेशिल नलनर्टेड, िई कदल्ली,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री बाबूलाल

सुर्ि,कार्गार, द्वारा श्री बलदेव ससंह, लेबर एवाईजर, डडवाडा ,कोटा जक्शंि, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योनगक

न्यायानधकरण कोटा, fookn esa औद्योनगक न्यायानधकरण कोटा, पंचाट आई टी (केंरीय) 2@ 2001

¼lhvkbZ,l&57@2014½ को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक र्ें कदखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/28/2001-vkbZvkj (बी -1)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2023

S.O. 251.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award I.T. (Central)- 02@2001¼ CIS&57@2014½ of the Industrial Tribunal Kota,

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Manager,

M/s. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi, and Shri Babulal Suman, worker, through Shri Baldev Singh, Labour

advisor, Dadwada, Kota, Junction, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 17/02/2023.

[No. L-42012/28/2001-IR (B-1)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

अनुबंि

&Jh egs'k iqusBk] vkj-

ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½

funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&2@2001¼lhvkbZ,l&57@2014½

¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060000252001½

fnukad LFkkfir%29@03@2001

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-

,y&41012@28@2001@vkbZ-vkj-¼ch&k½ fnukad

19@03@2001

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

e/;

ckcwyky lqeu iq= Jh dUgS;kyky lqeu }kjk cynso flag]

yscj ,okbZtj] MMokM+k] dksVk taD'kuA …izkFkhZ Jfed

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

461

,oa

eSustj] eS- bjdkWu baVjus'kuy fy-] ikfydk cktkj] vkj-ds- iqje~] ubZ fnYyh&66 …vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&

Jh ujsUnz flag pkS/kjh

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&

Jh ,e-lh- xqIrk

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd

ds tfj;s

fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½

dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Babulal Suman S/o Shri Kanhiyalal

from 1/4/97 by the management of M/s. Ircon International Ltd. is justified? If not,

what relief Shri Babulal is entitled and from which date?"

mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh

fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds

le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd bjdkWu bUVjus'kuy fy-¼iqjkuk

uke bf.M;u jsyos daLV~zD'ku da-fy-½ U;w fnYyh }kjk fnukad 14@10@91 dks dksVk ukxnk izkstsDV esa

[kYyklh ds in ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh o ckn esa izkFkhZ dks blh xzsM 196&232 es fu;fer fd;k x;k o

rnqijkUr mldk dk;Z larks"ktud ikus ij ,l-,l- fQVj ok;jesu ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ

ds dksVk ds LFkkuh; xzqi eSustj us fnukad 30@12@1995 dks ekSf[kd cryk;k Fkk fd dksVk&ukxnk izkstsDV

dk dk;Z iwjk gksus okyk gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks tuojh 95 ls dHkh Hkh gVk;k tk ldrk gS bl ij mlus flfoy

U;k;ky;] dksVk esa okn yxk;k ftl ij mls LVs fn;k x;kA bl okn esa vizkFkhZ us U;k;ky; esa fyf[kr

vkosnu fd;k Fkk fd vxj og izkFkhZ dks gVk;sxk rks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ds izo/kkuksa ds

vuq:i gh gVk;sxk] ijUrq vizkFkhZ us fnukad 01@04@1997 ls dksVk dk LFkkuh; dk;kZy; can dj fn;k ,oa

izkFkhZ dks dk;Z nsuk Hkh can dj fn;kA vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW 300 ls vf/kd Jfed dk;Zjr jgrs gSa o

dksVk&ukxnk izkstsDV esa djhc nks lkS Jfed dk;Zjr Fks] ftUgsa 'kuS% 'kuS% nwljs dk;ZLFkyksa ij V~zkalQj dj

fn;k] fdUrq izkFkhZ dks fcuk dksbZ lwpuk ds csjkstxkj cuk fn;k x;kA vizkFkhZ us lHkh deZpkfj;ksa ds Hkfo";

fuf/k ds fy, ,d bjdkWu izksfoMsaV Q.M VªLV cuk j[kk gS izkFkhZ Hkh mldk lnL; Fkk ,oa mldk ua- 5511

FkkA vizkFkhZ vius v/khu deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj"Brk lwph cuk dj jSxqyj djrk Fkk vkSj ml ofj"Brk lwph ds

vk/kkj ij gh NaVuh djuh Fkh ijUrq vizkFkhZ us euekus <ax ls izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k tks fd voS/k

gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok,a vizkFkhZ ds v/khu lk<+s 5 lky dh Fkh vkSj gj o"kZ esa mlus 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk fcuk dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ;k {kfriwfrZ HkRrk fn;s fnukad 01@04@97 ls

ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;k tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,u dk mYya/ku gSA var esa izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd

izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd mudh

dEiuh fHkUu fHkUu LFkkuksa ij vyx&vyx O;fDr;kas ls dkuqukuqlkj vuqca/k djrh gS] rFkk vuqca/k ds dk;Z

dks LFkkuh; Lrj ij iwjk djrh gSA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr [kYyklh ds in ij vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk

dksVk&ukxnk ,Dlsy dkmUVj izkstsDV ds vuqcU/k¼jsy ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj½ ds dk;Z dks iw.kZ djus gsrq dh

x;h Fkh tks vuqca/k dk;Z fn-19@02@97 dks iw.kZ gks x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k okn

izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks [kkfjt gks x;k ftlds foijhr dFku djus ls izkFkhZ ckf/kr gSA vizkFkhZ dh

dksVk ;wfuV dk Dykstj gks tkus ls fof/kor :i ls uksfVl tkjh dj izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg ds uksfVl ,ot esa

osru jkf'k] eqvkotk jkf'k rFkk 01@03@97 ls 27@03@97 rd ds osru tfj;s MªkQ~V dzekad

006856@25-3-97 tfj, jft-,Mh Mkd Hkstdj fof/kor NaVuh dh x;h] fdUrq izkFkhZ us ;g jkf'k izkIr ugha

dhA izkFkhZ }kjk 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok;sa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW nsuk Lohdkj gS] fdUrq mls mijksDrkuqlkj

462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fof/k vuqlkj NaVuh dj lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr vkifRr;ksa esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ

vc Hkh fdlh Hkh le; vius NaVuh vkns'k dh jkf'k izkIr dj ldrk gS tks vizkFkhZ vnk djus ds fy, lnSo

rRij gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ dk Dyse fujk/kkj rF;ksa dk gksus ls lO;; fujLr fd;k

tkosA

4& lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ Jfed ckcwyky lqeu rFkk vizkFkhZ lk{kh izeksn dqekj] la;qDr egkizcU/kd ds

'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls ,d&nwljs i{k }kjk ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh

izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA

5& mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h tks cgl eq[;r% muds }kjk izLrqr vius&vius

vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA cgl leFkZu esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls U;kf;d n`"Vkar

rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k

dh vksj ls U;kf;d n`"Vkar

dk voyEc fy;k x;k gSA

6& mHk; i{k }kjk dh x;h cgl ij euu fd;k x;k] i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk

/;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;k rFkk mudh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk voyksdu dj llEeku

mfpr ekxZ n'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA

7& U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr vH;kosnukuqlkj ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd izkFkhZ

Jfed] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk deZdkj jgk gS vkSj mlus viuh fu;kstukof/k esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW 240 fnu ls

Hkh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k FkkA vc fofuf'p;kFkZ iz'u ;gh 'ks"k gS fd D;k vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk

izkFkhZ Jfed dks fof/kor NaVuh dj lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ izkFkhZ Jfed us lk{; esa

izLrqr vius 'kiFk&i= esa LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh gh iqujko`fRr dh gSaA izkFkhZ dk ftjg

esa ;g LohdkjksfDr dFku jgk gS fd izfri{kh daiuh us dksVk ukxnk izkstsDV dk dke fy;k Fkk tks

jsyos }kjk fn-27@01@89 dks dkaV~zsDV ij fn;k FkkA mls izn'kZ McY;w-1 ds }kjk [kYyklh ds in ij

yxk;k x;k Fkk rFkk dksVk ds izkstsDV ds vf/kdkjh vflLVsUV eSustj }kjk dke ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ

dh ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd mlus lsokfuo`fRr vkns'k ds fo:) flfoy U;k;ky; esa nkok izLrqr fd;k

Fkk ftl ij tkjh LFkxu fn-22@03@97 dks [kkfjt gks x;k vkSj mldk nkok Hkh [kkfjt gks x;k ftlds

fo:) dksbZ vihy ugha dhA bldk ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr dFku jgk gS fd izfri{kh daiuh dk jsyos vuqcU/k

dk dk;Z fn-19@02@1997 dks iw.kZ gks x;k Fkk ftldk i= izn'kZ ,e-1 gSA blus bl ckr ls irk ugha

gksuk dFku fd;k gS fd izfri{kh us Dykstj dk uksfVl izn'kZ ,e-2 fHktok;k Fkk ;k ugha tksfd budh

lsokfuo`fRr o VfeZus'ku ckcr FkkA blus izn'kZ ,e-5 lsok NaVuh vkns'k e; izn'kZ ,e-6 pSd ds jft-Mkd ls

bls fHktokuk irk ugha gksuk dFku fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd mldk irk izn'kZ ,e-

5 esa , ls ch Hkkx esa lgh fy[kk gqvk gSA izkFkhZ dh ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd izfri{kh dk dk;kZy;

dksVk taD'ku ij Fkk] mls can djus dh lwpuk izn'kZ ,e-10 jkt- if=dk esa , ls ch Hkkx esa Niok;h FkhA

izkFkhZ dk ftjg esa ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr dFku jgk gS fd dksVk izkstsDV ds dke ds fy, fu;qDr fd;s x;s

fdlh Hkh Jfed dks izfri{kh }kjk fdlh vU; izkstsDV esa dke gsrq ugha Hkstk x;kA blus bl ckr ls

bUdkjh dh gS fd Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh; dksVk ds ;gkW blus pSd izn'kZ ,e-6 ysus ls euk dj fn;k gksA

mldk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ izn'kZ ,e-5 o 6 esa of.kZr jkf'k vkt Hkh ysus dks rS;kj ugha gSA ;g

lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e-6 ij fnukad 25@03@97 dh rkjh[k vafdr gS vkSj ml le; bldk osru

1630@&:- Fkk] fdUrq dEiuls'ku dh rhu ekg dh osru jkf'k 4890@&Fkh ;k ugha] irk ughaA blus

izn'kZ ,e-5 esa of.kZr jkf'k ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ ns; jkf'k ds lEcU/k esa izfri{kh daiuh dks dksbZ i= ugha

fy[kkA izkFkhZ us bldh lsok;sa fn-26@03@97 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk o blds ckn dk dksbZ dkxt blds

ikl ugha gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA

bl ckcr vizkFkhZ fu;kstd lk{kh izeksn dqekj] la;qDr egkizcU/kd us lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= esa

tokc esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh gSA lk{kh dk ftjg esa LohjksfDr dFku jgk gS fd izkstsDV 1989 esa

'kq: gqvk Fkk tks 1997 rd] 8 lky rd pyk Fkk] izkFkhZ fn-14@10@1991 dks izn'kZ McY;w-1 ds }kjk yxk

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

463

Fkk ftlesa rhu ekg ds vLFkkbZ rkSj ij nSfud osru ij j[ks tkus dk mYys[k gSA lk{kh dh ;g

LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd izkFkhZ us buds ;gkW 6 lky rd dke fd;k gS rFkk mls izn'kZ ,e-5 ds }kjk fn-

26@03@97 ls gVk;k x;k gS] fdUrq vkxs ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr dh gS fd Jfedksa dh NaVuh dh x;h Fkh

ftlds lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj o Je foHkkx dks lwpuk nh Fkh vkSj lHkh 5 Jfedksa dh NaVuh dh Fkh rFkk

NaVuh ds le; izkFkhZ dks uksfVl osru dk M~zkQ~V 8506@&:- dk izn'kZ ,e-5 Hkstk x;k Fkk tks izkFkhZ us

Lohdkj ugha fd;k] tcfd os vkt Hkh Hkqxrku djus ds fy, rS;kj gSaA lk{kh dk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd

1994 esa izkFkhZ ckcwyky dks ljkguh; dk;Z ds fy, izn'kZ McY;w-2 esa mYysf[kr inksUufr nh x;h Fkh ftlesa

mYysf[kr dj fn;k Fkk fd ;g inksUufr LFkkbZ o fu;fer ugha gSA vc bl lUnHkZ esa izn'kZ ,e-2 dk

voyksdu djsa rks ;g i= vizkFkhZ ds dksVk fLFkr izkstsDV eSustj }kjk lfpo] Je foHkkx] jkt- ljdkj dks

fn-26@03@97 dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa layXu ,uDlj esa of.kZrkuqlkj fy;s x;s dkaV~zsDV dk;Z ds

lekIr gksus dk mYys[k gS vkSj vizkFkhZ }kjk blesa mYysf[kr ikap Jfedx.k ftuesa izkFkhZ Hkh lfEefyr gS] dh

vf/kfu;ekUrxZr fof/kor uksfVl osru] NaVuh eqvkots o vU; ns; osru jkf'k fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gS rFkk

izn'kZ ,e- 3 o 4 jftLV~zh o izkfIr dh jlhn gSA izn'kZ ,e-5 izkFkhZ Jfed dk lsok NaVuh dk vkns'k gS

ftlesa izkFkhZ ds uksfVl osru] NaVuh eqvkots o 27 ekpZ] 97 rd ds osru dh cdk;k jkf'k dqy 8506@&:-

mYysf[kr gS tks mls cSad MªkQ~V izn'kZ ,e-6 ds tfj;s jftLV~zh ,e-7 ls Hkstk x;k gSA izkFkhZ us budh izkfIr

gksus ls irk ugha gksuk dgk gS] fdUrq mldh ;g Li"Vr% LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e-5 esa mYysf[kr

irk mlh dk gS tks lgh gSA izkFkhZ dh ;g Li"Vr% LohdkjksfDr Hkh jgh gS fd vizkFkhZ dk dkaV~zsDV dk;Z

lekfIr ij vizkFkhZ dk;kZy; can fd;s tkus dk izdk'ku jkt- if=dk izn'kZ ,e-10 esa vizkFkhZ }kjk djok;k

x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dk ftjg esa jgk ;g dFku fd og vkt Hkh mDr uksfVl osru o NaVuh eqvkotk o vU;

jkf'k ysus dks rS;kj ugha gS] ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk tkucw>dj mls ns; uksfVl osru]

NaVuh eqvkots o vU; ns; osru jkf'k dks ugha ysdj Vkyk x;k tks fdlh Hkh :i esa mfpr ugha gSA bl

izdkj izkFkhZ dh mDr ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g Hkyh&HkkWfr fl) gS fd muds foHkkx ds dksVk fLFkr

dkaV~zsDV dk;Z lekfIr ij izkFkhZ lfgr dqy 5 Jfedx.k dh NaVuh dh x;h Fkh tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

25&,Q dh fof/kor ikyuk djds dh x;h Fkh] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vc izkFkhZ fdlh vuqrks"k dk

vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gS o lEizsf"kr funsZ'k blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj

ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar gLrxr ekeys ds rF;ksa ls fHkUurk fy, gq, gksus ls izkFkhZ dks mlls dksbZ enn

ugha feyrh] tcfd vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds izdj.k dks iq"V djrk gSA

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd eSllZ bjdkWu bUVjus'kuy fy-¼iqjkuk uke bf.M;u jsyos daLV~zD'ku da-fy-½ U;w

fnYyh }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ckcwyky lqeu dks vf/kfu;ekUrxZr vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds NaVuh vkns'k fnukad 26-

03-1997 ¼jsQjsal esa of.kZrkuqlkj fnukad 01@04@1997½ ds }kjk fof/kor NaVuh dj lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k

tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS] vr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

egs'k iqusBk] U;k;k/kh'k

464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 252 .—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एयर इंजडया एयर रांसपोटव सर्ववसेि जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je

U;k;ky; अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 62/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11-01-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-11012/20/2018-vkbZvkj (सीएम-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 252.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Air India Air Transport Service Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2023

[No. L-11012/20/2018 -IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

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-62/2018

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

1^st Floor, Transport Workshop Building,

GSD Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),

Mumbai-400099.

2. The Sr. Assistant General Manager-GH,

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

SVP International Airport,

Terminal-4, Ahmedabad-380003.

…First Parties

Shri Aznan Khan Pathan,

4883/A, 16, New Block – B,

Panjalal Chali, Post Office,

Raikhad, Ahmedabad – 380001.

… Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : None

Adv. for the Second Party : None

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

465

AWARD

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

No. L-11012/20/2018-IR (CM-I) dated 18.07.2018 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 M/s. Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Aznan Khan Pathan, Customer Agent working

at Ahmedabad vide letter No. AIATSL/AMD/CA-17885/326 dated 05.06.2017 is proper,

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

directions are necessary in this regard?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 02.08.2018. The Ministry had directed the party raising

the dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of

receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)

Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered

post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including

claimants.

2. Notice Exh.2 was issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written

statement thereof. A period of more than 4 years has elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of

claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. Thereafter again notice Exh.5 was served on all the parties as

per acknowledgement Ex. 6 to 8 wherein the parties were asked to appear and to submit statement of

claim/written statement on 02.01.2023, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party / workman is not

interested to proceed further in the matter.

3. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to

prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence. Hence in absence of evidence, it is just & proper

to pass an award as under : “the action of the management of M/s. Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.,

Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Aznan Khan Pathan, Customer Agent working at Ahmedabad vide

letter No. AIATSL/AMD/CA-17885/326 dated 05.06.2017 is proper, legal and justified. The 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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 253 .—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k

esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 46/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/270/2003-vkbZvkj (कोल-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.46/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/02/2023.

[No. L-20012/270/2002 – IR (C-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

466 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2023/ PHALGUNA 6, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

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

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

REFERENCE NO 46 OF 2003.

PARTIES:

The Vice President,

National Coal Workers Congress ,

Sharma Mansion,.

PO; Kendua Bridge,PO:Kusuda, Dhanbad-826001

Vs.

The General Manager, (Personnel)

Sijua Area Area No. 5 of M/s BCCL,

PO: Sijua,Distt; Dhanbad - 826001

Order No. L-20012/270/2002-IR(C-I) dt. 13.06.2003

APPEARANCES:-

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None .

On behalf of the Management

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

: Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16^th January, 2023

AWARD

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

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

Order No. L-20012/270/2002-IR(C-I) dt. 13.06.2003

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for arrears payment for the period from 5.1.98

to Oct./Nov.2000 in respect of S/Sri Usman Mian and Taslim Mian upon refixation

of their wages giving the benefit of SRRA is proper and justified? If so to what relief

are the concerned workmen entitled ?”

1. This is a reference received from the appropriate Government to adjudicate if the claimants Usman

Mian and Taslim Mian are entitled to get the benefit of SRRA with regard to arrear payment for the period

from 05.01.98 to Oct/Nov. 2000 in the Company .If so what relief are the concerned workmen are entitled.

2 As narrated in the claim petition by the both the workmen namely S/Shri Usmal Mian and Taslim

Mian were initially appointed as M/Loader on Piece Rated in Sendra Bansjora Colliery under Sijua Area of

M/s BCCL .By virtue of Piece Rated employees they were granted annual increments which is called Special

Piece Rated Allowance .Both the workmen passed the Sirdar Certificate of competency .From 5.01.1998 both

the workmen were placed by the management to work as Mining Sirdars by virtue of said Competency

Certificate granted by DGMS,Dhanbad

The SPRA (Special Piece Rated Allowance) which is treated as Basic wage for all purposes was not

added to both the employees while fixing basic wage after conversion to Monthly rated from Piece Rated ,

after placing them in Mining Sirdar resulted in wrong/loss in terms of basic fixation. Against which they

represented to the Management .The Management accordingly has advised the local management to add the

said SPRA and re-fix basic in Tech & Sup –Grade “C” in respect of both the workmen .Accordingly, correct

payment after adding the said SPRA was started from OctNovember,2000salary but the concerned workmen

were not paid arrears from 5/1/98 to October/November 2000.For which the th eworken raised the Industrial

Dispute .

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2023/ फाल्गुन 6, 1944

467

3. Per contra The OP/Management in the background of the matter contended that fixation of basic of

S/Shri Usman Mian and Taslim Khan has been done as per norms of the Company and protection

f SP.R.A..They were regularized from Piece Rated to Monthly Rated in T & S Grade C .They are getting

wages i.e., Basic plus DA plus SDA and UG etc as total emoluments .As per fixation their arrears have already

been paid.

4. The matter of the issue went on merit after filing respective statements with counter by the both of

the parties with filing of documents by both of the parties on their behalf to substantiate the contentions put forth

by them. During the course of hearing of the proceedings the matter was fixed on evidence of the workmen. The

facts transpired the workmen could not adduce the evidence which kept pending since 07.02.2005 .After

resumption of the notices the case for fresh hearings resumed in 2019 but workmen did not turn up. .Ld.

Advocate for the OP/Management stated that the workmen side representation has stopped since long as such

hearing concluded . The workmen side stopped taking step in regular course of hearing although the hearing

of the case went on uninterruptedly till final hearing on 12.04.2022.

5. Considering the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and in view of the facts and

circumstances the Tribunal has held imperative to close the Reference as the workmen side left the proceeding

in lurch without adjudicating the issue on finality .Accordingly , above Reference is closed being devoid of any

merit. Since the workmen concerned are no longer interested to fight the case on merits .The workmen are

awarded no relief.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

MANOJ KUMAR

VERMA

Digitally signed by MANOJ

KUMAR VERMA

Date: 2023.03.09 10:58:44 +05'30'