2853 GI/2023
(1361)
रिज᭭ᮝी सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
ᮧािधकार से ᮧकािशत
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
सा᭡ तािहक
WEEKLY
सं. 19]
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, मई 7—मई 13, 2023, शिनवार/ वैशाख 17,— वैशाख 23, 1945
No. 19]
NEW DELHI, MAY 7—MAY 13, 2023, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 17,— VAISAKHA 23, 1945
इस भाग मᱶ िभ᭠ न पृ᭬ ठ सं या दी जाती है िजससे ᳰक यह पृथक संकलन के ᱨप मᱶ रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3—उप-ख᭛ ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंᮢालयᲂ (रᭃा मंᮢालय को छोड़कर) ᳇ारा जारी ᳰकए गए सांिविधक आदेश और अिधसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
िवᱫ मंᮢालय
(राज᭭व िवभाग)
(कᱶᮤीय अᮧ᭜यᭃ कर और सीमा शु᭨क बोडᭅ)
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 25 अᮧैल, 2023
का.आ. 719.—जबᳰक कᱶᮤीय सरकार का यह मत है ᳰक ᮰ी शिशकांत, उपायुᲦ से संबंिधत िवभागीय जांच
के ᮧयोजन से, यह आव᭫यक है ᳰक (1) ᮰ी िनितन गु᳙ा (2) िहतᱶᮤ मोहन (3) ᮰ी िविपन कुमार यादव (4) ᮰ी िववेक
कुमार जैन (5) ᮰ी अजय कुमार पांडे को साᭃी के तौर पर समन ᳰकया जाए।
इसिलए अब, िवभागीय जांच (साᭃी कᳱ उपि᭭थित तथा द᭭तावेजᲂ कᳱ ᮧ᭭तुित का ᮧवतᭅन) अिधिनयम,
1972 (1972 का 18) कᳱ धारा 4 कᳱ उप- धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, कᱶᮤीय सरकार, एतारा
᮰ी िबजू थॉमस, अपर िनदेशक (आईआरएस, काᳶमᭅक कोड : 3834) को सािᭃयᲂ, नामत: (1) ᮰ी िनितन गु᳙ा
(2) िहतᱶᮤ मोहन (3) ᮰ी िविपन कुमार यादव (4) ᮰ी िववेक कुमार जैन (5) ᮰ी अजय कुमार पांडे के संबंध मᱶ,
अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 5 मᱶ िविन᳸दᭅ᳥ शिᲦ का ᮧयोग करने के िलए जांच ᮧािधकारी के तौर पर ᮧािधकृत करती है।
[फा. सं. स ी. 14011/23/2018-एडी.V]
मनीष कुमार सहाय, उप सिचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-19052023-245950
CG-DL-W-19052023-245950
1362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department Of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2023
S.O. 719.—WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of departmental
inquiry relating to Shri Shashi Kant, Deputy Commissioner, it is necessary to summon as witnesses namely (1)
Shri Nitin Gupta, (2) Shri Hitendra Mohan, (3) Shri Vipin Kumar Yadav, (4) Shri Vivek Kumar Jain and (5)
Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey.
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (l) of Section 4 of the
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972
(18 of 1972), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Biju Thomas, Additional Director (IRS, Emp
code:3834) as the inquiring authority to exercise the power specified in the section 5 of the Act in relation to
witnesses namely (1) Shri Nitin Gupta, (2) Shri Hitendra Mohan, (3) Shri Vipin Kumar Yadav, (4) Shri Vivek
Kumar Jain and (5) Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey.
[F. No. C. 14011/23/2018-Ad.V]
MANISH KUMAR SAHAY, Dy. Secy.
िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 720.—भारतीय ᭭टेट बᱹक अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) कᳱ धारा 19 के खंड (घ) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ
शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एतारा, सु᮰ी ᭭वाित गु᳙ा (ज᭠ म ितिथ: 4.8.1971) को अिधसूचना
कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय ᭭टेट बᱹक के िनदेशक
मंडल मᱶ अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करती है ।
[ईफा. सं. 6/8/2022-बीओ-I]
िवजय शंकर ितवारी, अवर सिचव
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 720.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section 19 of the State Bank of India
Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby nominates Ms Swati Gupta (DoB: 4.8.1971) as part-
time non-official Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of India, for a period of three years, with
effect from the date of notification, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 6/8/2022-BO.I]
VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 721.—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ
पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा
(3) के खंड (ज) और उप-धारा (3क) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एतारा, ᮰ी सुभाष
शंकर मिलक (ज᭠म ितिथः 3.6.1968) को अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले
आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूको बᱹक के िनदेशक मंडल मᱶ अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत
करती है।
[ईफा. सं. 6/8/2022-बीओ-I]
िवजय शंकर ितवारी, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1363
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 721.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3A)
of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read
with sub-clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Subhash Shankar Malik (DoB: 3.6.1968) as part-
time non-official director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, for a period of three years from the date of
notification, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 6/8/2022-BO.I]
VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 722.—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970 के खंड (9) के उप-खंड (2) के साथ
पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा
(3) के खंड (छ) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एतारा, ᮰ी िᮧयवतᭅ शमाᭅ (ज᭠म ितिथः
25.11.1970) को अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो,
से᭠ᮝल बᱹक आफ इंिडया के िनदेशक मंडल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के
पद पर नािमत करती है।
[ईफा. सं. 6/8/2022-बीओ-I]
िवजय शंकर ितवारी, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 722.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (g) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with item (b) of
sub-clause (2) of clause (9) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Priavrat Sharma (DoB: 25.11.1970) as part-time non-
official director under Chartered Accountant category on the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India for a
period of three years, from the date of notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 6/8/2022-BO.I]
VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.
िवदेश मंᮢालय
(सी.पी.वी. ᮧभाग)
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 22 माचᭅ, 2023
का.आ. 723.—राजनियक और कᲂसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फᳱस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 कᳱ धारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण मᱶ वैधािनक आदेश।
एतारा, कᱶᮤ सरकार, माचᭅ 22, 2023 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के िनवᭅहन करने के िलए िवदेश मᱶ भारतीय
िमशनᲂ/पो᭭टᲂ मᱶ सहायक कांसुलर अिधकाᳯरयᲂ के ᱨप मᱶ इस मंᮢालय के नीचे उि᭨लिखत अिधकाᳯरयᲂ कᳱ िनयुिᲦ
करता है:
ᮓम सं.
अिधकारी का नाम और पद
)
सवᭅ
/
᮰ी
(
िमशन / पो᭭ट िजसमᱶ सहायक कांसुलर अिधकारी के ᱨप
मᱶ िनयुᲦ ᳰकया गया है
१
किन᭬क, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी
भारत के दूतावास, कुवैत
२
अनुपम खरे, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी
भारतीय उᲬायोग, सुवा
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(10)]
एस. आर. एच. फहमी, िनदेशक (कांसुलर)
1364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2023
S.O. 723.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned
officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular
services with effect from March 22, 2023:
S. No.
Name & Rank of the Officer (S/Shri)
Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistanct Consular
Officer
1
Kanishka, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Kuwait
2
Anupam Khare, Assistant Section Officer
High Commission of India, Suva
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(10)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Director (Consular)
काᳶमᭅक, लोक िशकायत तथा पᱶशन मंᮢालय
(काᳶमᭅक और ᮧिशᭃण िवभाग)
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 25 नव᭥बर, 2022
का.आ. 724.—के᭠ᮤ सरकार, एतद᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 कᳱ 25)
कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उपधारा (1) सपᳯठत धारा 6 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए राज᭭थान रा᭔य सरकार,
अिधसूचना सं. एफ.19(28)गृह-5/2022 ᳰदनांक 23.02.2022, गृह (जीआर.वी) िवभाग, जयपुर के मा᭟यम से
जारी सहमित से, ᮰ी उमेश िस᭠हा, सहायक पयᭅवेᭃक एवं ᮰ी एस. एल. साᱠ, उप महालेखाकार (ᮧशा. एवं सतकᭅता
अनुभाग), दोनᲂ महालेखाकार (लेखा एवं हकदारी) का कायाᭅलय, राज᭭थान, दोनᲂ जयपुर मᱶ तैनात हᱹ तथा अ᭠य
अ᭄ात के िखलाफ ᳰदनांक 11.02.2022 कᳱ िशकायत के संबंध मᱶ ᳥᮪ाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम, 1988 (1988 कᳱ
49) कᳱ धारा 7 और 7ए के साथ पᳯठत भारतीय दंड संिहता (1860 कᳱ 45) कᳱ धारा 120बी, िजसके आधार पर
28.02.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी जेएआई 2022 ए 0002 दजᭅ ᳰकया गया है, के अंतगᭅत दंडनीय
अपराध(धᲂ) के अ᭠वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराध(धᲂ) से जुड़े या उससे संब ᳰकसी दु᭬ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा और/अथवा
षᲽंᮢ एवं/अथवा उसी सं᳞वहार मᱶ ᳰकए गए या उ᭠हᱭ त᭝यᲂ से उ᭜प᳖ ᳰकसी अ᭠य अपराध का अ᭠वेषण करने के
िलए, ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना (28.02.2022 के ᮧभाव से कायᲃᱫर) के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और ᭃेᮢािधकार
का िव᭭तार सम᭭त राज᭭थान रा᭔य मᱶ करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/119/2022-एवीडी-II]
संजय कुमार चौरिसया, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel And Training)
New Delhi, the 25th November, 2022
S.O. 724.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(28)Home-5/2022 dated 23.02.2022, Home
(Gr.V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 28.02.2022) to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 11.02.2022 against Shri Umesh Sinha, Assistant Supervisor and
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1365
Shri S.L. Sahu, Deputy Accountant General (Admin. & Vigilance Section), both posted in the O/o Accountant
General (A&E), Rajasthan, Jaipur and unknown others punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) r/w sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) based on which a
CBI case RC JAI 2022 A 0002 has been registered on 28.02.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy,
in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the
same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/119/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA,Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 19 ᳰदस᭥बर, 2022
का.आ. 725.—के᭠ᮤ सरकार एतद᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)
कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उपधारा (1) सपᳯठत धारा 6 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए महारा᳦ सरकार, गृह िवभाग,
मुंबई के आदेश सं.- सीबीआई 1621/सी.आर.-752/पीओएल–2, ᳰदनांक 16.12.2021 के मा᭟यम से जारी स᭥मित
से, लेि᭢टनᱶट कनᭅल िवकास राइज़दा, एडीओएस, आमᱮ आयुध वािहनी, दिᭃण कमांड, पुणे, ᮰ी सुशा᭠त नाहक,
हवलदार, ᮰ीमती िᮧयंका प᳀ी ᮰ी आलोक कुमार, ᮰ी आलोक कुमार, िसपाही एवं अ᭠य अ᭄ात ᳞िᲦयᲂ के िवᱨ
वषᭅ 2020-21 मᱶ िविभ᳖ ᮝेडᲂ के िलए आयोिजत भतᱮ परीᭃा कᳱ उᱫर कुंजी उपल᭣ध कराने के संबंध मᱶ भा. दं.
संिहता कᳱ धारा 120(बी) सपᳯठत ᳥᮪ाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अिधिनयम
16 ᳇ारा यथा संशोिधत) कᳱ धारा 7 के तहत ᳰदनांक 18.12.2021 को दजᭅ सीबीआई मामला आरसी 12220
21ए0005/सीबीआई /एसीबी/पुणे, से संबंिधत अपराध(धᲂ) या उससे संबं ᳰकसी दु᭬ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा और/अथवा
षᲽंᮢ एवं/अथवा उसी सं᳞वहार मᱶ ᳰकए गए या उ᭠ही त᭝यᲂ से उ᭜प᳖ ᳰकसी अ᭠य अपराध का अ᭠वेषण करने के
िलए ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और ᭃेᮢािधकार का िव᭭तार (कायᲃᱫर ᮧभाव से ᳰदनांक
18.12.2021 से) सम᭭त महारा᳦ रा᭔य मᱶ करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/120/2022-एवीडी-II]
राजीव कुमार खरे, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 725.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1621/C.R. 752/Pol-2 dated 16.12.2021, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 18.12.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) against Lt. Col. Vikash Raizada, ADOS, Army Ordnance Corps, Southern Command, Pune,
Shri Susanta Nahak, Havildar, Smt. Priyanka, w/o Shri Alok Kumar, Shri Alok Kumar, Sepoy and unknown
others, pertaining to providing of answer keys during the recruitment process for selection of various Trades
through examination held during the year 2020-21, punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) r/w section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of
2018), relating to CBI Case RC1222021A0005/CBI/ACB/Pune registered on 18.12.2021 and any attempt,
abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence
committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/120/2022-AVD-II]
RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 27 ᳰदस᭥बर, 2022
का.आ. 726.—के᭠ ᮤ सरकार, एत᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭ थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)
कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) सपᳯठत धारा 6 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उᱫराखंड रा᭔ य सरकार, गृह
अनुभाग-4, देहरादून कᳱ अिधसूचना सं. 156/XX (4)-2022-13(03)2022, ᳰदनांक 30.09.2022 के मा᭟ यम से
जारी स᭥मित से, मामला अपराध सं. 13/2018, 13/2022, 15/2022 और 31/2022, जो सभी थाना राजपुर,
िजला देहरादून, उᱫराखंड मᱶ पंजीकृत हᱹ, से संबि᭠धत अपराध(धᲂ) का अ᭠वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराध(धᲂ) से जुड़े
या उससे संब ᳰकसी दु᭬ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा एवं/अथवा षᲽंᮢ एवं/अथवा उसी सं᳞वहार मᱶ ᳰकए गए या उ᭠हᱭ त᭝यᲂ
1366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
से उ᭜प᳖ ᳰकसी अ᭠य अपराध का अ᭠वेषण करने के िलए ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और
ᭃेᮢािधकार का िव᭭तार सम᭭ त उᱫराखंड रा᭔ य मᱶ करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/117/2022-एवीडी-II]
संजय कुमार चौरिसया, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2022
S.O. 726—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Uttarakhand, issued vide Notification No. 156/XX (4)-2022-13(03)2022 dated 30.09.2022,
Home Section-4, Dehradun, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttarakhand for investigation into the offence(s) relating to Case
Crime Nos. 13/2018, 13/2022, 15/2022 and 31/2022, all registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun,
Uttarakhand and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)
and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/117/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 माचᭅ, 2023
का.आ. 727.—के᭠ ᮤ सरकार, एतद᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭ थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)
कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उपधारा (1) सपᳯठत धारा 6 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए महारा᳦ रा᭔ य सरकार, आदेश
सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 13/पीओएल-2, ᳰदनांक 06.01.2022, गृह िवभाग, मुंबई, के मा᭟यम से जारी स᭥मित
से, ᮰ी सखाराम खरातमोल, वᳯर᳧ अनुभाग अिभयंता, इंजिनयᳳरंग िवभाग, पंि᳟म रेलवे, चचᭅगेट, मुंबई के िवᱨ
᮰ी सुनील संतु यादव, िनवास ए-9, साई नाथ नगर, मदोना कॉलोनी, भगवती हॉि᭭पटल के पीछे, बोरावली पि᳟म,
मुंबई ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 03.01.2022 को ᳥᮪ाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम, 1988(1988 का 49) (2018 का अिधिनयम
16 मᱶ यथासंशोिधत) कᳱ धारा अिधिनयम 7 के तहत दजᭅ कराई गई िशकायत, िजसके आधार पर ᳰदनांक
07.01.2022 को सीबीआई मामला, आरसी 0262022ए0001 दजᭅ कᳱ गई है, से उ᭜प᳖ अपराध(धᲂ) का अ᭠वेषण
तथा ऐसे अपराध(धᲂ) से जुड़े या उससे संब ᳰकसी दु᭬ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा और/अथवा षᲽंᮢ एवं/अथवा उसी
सं᳞वहार मᱶ ᳰकए गए या उ᭠हᱭ त᭝यᲂ से उ᭜प᳖ ᳰकसी अ᭠य अपराध काअ᭠वेषण करने के िलए ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस
᭭थापना (07.01.2022 के ᮧभाव से कायᲃतर) के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और ᭃेᮢािधकार का िव᭭तार सम᭭त महारा᳦
रा᭔य मᱶ करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/121/2022-एवीडी-II]
संजय कुमार चौरिसया, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2023
S.O. 727.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 13/Pol-2 dated 06.01.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 07.01.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 03.01.2022 lodged by Shri Sunil Santu Yadav, R/o A-9, Sai Nath
Nagar, Madona Colony, Behind Bhagwati Hospital, Boriwali West, Mumbai against Shri Sakharam Kharatmol,
Senior Section Engineer, Engineering Department, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai, punishable under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on
which a CBI Case RC0262022A0001 has been registered on 07.01.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or
conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the
course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/121/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1367
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 1 मई, 2023
का.आ. 728.—के᭠ᮤ सरकार, एतद᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)
कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) सपᳯठत धारा 6 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए कनाᭅटक रा᭔य सरकार, गृह
िवभाग (अपराध), कनाᭅटक सरकार सिचवालय, बंगलुᱧ कᳱ अिधसूचना सं. एचडी 70 सीओडी 2022 ᳰदनांक
21.01.2023 के मा᭟यम से जारी स᭥मित से, किथत तौर पर ᮰ी ᮧवीन एस को᭡पड (पुᱧष), पुᮢ ᮰ी सुशीला डी
नाइक, िनवासी ᭣लॉक सं. 1, 7, काकाती पुिलस Ფाटसᭅ, बेलगाँव, कनाᭅटक एवं अ᭠यᲂ ᳇ारा नाबािलगᲂ के शारीᳯरक
यौन शोषण को िचिᮢत करती ᱟई बाल यौन शोषण सामᮕी का िनमाᭅण, संकलन एवं ᮧसारण करने के संबंध मᱶ
सूचना ᮧौ᳒ोिगकᳱ अिधिनयम, 2000 (2000 का 21) कᳱ धारा 67बी के अंतगᭅत ᳰकए गए अपराध(धᲂ) का अ᭠वेषण
तथा ऐसे अपराध(धᲂ) से जुड़े या उससे संब ᳰकसी दु᭬ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा और/अथवा षᲽंᮢ एवं/अथवा उसी
सं᳞वहार मᱶ ᳰकए गए या उ᭠हᱭ त᭝यᲂ से उ᭜प᳖ ᳰकसी अ᭠य अपराध का अ᭠वेषण करने के िलए ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस
᭭थापना के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और ᭃेᮢािधकार का िव᭭तार सम᭭त कनाᭅटक रा᭔य मᱶ करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/13/2023-एवीडी-II]
संजय कुमार चौरिसया, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 728.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Karnataka issued vide Notification No. HD 70 COD 2022 dated 21.01.2023, Home
Department (Crimes), Karnataka Government Secretariat, Bengaluru, hereby extends the powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Karnataka for
investigation into the offence(s) under section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)
alleged to have been committed by Shri Praveen S Koppad (Male), S/o Shri Susheela D Naik, R/o Block No. 1,
7, Kakati Police Quarters, Belgaum, Karnataka and others pertaining to creation, collection and circulation of
Child Sexual Abuse Material, depicting the physical sexual abuse of the minor persons and any attempt,
abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence
committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/13/2023-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 1 मई, 2023
का.आ. 729.—के᭠ᮤ सरकार, एतद᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)
कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) सपᳯठत धारा 6 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए पि᳟म बंगाल रा᭔य सरकार,
गृह एवं पहाड़ी मामले िवभाग, नब᳖ा के पᮢ सं. 385-आई.एस.एस./2एम-169/14 (पाटᭅ1), ᳰदनांक 17.04.2023
के मा᭟यम से जारी स᭥मित से ᮰ी पवन कुमार, सीमा शु᭨क अधीᭃक, बामर लॉरी सीएफएस, िखᳰदरपुर, कोलकाता
के िवᱧ ᳥᮪ाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अिधिनयम 16 ᳇ारा यथासंशोिधत) कᳱ
धारा 7 के तहत द᭛डनीय अपराध(धᲂ) के संबंध मᱶ ᮰ी राज कुमार मुंᮤा, िनवासी 22/2, कमᭅचारी, मनोहर पाकुड़
रोड, कोलकाता, मेससᭅ एचडीएम आईएमपीईएस, बड़ाबाजार एᳯरया, कोलकाता-1 ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 10.04.2023
को दजᭅ करायी गई िशकायत, िजसके आधार पर ᳰदनांक 17.04.2023 को एक सीबीआई मामला
आरसी0102023ए0003 दजᭅ ᳰकया गया है, से उ᭜प᳖ अपराध(धᲂ) का अ᭠वेषण करने के िलए तथा ऐसे अपराध(धᲂ)
से जुड़े या उससे संब ᳰकसी दु᭬ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा एवं/अथवा षᲽंᮢ एवं/अथवा उसी सं᳞वहार मᱶ ᳰकए गए या उ᭠हᱭ
त᭝यᲂ से उ᭜प᳖ ᳰकसी अ᭠य अपराध का अ᭠वेषण करने के िलए ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ
और ᭃेᮢािधकार का िव᭭तार (कायᲃᱫर ᮧभाव से ᳰदनांक 17.04.2023 से) सम᭭त पि᳟म बंगाल रा᭔यं मᱶ करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/20/2023-एवीडी-II]
संजय कुमार चौरिसया, अवर सिचव
1368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 729.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of West Bengal, issued vide letter No. 385-I.S.S/2M-169/14(Pt.1) dated 17.04.2023, Home &
Hill Affairs Department, Nabanna, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 17.04.2023) to the whole State of West Bengal for
investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 10.04.2023 lodged by Shri Raj Kumar
Mundra, R/o 22/2, Manohar Pukur Road, Kolkata, Employee of M/s HDM IMPEX, Barabazar Area, Kolkata-1
against Shri Pawan Kumar, Superintendent of Customs, Balmer Lawrie CFS, Khidirpur, Kolkata under section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a
CBI case RC0102023A0003 has been registered on 17.04.2023 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in
relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the
same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/20/2023-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 730.—कᱶᮤ सरकार, राजभाषा [संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग] िनयमावली, 1976
(यथा संशोिधत 1987,2007 और 2011) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ काᳶमᭅक और ᮧिशᭃण
िवभाग के अधीन᭭ थ कायाᭅलय कᱶᮤीय अ᭠ वेषण ᭣ यूरो के अधीन िन᭥ निलिखत कायाᭅलयᲂ, िजसके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक
कमᭅचाᳯरयᲂ ने ᳲहंदी भाषा का कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᳙ कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती हैः-
1. आᳶथᭅक अपराध शाखा, मु᭥बई
2. िवशेष कायᭅ शाखा, मु᭥बई
3. िवशेष एकक, मु᭥बई
[फा. सं. ई.-11017/1/2022-ᳲहंदी]
एस. डी. शमाᭅ, संयु त सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 730.—Central Government in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of official languages [Use for
official purpose of union] Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987,2007and 2011) hereby notifies the following
offices under the Central Bureau of Investigation, a subordinate office of Department of Personnel and Training
whose more than 80 percent staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi language:
1. Economic Offences Branch, Mumbai
2. Special Task Branch, Mumbai
3. Special Unit, Mumbai
[F. No. E-11017/1/2022-Hindi]
S.D. SHARMA, Jt. Secy.
उपभोᲦा मामले, खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण मंᮢालय
(खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 18 अᮧैल, 2023
का.आ. 731.— के᭠ᮤीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के
िनयम 10 के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ उपभोᲦा मामले, खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण मंᮢालय (खा᳒ और
सावᭅजिनक िवतरण िवभाग) के ᮧशासिनक िनयंᮢणाधीन िन᳜िलिखत कायाᭅलय, िजसके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक
कमᭅचारीवृ᭠द ने िह᭠दी का कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᳙ कर िलया है, को राजपᮢ मᱶ अिधसूिचत करती है:-
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1369
1. : के᭠ᮤीय भंडारगृह, कोटा-1,
राज᭭थान
[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-िह᭠दी (321924)]
राजे᭠ᮤ कुमार, संयुᲦ सिचव
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department Of Food And Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 18th April, 2023
S.O. 731.—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:
1.
: Central Warehouse, Kota-1,
Rajasthan.
[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi (321924) ]
RAJENDER KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 5 अᮧैल, 2023
का.आ. 732.—औ᳒ोिगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औ᳒ोिगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औ᳒ोिगक vf/kdj.k ua- 1 /kuckkn ds iapkV lanHkZ l-k (09/2018)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12012/06/2018-आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYEMENT
New Delhi, the 5th April, 2023
S.O. 732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/06/2018 -IR( B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 09/2018
Employer in relation to the management of UCO Bank,Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
1370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For Employer :- Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate.
For workman :- Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Bank
Dated 29/09 /2022
AWARD
By Order No. L-12012/06/2018- (IR(B-II)) dated 25.04.2018, the Central Government in the
Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to
this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi by
terminating Sri Ashis kumar, Daily Wages Worker (Peon) alleged to be working from
14/12/2012 to 04/07/2015 without any prior notice and engagement of other person in his
place is justified, if not, what relief the workmen Sri Ashis Kumar is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. The concerned workman has filed
his written statement of claim on 07/06/2018 and the management of UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch,
Ranchi has filed its written statement cum rejoinder on 26/03/2019.
The concerned workman namely Ashish Kumar has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the
management on 13/05/2019.
3.
The claim of the concerned workman as per his written statement is as follows:-
That he was originally engaged/appointed in Thakur Gaon Branch as Peon against permanent
vacancy, as per order of the then Head Branch Manager and subsequently he started working as a peon but
the management was paying him wages of coolie (Labour). He was performing job of regular nature and he
used to help the customers making entry into the register, opening of new accounts and other miscellaneous
work but the manager did not issue any appointment letter to him. He had worked continuously from
14/12/2012 to 04/07/2015 but his service was terminated by the management of the Bank illegally in
violation of the principle of natural justice. He had made representation before the management for his illegal
stoppage of work but the anti-labour management did not take any cognizance of this fact. After that he had
raised a dispute before the RLC (C), Ranchi and subsequently this reference case.
A prayer has been made for reinstatement in the Bank with full back wages.
4. The case of the management as per its written statement is as follows:-
That the present reference is not maintainable in law or in facts as the concerned employee was
neither appointed as employee of the Bank nor his services were terminated as such. The concerned workman
was engaged as daily rated worker by the Branch Manager of the Bank for performing miscellaneous jobs
available on a day to day basis and he was used to be paid daily rated wages. The concerned workman was
never kept on the roll of the Bank in the capacity of an employee and he was never paid salary/wages in
accordance with the rules of the Bank. There was no sanctioned post for regularization of the workman. The
Branch Manager do engage daily workers for carrying on miscellaneous jobs as and when required and he
has got no power to appoint any employee in the Branch. The service of the concerned workman was utilized
by the local branch authority as daily wage earner on the basis on particular day as per the requirement of
local branch authority. The concerned workman has not made his case for regularisation of his service, so
claim of the concerned workman is liable to be dismissed.
A prayer has been made to hold that the workman is not engaged by the Branch and he is not
entitled for any relief.
The management by way of rejoinder has mentioned that the statement made in Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the written statement of workman are untrue, misconceived, malafide and
denied and the statement made in Para 15 of the written statement of workman is matter of record.
5. The concerned workman has submitted rejoinder to the written statement of management stating
therein that the statement made in Para 2 of the written statement of management it is submitted that the
present reference is legally maintainable, the statement made in Para 3, 8 and 9 of the written statement of
management are false, illegal and denied, the statement Para 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the written statement of
management it is submitted that the concerned workman was engaged/appointed in permanent nature of jobs
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1371
and he had been working regularly against the permanent vacancy under the direct control and supervision of
the management.
6. The concerned workman has examined only one witness. He is WW-1, Ashish Kumar, the
claimant.
7. The concerned workman has proved the following documents which are marked as:-
Exhibit W-1- Original Certificate, dated 29/08/2015 issued by Assistant Manager, UCO Bank mentioning
Ashish Kumar worked under him from 31 August 2013 to 04/07/2015 at UCO Bank Thakurgaon
and he is hard working and has good knowledge in computer.
Exhibit W-2-
Original Certificate issued by Assistant Manager of Thakurgaon mentioning Ashish Kumar
had worked in UCO, Bank of Thakurgaon Branch and he is hard working and has good
knowledge of computer.
Exhibit W-3-
Original Certificate issued by the Branch Manager, Thakurgaon Branch mentioning therein
that Ashish Kumar was working in his Branch and he is punctual at his work.
Exhibit W-4- Original Certificate, dated 20/07/2015 issued by Branch Manager, Thakurgaon Branch
mentioning therein that Ashish Kumar had worked under him from 07/11/2014 to
04/07/2015 at UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch and he has also sound knowledge in
computer.
Exhibit W-5-
Original Authorisation Letter issued by Manager, UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch dated
03/06/2015 to Ashish Kumar for receiving stationery for daily need.
Exhibit W-6- Original Saving Bank Passbook of Ashish Kumar, UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch.
8. The management has examined only one witness. He is MW-1, Rajesh Ranjan.
9. The management has not proved any documents in support of its case.
10. The learned lawyer of the workman has submitted that the concerned workman had been working
at Thakurgaon Branch as Peon since 14/12/2012 and he was engaged by the Branch Manager of the said
Bank. He has further submitted that the workman was working regularly and continuously in different kinds
of permanent nature of jobs but the management had terminated is service by stopping him from attending
duty w.e.f. 04/07/2015 without assigning any reason which is in violation of the principle of natural justice.
He has also submitted that the concerned workman had made representation before the management several
times against his legal termination but his case was not considered. He has produced six documents which are
marked as Exhibit W-1 to W-6 which show that the concerned workman was engaged by the Branch
Manager for performing day to day work. He has submitted that the concerned workman had worked for 240
days in a calendar year. He has also submitted that management had not given any reason or justification for
stopping him for attending duty. He has also argued that management has not denied that the concerned
workman had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He has also argued that the concerned workman
had been terminated from service without compliance of the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, so the
dismissal of the concerned workman is in violation of the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act. He has
made prayer to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages.
11. On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted that the concerned workman
was not discharging the work of Peon as the post of Peon is a sanctioned post and no person can be engaged
as a peon without following the proper procedure. He has further argued that the Exhibits W-1, W-2, W-3
and W-4 show that the concerned workman had good knowledge of computer and all these documents are
fictitious and not reliable. He has also submitted that there are no such documents available in the Branch as
mentioned by the concerned workman. He has also submitted that these documents do not show that the
concerned workman was working as a peon in the Bank. He has also submitted that the concerned workman
was engaged as daily wages for certain days and as per quantum of work his wage was paid. He has also
argued that the workman is not entitled for regularisation in the Bank.
12. Now, the only point of determination in this case is whether the concerned workman was working
from 14/12/2012 to 04/07/2015 in UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi and without any prior notice he
was terminated from service and other person was engaged in his place?
1372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FINDINGS
13. At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that it has been admitted by both the parties
that the concerned workman namely Ashish Kumar was engaged on daily basis in Thakurgaon Branch of
UCO Bank, Ranchi.
14. Now the question arises whether the concerned workman was working as a peon in the UCO Bank
of Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi and he was terminated from the service by the Bank without giving prior
notice and other person was engaged in his place.
15. In this regard the WW-1, who is concerned workman, is the only competent witness on this point.
He has deposed that he was working as peon in Thakurgaon Branch of UCO Bank since 14/12/2012
continuously till 04/07/2015 and he had engaged by the Branch Manager of the said Bank. He has also
deposed that he had been performing the duty of opening the branch, cleaning the room and booting the
computers of the Branch, helping customers in opening their account and other allied works. He has further
stated that he was discharging all the duties under the supervision of Branch Manager of UCO Bank and he
had received salary through voucher by the bank. He has also stated that he had an account in the said branch
and his salary was paid in that account. He has also stated that his wages were paid in his name and in the
name of other persons. He has further stated that Bank had issued vouchers in his name and in the name of
Santosh Kumar and he had received both the vouchers. He has further stated that the then Branch Manager
Dilip Ranjan Lakra of UCO Bank had issued a certificate on 29/07/2015 regarding his work in UCO Bank
since 31/07/2013 to 04/07/2015. He has proved a certificate issued by Dilip Ranjan Lakra, Assistant
Manager, UCO Bank Thakurgaon Branch which is marked as Exhibit W-1. He has also proved another
certificate issued by Branch Manager Dilip Ranjan Lakra which is marked as Exhibit W-2. He has proved
another certificate issued by Sri Subodh Tigga, Branch Manager Thakurgaon Branch which is marked as
Exhibit W-3. He has proved the certificate issued by Sri Subodh Tigga the then Branch Manager which is
marked as Exhibit W-4. He has also proved the authorisation letter issued by Sri Subodh Tigga, Manager,
Thakurgaon Branch which is marked as Exhibit W-5. He has proved his pass book of Saving Account No.
27620110005408 which is marked as Exhibit W-6. He has further stated that he had worked for 240 days in a
calendar year and no notice had been issued to him for his retrenchment, so he is entitled for reinstatement
with back wages.
In the cross-examination he has stated that he had not been given any appointment letter for appointment
to the post of peon by the Branch Manager of Thakurgaon Branch. He has also stated that no advertisement
was issued by the UCO Bank of Thakurgaon Branch regarding appointment by post of peon in the Bank and
he used to discharge of work of cleaning in the Bank. He has also stated that the Branch Manager had not
issued any I-card to him. He has further stated the Exhibit W-1, doesn’t bear any seal of the Bank. Exhibit
W-2, doesn’t bear any reference number and date, Exhibit W-3 and W-4 have been signed as for UCO Bank.
He has denied the suggestion that he had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
16. On the other hand the MW-1, Rajesh Ranjan has deposed that Ashish Kumar was a coolie (worker)
and on his demand he was engaged for one hour and two hour in the Bank. He has also stated that his wages
were deposited in his saving account of the Bank and he had worked sometimes for 10 days and sometimes
for 12 or 14 days. He has further stated that there is no reference in the official record with regard to Exhibit
W-1 to Exhibit W-4. He has further stated that the workman was not on the roll of the Bank and he was not
given any appointment letter as he had worked as a collie or mazdoor which is not a permanent nature.
In the cross-examination he has deposed that he had not worked in the UCO Bank since 14/12/2012 to
04/07/2015, so he has no personal information in this regard. He has also deposed that there is no post of
coolie in any bank and he had not produced any paper to show that concerned workman had worked as a
coolie in the Bank. He has also stated that there are signatures of the Branch Manager of Thakurgaon Branch
of UCO Bank on Exhibit W-1 to Exhibit W-4. He has also stated that he had no knowledge whether any
action had been taken against the then Branch Manager of UCO Bank for engagement of concerned
workman. He has denied the suggestion that the concerned workman had worked for 240 days in the Bank.
17. Now coming to the documentary evidence of the concerned workman it appears that W-1 is a
certificate issued by Assistant Manager, UCO Bank mentioning therein that Ashish Kumar had worked under
him from 31 August 2013 to 04/07/2015 at UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch and he had been hard working
and had good knowledge of computer. Further the Exhibit W-2 is a certificate issued by the Assistant
Manager, UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch mentioning therein that Ashish Kumar had worked in UCO Bank
of Thakurgaon Branch and he is hard working and good knowledge of computer. Exhibit W-3 is a certificate
issued by the Branch Manager, Thakurgaon Branch mentioning therein that Ashish Kumar was working in
his Branch and he was punctual at his work. It has been further mentioned that he was also active at
mobilisation in recoveries work and he had good knowledge of house keeping. Exhibit W-4 is a Certificate
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1373
issued by the Branch Manager, Thakurgaon Branch mentioning therein that Ashish Kumar had worked under
him from 07/11/2014 to 04/07/2015 at UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch and he was hard working having
good moral character. Exhibit W-5 is an authorisation letter to Ashish Kumar for receiving stationery for
daily need issued by the Manager, UCO bank, Thakurgaon Branch and Exhibit W-6 is the saving bank
passbook of UCO Bank of concerned workman.
18. Now in this case the WW-1 in his evidence has categorically mentioned that he had worked for more
than 240 days in a calendar year in the UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi. Further the Exhibit W-1 is a
certificate issued by Assistant Manager, UCO Bank mentioning therein that the concerned workman had
worked from 13 August 2013 to 04/07/2015 and Exhibit W-4 is a certificate issued by the Branch Manager of
UCOBank of Thakurgaon Branch mentioning therein that Ashish Kumar had worked under him since
07/11/2014 to 04/07/2015. The MW-1 in his evidence has simply denied that the concerned workman had not
worked for 240 days.
After analysing the oral and documentary evidence available in this case, the Tribunal comes to the
conclusion that concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
19. It is important to mention here that the workman has been defined u/s 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act.
The Section 2(s) of I.D. Act reads as follows:-
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ( ten thousand rupees) per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested
in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature
20. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case as reported in
2011 LAB. I. C. 2799 (S.C) has been pleased to observe as follows:-
“14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between
full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language
of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed
for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part-time or contract basis on fixed
wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.
15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability ground that the employee is not a workman
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to consider
is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled,
operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing
the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of ‘workman”.
21. It is required to mention here that the concerned workman namely Ashish Kumar had worked in the
UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch as a daily wager (Peon), so he was employed in the Bank on hire and
consequently he was a workman and there was a relationship between him and the management as employer
and employee, so there is Industrial Dispute.
22. It is also relevant to mention here that the word retrenchment has been defined u/S 2(oo) of the I .D
.Act, definition of continuous service has been mentioned u/s 25-B of I . D .Act and the condition precedent to
retrenchment have been mentioned u/S 25 F of I.D Act.
Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act reads as follows:-
Section 2(oo) -“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any
reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include-
1374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
(bb) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of 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.
25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose of this Chapter,-
(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 authorized 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 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)…………………………………..
The Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows:-
25-F 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:
(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days’ average pay (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 (or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
23. Now in this case there is categorical evidence that the concerned workman had worked in UCO
Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi for more than 240 days in each and every Calendar Year, so the
concerned workman was in continuous service in the Bank as per definition mentioned u/s 25-B of I.D’ Act.
Moreover there is also evidence that the concerned workman was removed from his service w.e.f.
04/07/2015. Further there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the concerned workman had been given one
month notice in writing indicating the reasons for their retrenchment/ removal or had been paid compensation
equivalent to 15 days of average pay as per provision of 25-F of the I.D. Act.
24. Hence, in view of above the discussion the Tribunal finds and holds that the concerned workman
namely Ashish Kumar had been working in UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi on daily wages (Peon)
and he had been removed from service w.e.f. 04/07/2015. Further the action of the management in
terminating the services of the concerned workman w.e.f. 04/07/2015 is not legal and justified. Hence the
concerned workman is entitled for relief.
25. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decision has
been pleased to observe that the completion of 240 days work doesn’t under the law import the right to
regularisation and it merely imposed certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of service.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh, as
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, especially in Paragraph No. 18 as under:-
“18. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year confers
any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vs.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1375
Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days’ work does not confer the right to
regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the
time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to
several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is well settled that only because a person had been
working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in serivee. This view has
been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai vs. Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable
detail with reference to an employee working in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. vs. Workmen and paras 34 and 35 of the report are being reproduced below: (SCC p.426)
“34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation.
Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case of E.
Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the rules. The
same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The
direction issued by the services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons who had not been appointed
on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working
regularly for a long time.
35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give
any right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules.””
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to observe in L.P.A No. 268/2012 which is as
under:-
“(xiv) Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more than 240
days in couple of years, then also, his services cannot be regularized. 240 days’ working is not a magic bond
which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact, 240 days working has nothing to do
with the regularization at all. 240 days working has got reference under Section 25-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of continuous years of service and nothing beyond that. Unnecessarily
several times the Labour Court or the Industrial Courts are committing an error that if any worker has
completed 240 days, their services should be regularized. In fact, there is no casual connection at all between
the working of 240 days and right of regularization. Illegality in the appointment cannot be diluted by the
working of 240 days. Illegality in the appointment continues, even if, the worker has worked for 240 days.”
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as follows:-
“Whenever any employment is given unauthorizedly, in the respondent-UCO Bank, Hirapur, Dhanbad,
such type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are rules for
regularization or scheme for regularization. In the facts of the present case, there are no rules of
regularization nor there is any scheme of regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In absence of such type of
law, the charity shown by the Court will be cruelty to others. If such type regularization is allowed by the
Courts, it will provide encouragement to those who are adorning high-ranking administrative position to
give illegal appointment and later on, to get them regularized by the orders of the Courts. A thing which
cannot be done directly, can never be done indirectly. If no employment can be given without there being any
advertisement and without there being any recruitment process, the Court cannot be a party to illegal
regularization of such employee.”
26. In view of such fact and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jharkhand High
Court it is settled that the workman is not entitled for regularization of their job for working 240 days in a
calendar year in, UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi.
27. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal as
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
34. The Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that
when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice
pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has
no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot
claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going
to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself
inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in
the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.
1376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of District Development Officer Vs. Satish Kantilal
Amrelia as reported in (2018) 12 SCC 29 B has been pleased to hold as follows:-
“16) In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and
reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of
his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under
Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case
(supra)”.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is an another case Deputy Executive Engineer Vs Kuberbhai
Kanjhibhai as reported in 2019 (160) FLR 651 has reiterated the same principle.
30. Now, in this case the concerned workman namely Ashish Kumar had been working as Peon on daily
wages (Peon) in the UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi since his appointment on different dates and he
was removed from the service w.e.f. 04/07/2015 without being given any notice of retrenchment .
31. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Surpeme Court as discussed above it would be proper, just and
reasonable to grant lump-sum monetary compensation of three lakhs to the concerned workman.
32. It is required to mention here that the concerned workman has not brought any evidence to show
that other persons had been appointed in his place after terminating him from service.
In view of such the Tribunal finds and holds that the management of UCO Bank, Thakurgaon
Branch, Ranchi had not engaged any person in place of concerned workman.
33. After considering all the facts and circumstances the Tribunal renderes the following award:-
“The action of Management of UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi by terminating the Sri Ashish
Kumar, Daily Wages Worker (Peon) working from 14/12/2012 to 04/07/2015 without any prior notice is not
legal and justified.
34. Hence, the concerned workman is entitled for relief which is as under:-
The UCO Bank, Thakurgaon Branch, Ranchi is directed to pay a sum of Rs. Three Lakhs to the
concerned workmen namly Ashish Kumar as lump-sum compensation after proper verification within one
month after publication of award in Official Gazette.
This is the Award of the Tribunal.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 6 अᮧैल, 2023
का.आ. 733.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सह-Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 38/2020) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-22013/01/2023 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2023
S.O. 733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/04/2023
[No. L- 22013/01/2023- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1377
I.D. No. 38/2020
Ref. No. D-825/AB/2020/17/IRDDN dated 09.09.2020
BETWEEN
1. Shri Alok Kumar S/o Shri Satyendra Singh
Village – Nagla Seth, Tehsil – Kayamganj
Distt. – Farukhabad (UP)
2. Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and
Ors. T.P.No. 315, Katia Tolla, Shahajanpur (UP).
AND
1. The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India,
Regional office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow(UP).
2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation
of India (FCI), Distt. Office, Shahjahanpur (UP).
AWARD
By order No. D-825/AB/2020/17/IRDDN dated 09.09.2020 the present industrial dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with
following schedule:
“Whether the termination of the service of Shri Alok Kumar S/o Shri Satyendra Singh,
who was engaged in Roja Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (UP) by M/s Keshav Singh,
Contractor of FCI, the period 08.07.2008 to 23.04.2010 is proper and justified.
If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 38/2020 has been registered on 22.10.2020.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has
not filed any statement of claim.
Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, workman, Alok Kumar or his authorized representative has
not turned up before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim, till date, so the present reference may be
dismissed.
Findings & Conclusion:
Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in
order to establish his claim as per the reference dated 09.09.2020.
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries
v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must
fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is
imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which
the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to
appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government
cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary
v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.
Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.
1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of
any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court
against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at
all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making
the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
1378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P.
P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it
has been held as under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders
of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first
which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or
documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be
dismissed.”
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is
liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 734.—औ᳒ोिगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj
बड़ौदा उᱫर ᮧदेश ᮕामीण बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औ᳒ोिगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औ᳒ोिगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dkuiqj ds iapkV
(07/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12011/43/2018-आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank and their workmen.
[No. L- 12011/43/2018- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 07 of 2019
L-12011/43/2018-IR(B-I) dated 28.12.2018
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Bhartiya Poorva Sainik Bank Karmchari Sangh,
02, Naveen Market Near Parade Chauraha,
Kanpur (U.P)-208001
AND
The Chairman,
Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank,
A-1, Civil Lines,
Rae Barely, U.P-229001
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1379
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-12011/43/2018-IR(B-I) dated 28.12.2018
SCHEDULE
1. ‘Whether the management of Baroda UP Grameen Bank , Rae Barely has violated
the transfer policy of the bank in issuing the inter region transfers orders in the year
2017 in respect of clerical cadre employees from one branch office ot another? if so,
what relief the transferred workmen are entitled to?’
On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 15th February 2019 fixing
27.03.2019 for filing of statement of claim. Union was absent on the date fixed. Afterwards several dates were
fixed for filing of statement of claim by the union.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing of statement of claim
none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several opportunities to the union
for submitting statement of claim; the claimant union failed to present the case before this Tribunal. Under the
circumstances the case was reserved for final award for non-appearance of the union side.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the union is not interested in prosecuting the
case further before the Tribunal.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 12.12.2022 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 735.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल- 23012/147/2018-आई आर (सी एम-II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.92/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/147/2018 - IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 92/2018
Registered on:-03.12.2018
Shri Balak Ram S/o Shri Med Ram, R/o Village Sucad,
PO Gadagusain, Tehsil Balichowki, Distt. Mandi(HP)-175001.
….Workman
1380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/147/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Balak
Ram S/o Sh. Med Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and
valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite
of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove
his cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 736.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 89/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/101/2018 -आई आर (सी एम-II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 736.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/101/2018 - IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1381
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 89/2018
Registered on:-03.12.2018
Shri Jeet Ram S/o Shri Ghunghar Ram,
R/o Village-Chhujhaia, PO-Nanawan,
Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur(HP)-174001.
….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/101/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Jeet
Ram S/o Sh. Ghunghar Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age
of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and
valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 737.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 87/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/87/2018 -आई आर (सी एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
1382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 737.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.87/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/87/2018 - IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 87/2018
Registered on:-03.12.2018
Shri Gobind Ram S/o Shri Purn Chand, R/o Village Kakrah,
PO Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan(Himachal Pradesh)-173212.
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/87/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.11.2018,
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh.
Gobind Ram S/o Sh. Purn Chand for deeming/considering him in continuous
service upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential
benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 अᮧैल, 2023
का.आ. 738.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 98/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल- 23012/157/2018-आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1383
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2023
S.O. 738.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/157/2018- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 98/2018
Registered on:-12.12.2018
Smt. Santi Devi & Others Wd/O Late Ramesh Chand,
Village Changar Colony, BBMB Colony, Sundernagar,
Tehsil Sundernagar Distt. MandiHP)-175001.
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. …Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/157/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 22.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Smt.
Santi Devi & Others Wd/O Late Ramesh Chand for declaring his retrenchment
/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid?
If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late workman are is entitled
to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is received back with the
report that the workman is dead. Since the workman is dead and none is approached to this Tribunal as the legal
heirs of the deceased-workman, which shows that the legal heirs of the deceased-workman is not interested in
adjudication of the case on merit nor they have filed any statement of claim to prove their cause against the
respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 739.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी, बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
1384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1, चंडीगढ़
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 97/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023
dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/167/2018-आई आर (सी एम-II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/167/2018- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.97/2018
Registered on:-12.12.2018
Smt. Sharvati Devi W/o Shri Ram Swaroop, H.No.275, S-I,
Sundernagar Township Colony, Sunder Nagar,
Distt. Mandi(HP)-175001.
….…..Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg,
Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project,
Sundernagar-175038. ..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/167/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 22.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in terminating the services of Smt. Sharvati
Devi W/o Shri Ram Swaroop w.e.f. 10.12.2012 in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of
the ID Act is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor she has filed any statement of claim to prove
her cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1385
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 740.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी,बी एस एल पी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1,चंडीगढ़
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023
dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/97/2017 -आई आर (सी एम-II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.1/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of BBMB,BSLP and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/97/2017 - IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.1/2018
Registered on:-19.04.2018
Shri Hem Chand S/o Shri Sohan Singh, VPO-Mermasgid,
Tehsil-Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi(HP).
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/97/2017-IR(CM-II) Dated 19.03.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in terminating the service of Shri Hem
Chand S/o Shri Sohan Singh w.e.f. 10.12.2012 in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H
of the ID Act is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
1386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 741.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1, चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 88/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल- 23012/89/2018-आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/89/2018- IR(CM -II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.88/2018
Registered on:-03.12.2018
Shri Dand Ram S/o Shri Khajana Ram, R/o Village
& PO Hawan Tehsil, Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur(HP)-174001. ….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/89/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Dandu
Ram S/o Sh. Khajana Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid?
If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1387
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 742.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 91/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/131/2018 -आई आर (सी एम-II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.91/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/131/2018- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.91/2018
Registered on:-03.12.2018
Shri Gauri Dutt S/o Shri Polru Ram, R/o Village-Tandi,
PO-Saroa Via Pandoh, Tehsil-Sadar, Distt-Mandi(HP)-175001. ….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
1388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/131/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh.
Gauri Dutt S/o Sh. Polru Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service
upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is
legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and
from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 743.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ᮕामीण बᱹक ऑफ़ आयᭅᮯत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
कानपुर ds iapkV
(75/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2023 -आई आर (बी-I)-30]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 75/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L- 12025/01/2023- IR(B-I)-30]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 75 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Kamla Chaurasia s/o Ram Prasad Chaurasia
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Bajaramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P)-209203
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1389
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
15.02.2019
On 15th February 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 02.12.2020. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Finally the case was
reserved for final award for non prosecution by the claimant union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union is not interested in
prosecuting the case further before this Tribunal.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 17.01.2023 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 744.—औ᳒ोिगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ᮕामीण बᱹक ऑफ़ आयᭅᮯत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औ᳒ोिगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औ᳒ोिगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानपुर ds iapkV
(36/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2023-आई आर (बी-I)-57]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L- 12025/01/2023- IR(B-I)-57]
SALONI, Dy. Director
1390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 36 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Ramesh S/o Bhajan Lal
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Bajaramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P)-209203
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
30.01.2019
On 30th January 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 21.12.2020. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Finally the case was
reserved for final award for non prosecution by the claimant union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union is not interested in
prosecuting the case further before this Tribunal.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 12.04.2023 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 745.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार अितᳯरᲦ ᮧबंधक (काᳶमᭅक एवं ᮧशासन), इंिडयन टेलीफोन इंड᭭ᮝीज िलिमटेड, रायबरेली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के
संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी राजᱶᮤ ᮧसाद शमाᭅ, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 64/2013) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,
को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 4/05/2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-40012-05-2007 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1391
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
The Addl. General. Manager (Personnel & Administration),Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., RaiBareilly, and
Shri Rejendra Prasad Sharma, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 04/05/2023.
[No. L- 40012-05-2007- IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Ref. No. L-40012/5/2007-IR(DU) dated 03.05.2007
I. D. No. 64/2013
Shri Rejendra Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Pandit Ram Saran Sharma
R/o H. No. B/31, Basant Enclave, DDA Janta Flats, New Delhi
AND
The Addl. Gen. Manager (Personnel & Administration)
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
RaiBareli (Distt.) – 229010
AWARD
By order No. L-40012/5/2007-IR(DU) dated 03.05.2007 the Central Government, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication, following dispute
for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Additional General Manager (Personal
and Administration). Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Rai Bareili, in terminating
the services of their workman Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma w.e.f. 19.8.2000 is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Accordingly, the present industrial dispute has been registered before the Tribunal.
Case of the claimant:
Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant submits that workman, Rajendra Prasad Sharma
was appointed on 19.07.1979 on the post of driver on temporary basis, joined his duties and posted at ITI, Delhi.
By an order dated 14.09.1987 the services of the claimant were regularized on the post of driver w.e.f.
02.03.1985.
Thereafter on 16.02.1999 he was transferred to RaiBareli on the post of Driver. While he was working
and discharging his duties on the post of driver he received an information that his father, at Delhi was suffering
from lung cancer, seriously ill, so, he applied for a leave, sanctioned for three days and proceeded on 11.06.2000
to Delhi.
As the condition of his father was not well so he stayed at Delhi after expiry of period of leave, already
sanctioned to him.
On 22.06.2000 he reported back to duties, submitted an application for joining allowed to join his
duties on the post of driver, till 23.06.2000.
1392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On 24.06.2000 he received an information that his wife taking care of his father has fallen ill, so,
having no other alternative before him, he proceeded to Delhi on 24.06.2000 and on 17.07.2000, returned back
to Raibareli, submitted an application for joining (M-5).
On the said application on 19.07.2000 an order was passed by Asstt. Personnel Officer (Establishment),
Appointing Authority, which reads as under:
“JOINING REPORT
After unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 24.6.2000 Shri Rajendra Prasad Staff No.058354
Cat. 'D' has resumed his duties in Estt. Section x 17.7.2000 (F/N).
He is directed to report to CM(See. for further instructions with advise not to pe such type of
act in future.”
However, claimant was not allowed by the Chief Manager (Fire & Security) to work and discharge his
duties, and no work was allotted to him.
Learned counsel for the claimant further submits, again on 24.07.2000 he received information that his
wife was ill, so rushed to Delhi, while he was at Delhi he came to know that by order dated 19.08.2000 his
services were terminated.
Aggrieved by order of termination, claimant filed a W.P. No. 22 (SS) of 2000 Rajendra Prasad Sharma
vs. ITI Ltd, dismissed by an order dated 08.03.2006 on the ground of alternate remedy, reads as under:
“The petitioner has challenged termination order dated 19.08.2000. The petitioner has an
alternative and efficacious remedy before Labour Court.
The Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner may approach
the Labour Court in accordance with law, if he so desires.”
In view of said factual background, applicant, approached appropriate authority raising industrial
dispute as per provisions u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the matter was referred to the CGIT,
New Delhi.
Accordingly, on 12.07.2007 the claimant Rajendra Prasad Sharma filed an I.D. Case no. 13/2007
before CGIT-II, N. Delhi.
It is further submitted on behalf of the claimant that reference as well as the matter in regard to raising
industrial dispute by the claimant before the Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi was challenged by the respondent
by filing WP No. 4636 (MS) 2007, Asstt. Personnel Manager (P&A), ITI, Ltd vs. U. O. I. through Desk Officer,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
By order dated 11.04.2008 Hon’ble High Court, directed that the ID case which, filed by the workman,
aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2000 by which services were terminated on the ground of unauthorized
absence, to be transferred to CGIT, Lucknow.
Thereafter, before this Tribunal, ID case No. 64/2013 Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. ITI, was registered.
In view of the said factual background, Sri Vimal Kumar, advocate argued that action on the part of the
respondent thereby terminating the services of the workman on the ground of unauthorized absence vide order
dated 19.08.2000 is totally in violation of principles of natural justice as well as it is contrary to the provisions
as provide under Clause 11.7 of the Standing Order for M/s ITI Limited, RaeBareli Plant, RaeBareli (UP),
certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing
Order); because, claimant is a regular employee, so his service terminated by invoking clause 11.7 of the
Standing Order on the ground of absence without is totally contrary to law, in support of said argument, placed
reliance on the following judgment:
1.
D.K Yadav VS M/s J.M.A Industries Limited 1993 AIR SCW 1995.
2.
M/s Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd Vs. Ram Bhagat 2002 AIR SCW 3324.
3.
Union of India And others VS. Dinanath Shantaram Karekars& Others 1998 AIR SCW
2772.
4.
Biraj @ Brijraji & another VS. Surya Pratap & others Civil Appeal no. 4883-4884 of
2017.
5.
M/s Scooters India Ltd Vs. M. Mohammad Yaqub & Another [ AIR 2001 S.C 227.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1393
6.
Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan And Another 1998 AIR SCW 1447.
7.
M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt Ltd VS. The Employee of M/S Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd AIR 1979 SC 75.
8.
Allahabad Bank VS. Avtar Bhusan Bhartiya AIR 2022 SC 3025.
9.
Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) And
others 2013 SCW 5330.
10.
Bhuwanesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Ms. Hindalco Industries Ltd AIR 2014 S.C 2258.
11.
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History, Coimbatore & Another Vs. Dr.
Mathew K Sebastian 2022 Live Law (SC) 377.
Sri Vimal Kumar, counsel for the claimant submitted that during pendency of present case,
claimant/workman has attained, age of superannuation on 06.08.2011.
Accordingly, it is submitted by Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for claimant request that in view of
the above said facts and the law on the point in issue, impugned order dated 19.08.2000, by which services of
the claimant was terminated, may kindly be set aside, and the respondent may be directed to pay salary and
other consequential benefits w.e.f. 19.08.2000 to 06.08.2011 i.e. till the date of his retirement and thereafter the
retiral dues as per laws.
Case of the respondent:
On behalf of the respondent, Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, in support of the case of respondent, placed reliance
has been placed on following paragraph of the written statement, reproduced herein below:
““4. That the past record of the concerned workman was not clean. It is submitted that the
concerned workman was awarded punishment of with holding of three increments for committing an
act of misconduct of unauthorized withdrawal of petrol. The concerned workman was issued a Show
Cause Notice dated 31- 07-1995, Charge Sheet dated 28-08-1995 for withdrawal of unauthorized
petrol from IBP on holidays on days he was on leave. An enquiry was initiated against the concerned
workman. The concerned workman admitted the charges in writing vide application dated 29-09-1995
during the course of enquiry. Therefore punishment of with holding of three increments along with
recovery of Rs.12759.83/- was awarded to him vide Order dated 12-12-1995.
5. That the concerned workman while working at Regional Office New Delhi again committed a gross
act of misconduct of stealing Company's property. The concerned workman was placed under
suspension vide Order dated 06-12-1996 and a Charge sheet dated 06/09-12-1996 was issued to him.
The concerned workman submitted his explanation dated 12-12-1996 to the Charge sheet. The reply
submitted by the concerned workman was not found satisfactory. Hence Competent Authority took a
decision to conduct domestic enquiry against the concerned workman. The order of enquiry dated 12-
12-1996 to the effect was issued. A fair and proper domestic enquiry was conducted. The charges
leveled against the concerned workman Sri R. P. Sharma were proved. Though the charge were grave
and the punishment of dismissal could have been awarded to Sri R.P.Sharma but taking a lenient view
the concerned workman was awarded punishment of demotion to lower category i.e. Category D vide
Order dated 11-7-1997.
6. That the concerned workman was habitual absconder and used to remain absent on unauthorized
leave while working at ITI Limited Rae Bareli. The concerned workman remained absent for the
period mentioned below without any prior permission, application of leave for intimation
March
1999
08 days
April
1999
06 days
October
1999
05 days
November
1999
6.4 days
March
2000
2.4 days
April
2000
30 days
May
2000
09 days
1394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
June
2000
16.4 days
July
2000
31 days
August
2000
18 days (till 18.8.2000)
The applicant was absconding from duties continuously with effect from 15-06-2000. The relevant
provision 11.7 of the Company's certified Standing Order provides as under :-
"Clause 11.7 If an employee absents himself without leave for more than fifteen days or remains
absent beyond the period of leave granted for more than fifteen days, he shall be considered as
having voluntarily left and abandoned the Company's services and voluntarily terminated his
employment with Company without notice."
7. That the concerned workman was continuously absenting from duties without any application for
sanction of leave or intimation since 15-06-2000.
8. That the concerned workman submitted an application for permission to join the duty on 17-07-
2000, he was allowed to join duty on 19-7-2000. The applicant joined the duty in Establishment
Section of ITI Limited and thereafter he was directed to report for discharging the duties under the
concerned department but the applicant again absented himself from duty without any reason or
application or sanction of leave with effect from 19-07-2000.
9. That a Show Cause Notice dated 31-07-2000 was also issued to concerned workman at his home
address within the campus of ITI Limited Rae Bareli available on the record.
10. That in the circumstances stated above Employers had no other alternative left but to strike off his
name from Company's rolls. Accordingly, letter dated 19-08-2000 was issued to the effect that
applicant's services have been automatically terminated as he has voluntarily left the Company's
services under the provision of 11.7 of Company's certified Standing Order.”
Accordingly, Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned counsel for ITI on the basis of documents and evidence filed
on behalf of the respondent/ITI submits, that the claimant, Rajendra Prasad Sharma while working on the post of
driver allotted house at RaiBareli, (H. No. H-838-840, Secator-II, Doorbhash Nagar, RaiBareli) within the
campus of ITI, RaiBareli.
And on 11.06.2000, submitted an application that his father was ill and three days’ leave was granted to
him; accordingly, he proceeded to Delhi. He was to report back duties on 14.06.2000; however, he reported
back to duty on 22.06.2000 by submitting an application (Ex-M-3), praying that he may be allowed to join his
duties, allowed to join the duties w.e.f. 22.06.2000 (Ex-M-9).
Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned counsel for ITI further submits that again on 24.06.2000 claimant again
without informing, authorities under whom he was working or submitting any application for leave, willfully
and deliberately left the duties, thereafter on 17.07.2000 he submitted an application, inter alia stating that as his
wife was seriously ill so had to proceed to Delhi, so he may be allowed to join duties (Ex-M-5).
On the said application an order dated 19.07.2000 has been passed, by which he was directed to report
to Chief Manager (Fire & Services) (Ex-M-6). However, claimant deliberately did not report for duties to the
said authority i.e. Chief Manager (Fire & Services), ITI Limited, RaiBareli, so, a show cause notice dated
31.07.2000/01.08.2000 was issued (letter No. A/58354/D-1198/1/8) to applicant to submit his reply, of the said
notice was sent through Ram Karan, process server; however, he returned the envelop in which the notice was
sent to applicant that claimant/workman was not available at his quarter/house (H-838-840)allotted to him at
RaiBareli.
Again, on 02.08.2000 by Sri Ram Karan, Process Seriver, same was pasted (chaspa) on the quarter no.
H-838-840, allotted to workamn in presence of one Sri Goldie Singh S/o Majid Singh who was residing in
quarter no. 838.
Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent argued that it is totally incorrect on the part of the
claimant that the services of applicant were terminated not in pursuance to clause 11.7 read with Clause 34 of
Standing Order, which reads as under:
“34. SERVICE OF ORDERS, NOTICES ETC. ON EMPLOYEES
In cases where an order, notice, etc. can not be served on an employee because he is on leave or
for any other reason whatsoever, a copy shall be sent to him by registered post at his last known
address registered with the Company or displayed on the Company's notice board. Such posting
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1395
of orders, notices, etc. shall be deemed to be good service in law of the order etc., on the
employee.”
He further submits that so far as argument advanced by the learned counsel for applicant that notices to
applicant was not served as per clause 34 of Standing Order is totally incorrect and wrong because from bare
reading of said clause the position which emerges out, is that in case where an order, notice etc. cannot be
served on an employee because, he is on leave or for any other reason whatsoever, a copy shall be sent to him
by registered post at his last known address registered with the company or displayed on the Company’s notice
board.
In the present case, the competent authority tried to serve the show cause notice dated
31.07.2000/01.08.2000 through process server, Ram Karan; but the same was returned by him with endorsement
“ RT C 838-840 सेटर ि᳇तीय घर मᱶ ताला बंद था मᱶ कोई नहᱭ िमला है। 12 - 14 बजे तक ढूंढने पर नहᱭ िमला है।”, so, the
same was pasted on his quarter no. 838-840, last registered address available with the Company in present of a
witness (Goldie), as such, it is proper service of show cause notice on applicant, in spite of the same, he did not
give any reply.
In this regard he has placed reliance on the para 10 of evidence on affidavit (Examination in Chief), of claimant,
quoted herein below:
“10. यह ᳰक ᳰदनांक 03.08.2000 को ᮰ी आर.पी. पा᭛डेय, त᭜कालीन चीफ परसᭅनल मैनेजर कᳱ सूचना पर शपथी
03.08.2000 को रायबरेली आया तथा 03.08.2000 से 21.08.2000 तक लगातार चीफ परसनᭅल मैनेजर, चीफ
मैनेजर िसयोᳯरटी ए᭛ड फायर का चᲥर लगाता रहा लेᳰकन शपथी को Ჽूटी नहᱭ दी गयी नहᱭ Ჽूटी न देने का कोई
कारण बताया गया।
11. यह ᳰक और कोई उपचार न होने पर शपथी ने ᳰदनांक 15.09.2000 को मुय ᮧब᭠धक आई.टी.आई. से अपने
ऊपर हो रहे अ᭜याचार कᳱ कहानी िलिखत पᮢ के मा᭟यम से सूिचत ᳰकया तथा उनसे िनवेदन ᳰकया ᳰक मामले कᳱ
जाँच कर दोषी ᳞िᲦयᲂ के िखलाफ कायᭅवाही कᳱ जाए।
12. यह ᳰक शपथी के पᮢ 15.09.2000 का उᱫर सेवायोजक ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 20.09.2000 ᳰदया गया तब शपथी को
᭄ात ᱟआ ᳰक सेवायोजकᲂ ने शपथी कᳱ सेवायᱶ िबना कोई िवभागीय जॉच ᳰकये ᳰदनांक 19.08.2000 को समा᳙ कर
ᳰदया है।“
However, in spite of the services of show cause notice, as no reply to show cause notice was given by
the applicant so, his services terminated as per clause 11.7 by order dated 19.08.2000, issued by Asstt. Personnel
Manager (Establishment/Appointment), which is perfectly valid.
Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned counsel for respondent has justified the impugned order on the basis of
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court passed in the case of Sri Narasingha Biswal vs.
Management of the Chief General Manager, Talcher Area of M.C.L. 2022 (175) FLR 7165, relevant portion
reads as under:
“8. The third decision relied on by the Petitioner is Samittri Devi v. Sampuran Singh, where it was held
that the postal receipt showing dispatch of the letter under certificate of posting was sufficient proof of
dispatch of the letter. In the present case, as noted by the CGIT, even assuming that the two letters
written by the Petitioner to the employer on 3rd April, 1998 and 6th October, 1998 are presumed to
have been dispatched, their contents do not indicate that the Petitioner sought permission to remain on
leave.”
In the case of State of Uttarakhand and Ors. Vs Sureshwati (2021) 3 SCC 108, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the relevant portion as under:
“32. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge:
(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment
are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the latter
has power to see if action of the employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper
enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and
principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality.
1396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of
misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said
enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the
employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will
be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the
management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is
found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and
validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to
adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first
time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not
have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the
issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large
before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for
itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the
exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry
stands on the same footing as no enquiry.
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first
time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the
enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective.
(7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway, without
anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is
found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be
defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for
the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the
appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to
refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first
time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee
and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.
(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by
the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be
interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to
suggest victimisation.
(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman
should be reinstated or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in Management of
Panitole Tea Estate v. Workmen (1971) 1 SCC 742 within the judicial decision of a
Labour Court or Tribunal.”
Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned counsel for respondent, submits that in view of the facts and law as stated
hereinabove, claimant is neither entitled for reinstatement nor wages in view of law as laid down in the case of
P.V.K. Distillery Limited v. Mahendra Ram (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 134 and case, is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions on behalf of claimant in rejoinder:
Sri Vimal Kumar, in rebuttal, submits that on 24.07.2000 claimant rushed to Delhi after getting
information that his wife was ill in Delhi, so he was not available in residence no. H-838-840, so the
pleading/argument raised on behalf of respondent that show cause notice was served by way of ‘chaspa’ etc. is
meaningless and cannot be said to be a proper services of notice in view of the clause 34 of the Standing Order,
as such, the impugned order dated 19.08.2000 is illegal. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on
the judgment, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Curt in the case of Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar &
others AIR 1998 SC 2722.
Accordingly, he submits that impugned order dated 19.08.2000 by which his services have been
terminated either without serving show casue notice or without giving any opportunity whatsoever and further in
contravention to the provisions of Standing Order, as well as principle of natural justice.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1397
Sri Vimal Kumar also submits that so far as the argument raised on behalf of the respodent that by
means of order dated 19.07.2000 he was directed to report for duties to Chief Manager (Fire & Services),
workman did not report for duties is totally in correct and wrong because he reported for duties but was not
allowed to join.
Sri Vimal Kumar also argued that action on the part of respondent thereby terminating the services of
the applicant on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent from 14.07.2000 till 31.07.2000 by invoking
clause no 11.7 is wholly illegal and arbitrary because on his application, dated 17.07.2000 (Ex-M-5), an order
dated 19.07.2000 (Ex-M-6), issued by Asstt. Personnel Officer (Establishment) by which he was allowed to
resume his duties and directed to report Chief Manger (Fire & Services) with an advice not to repeat such type
of act in future, so as per the own document on behalf of the respondent, he was not unauthorizedly absent for
15 days as such, his services cannot be terminated in view of clause 11.7 of Standing Order.
Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that from the date termination from 19.08.2000 till the
claimants has attained the age of i.e. 06.08.2011 was employed or worked anywhere, in this regard placed
reliance on paragraph 13 of the evidence, filed by the workman, on affidavit, which has not been denied by the
respondent.
Accordingly, Sri Vimal Kumar has requested that impugned order of termination may be set aside and
the claimant may be awarded back wages and other consequential benefits.
Findings and conclusion:
I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through record.
Workman/Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, was initially appointed on 19.07.1979 on the post of driver,
posted in Indian Telephone Industries, Delhi Regional Office (hereinafter referred to as ITI).
On 14.09.1987 his services were confirmed, thereafter transferred to Bangalore and lastly by order
dated 16.02.1999 transferred to RaiBareli, UP
While he was working at RaiBareli an official accommodation, allotted to him having Quarter No. H-
838/840.
As per the case of the claimant his father who was suffering from lung cancer, residing at Delhi had
fallen ill so he submitted an application, duly accepted by the concerned authority of ITI, granted three days’
leave; accordingly, he proceeded to Delhi; however, due to illness of his father he was not able to join his duties
after three days, and on 21.06.2000 reported for joining his duties. Thereafter, on 22.06.2000, he reported for
duties an order/joining report was passed by the competent authority, on record as Ex-M-2 (list of documents
filed on behalf of ITI, RaiBareli), reads as under:
“After unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 15.5.2010 Shri Rajendra rd., Staff No.
058354.Cat. D' has resumed his duties in Estt. Section on 22.6.2000 (F/N).
He is directed to report to C(Sec. &Fire) for further instructions with advise not to repeat such
type of act in future and if his stay at out side station is unavaridable he should timely inform
the Company regarding the same.”
In pursuance to, order dated 22.06.2000 he was allowed to join his duties.
On 24.06.2000 workman received an information, that his wife had fallen ill so he proceeded to Delhi
in order to attend his ailing wife, so, on 17.07.2000 when his wife recovered from illness, he reported for duties
to Asstt. Personnel Officer (Establishment), submitted a letter to allow him to join his duty (Ex-M-5).
In response to said letter on 19.07.2000 Asstt. Personnel Officer (Establishment) wrote a letter to the
concerned authority. But, he was not allowed to join his duties by the concerned authority in spite of best
efforts made by him. The said fact was not contravened by the respondent by way of any cogent evidence.
On 19.08.2000, claimant received, impugned order of termination, passed by Asstt. Personnel Officer
(Establishment), by which his services were terminated, reads as under:
“आईटीआई िलिमटेड, रायबरेली
स᭠दभᭅ संया ए/58354/डी 1373 A
ᳰदनांक : 19.08.2000
᮰ी राजे᭠ᮤ ᮧसाद शमाᭅ
1398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पुᮢ ᮰ी रामसरन शमाᭅ
कमᭅचारी संया: 058358
᮰ेणी: 'डी'
िवभागः अिᲨशमन (सुरᭃा िवभाग)
एच-838, 840-सेटर-ि᳇तीय
दूरभाष नगर, रायबरेली
आपके िवभाग से यह सूचना ᮧा᳙ ᱟई है ᳰक आप ᳰदनांक १४-६-२००० से िबना पूवᭅ सूचना और िबना अवकाश
᭭वीकृत कराये अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से अनुपि᭭थत है। इस अनािधकृत अनुपि᭭थित के उपरा᭠त आपने ᳰदनांक १७७-२०००
को ᭭थापना अनुभाग मᱶ कायᭅभार ᮕहण हेतु अनुमित ᮧा᳙ करने के िलए ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया िजसके आधार पर
आपको ᳰदनांक १६-७-२००० से कायᭅभार ᮕहण कᳱ अनुमित ᮧदान करते ᱟए मुय ᮧब᭠धक (मन) के समᭃ अिᮕम
आदेशᲂ हेतु उपि᭭थत होने के िलए िनदᱷिशत ᳰकया गया तथा आपको यह संजाल भी कᳱ गयी ᳰक भिव᭬य मᱶ आप िबना
पूवᭅ सूचना अवकाश सं᭭वीकृत कराये अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से अनुपि᭭थत नहᱭ हᲂगे आप ᳰदनांक १६-७-२००० को
᭭थापना अनुभाग से कायᭅभार ᮕहण ᮧितवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत करने के उपरा᭠त भी अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल नही पᱟँचे और पुनः
अनािधकृत ᱨप से अनुपि᭭थत हᱹ। इस ᮧकार आप ᳰदनांक १४-६-२००० से िनर᭠तर अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से िबना
अवकाश ᭭वीकृत कराये अनुपि᭭थत हᱹ जो ᳰक क᭥पनी के ᭭थायी आदेशᲂ कᳱ धारा १४.७ के अ᭠तगᭅत अनुिचत,
अवैधािनक एवं अवांछनीय है।
क᭥पनी के वᳯर᳧ कमᭅचारी होने के नाते आप यह भलीभांित जानते हᱹ ᳰक क᭥पनी के ᮧमािणत ᭭थायी आदेशᲂ कᳱ धारा
११.७ के अ᭠तगᭅत यᳰद कोई कमᭅचारी प᭠ᮤह ᳰदन से अिधक समय तक अनुमित के िजला अनुपि᭭थत रहता है तो उसके
स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ यह समझा जायेगा ᳰक उसने ᭭वे᭒छा से क᭥पनी कᳱ पी और उसका पᳯर᭜याग कर ᳰदया है तथा उसने नोᳯटस
ᳰदए िबना क᭥पनी से अपनी नौकरी ᭭वेᭃा से समा᳙ कर दी है एवं स᭞नुसार उसका नाम क᭥पनीकᳱ कमᭅचारी सूची से
काट ᳰदया जायेगा।
आपके पूवᭅ आधरण एवं अिभलेखᲂ के अवलोकन से यह ᭭प᳥ होता है ᳰक आप इस ᮧकार पूवᭅ प बार िबना पूवᭅ सूचना
और अवकाश ᭭वीकृत कराये िन᳜ानुसार अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से अनािधकृत/ अवैतिनक
अनुपि᭭थत रह चुके हᱹ
माह
ᳰदन
माचᭅ- 1999
08
अᮧैल - 1999
05
अटूबर - 1999
06.4
नव᭥बर- 1999
02.4
माचᭅ -2000
30
अᮧैल-2000
09
मई -2000
16.4
जून-2000
31
जुलाई -2000
18
अग᭭त-2000
188-8-2000 तक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1399
आपके इस कदाचार से क᭥पनी के कायᭅ पर िवपरीत ᮧभाव पड़ता है । आपको इस नोᳯटस आपके आवास पर इस कायाᭅलय के पᮢ
संया ५८६३४४/डी ᳰदनांक ३१-७-२०० और आपसे इस स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ ᭭प᳥ीकरण ᮧ᭭तुत करने के िलए कहा गया ᳰक᭠तु पᮢ के इस
कायाᭅलय को वापस कर ᳰदया गया ᳰक आप अपने ᭭थानीय आवास तथा मुयालय पर उपल᭣ध नहᱭ हᱹ। आप इस पᮢ के जारी होने
कᳱ ितिथ तक न तो ᭭वयं उपि᭭थत ᱟए और न ही इस स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ अपना कोई ᭭प᳥ीकरण ही ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया । अतः इन पᳯरि᭭थितयᲂ
मᱶ क᭥पनी के ᭭थायी आदेशᲂ कᳱ पास ११.७ के अ᭠तगᭅत आपका पनी कᳱ सेवा से पारणािधकार(LIEN ᭭वतः समा᳙ हो गया तथा
᭭थायी आदेशᲂ के उत ᮧािवधान के अनुसार यह माना गया है ᳰक आपने इस क᭥पनी कᳱ सेवाᲐ का ᭭वे᭒छा से पᳯर᭜याग कर ᳰदया
है क᭥पनी के ᳰकसी भी कायᭅ ᳰदवस मᱶ आप सलᲨ ᮧाᱨप मᱶ अदेय ᮧमाण पᮢ ᮧ᭭तुत कर अपनी सम᭭त बकाया रािश एवं अ᭠य देय
यᳰद कोई हो, का भुगतान ᮧा᳙ कर सकते हᱹ।
यह आदेश सᭃम अिधकारी के आदेशानुसार जारी ᳰकये जा रहे हᱹ।
संलᲨकः देयका कᳱ दो ᮧितयां सहायक काᳶमᭅक ᮧब᭠धक (᭭थापना एवं िनयुिᲦ)”
As per the case of the claimant after receiving the said order, on inquiry it came to his knowledge that a
show cause notice was issued to him on 31.07.2000; however, the same was not served or received by him on
31.07.2000, so, as the claimant has not submitted his reply to the show cause notice thereafter his services were
terminated:
Show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 reads as under:
“आईटीआई िलिमटेड, रायबरेली
स᭠दभᭅ संया ए/58354/डी
ᳰदनांक : 31.07.2000
᮰ी राजे᭠ᮤ ᮧसाद शमाᭅ
पुᮢ ᮰ी रामसरन शमाᭅ
कमᭅचारी संया: 058358
᮰ेणी: 'डी'
िवभागः अिᲨशमन (सुरᭃा िवभाग)
एच-838, 840-सेटर-ि᳇तीय
दूरभाष नगर, रायबरेली
कारण बताओ नोᳯटस
आपके िवभाग से यह सूचना ᮧा᳙ ᱟई है ᳰक झाप ᳰदनांक १४-६-२००० से िबना पूवᭅ सूचना और िबना अवकाश
᭭वीकृत कराये अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से अनुपि᭭थत है। इस अनािधकृत अनुपि᭭थित के उपरा᭠त आपने ᳰदनांक १७-७-
२००० को ᭭थापना अनुभाग मᱶ कायᭅभार ᮕहण अनुमित ᮧा᳙ करने के िलए ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया िजसके आधार
पर आपको ᳰदनांक १६-५-२००० से कायᭅभार ᮕहण कᳱ अनुमित ᮧदान करते ᱟए मुय पानशमन के समᭃ अिᮕम
आदेशᲂ हेतु उपि᭭थत होने के िलए िनदᱷिशत ᳰकया गया तथा आपको यह सलाह भी दी गयी ᳰक भिव᭬य मᱶ आप िबना
पूवᭅ सूचना या सं᭭वीकृत कराये अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से अनुपि᭭थत नहᱭ हᲂगी जाप ᳰदनांक -५-२००० को ᭭थापना
अनुभाग से कायᭅभार ᮕहण ᮧितवेदन ᮧा᳙ कर लेने के उपरा᭠त भी अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल नहᱭ पᱟँचे और पुनः अनिल ᱨप से
अनुपि᭭थत है इस पुर आप ᳰदनांक १४.६२000 से िनर᭠तर अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से िबना अवकाश ᭭वीकृत अ᭭त है ᳰक
क᭥पनी के ᭭थायी आदेशᲂ के अ᭠तगᭅत एवं ग᭥भीर कदाचार है।
कंपनी के वᳯर᳧ कमᭅचारी होने के नाते आप यह भलीभांित जानते हᱹ ᳰकमिध᭭थापी आदेशᲂ कᳱ धारा ११.७ के अ᭠तगᭅत
यᳰद कोई कमᭅचारी प᭠ᮤह ᳰदन से अिधक समय तक जनम के िबना अनुपि᭭थत रहता है तो उसके स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ यह समझा
जायेगा ᳰक उसने ᭭वे᭒छा से क᭥पनी कᳱ कᳱ छोड़ दी है और उसका पᳯर᭜याग कर ᳰदया है तथा उसने नोᳯटस ᳰदए िबना
क᭥पनी से आपनी नौकरी ᭭वे᭒छा से समा᳙ कर दी है एवं तक कुमार उसका नाम क᭥पनी कᳱ कमᭅचारी सूची से काट
ᳰदया जायेगा आपके पूवᭅ आचरण एवं अिभलेने के अलोकन से यह ᭭प᳥ होता है ᳰक आप इस ᮧकार पूवᭅ मᱶ भी कई और
िबना पूवᭅ सपना और ᭭वीकृत कराये अपने कायᭅ ᭭थल से अनुपि᭭थत रह चुके हᱹ। आपके इस कदाचार से क᭥पनी के कायᭅ
1400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पर िवपरीत ᮧभाव पडता है। अतः एत᳇ारा आपको यह आदेश ᳰदया जाता है ᳰक इस मंᮢ कᳱ ᮧाि᳙ के तीन ᳰदन के
अ᭠दर उन स᭠दभᭅ मᱶ अपना िलिखत ᭭प᳥ीकरण ᮧ᭭तुत करᱶ ᳰक यᲂ न आपका नाम ᭭थायी आदेशᲂ को धारा ११.७ के
अ᭠तगᭅत क᭥पनी कᳱ कमᭅचारी सूची से काट ᳰदया जाये। यᳰद िनधाᭅᳯरत ितिथ तक आपका ᭭प᳥ीकरण नहᱭ होता है तो
यह समझा जायेगा ᳰक EL स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ आपको कुछ नहᱭ कहती है एवं तनुसार आपका नाम क᭥पनी कᳱ कमᭅचारी सूची
से काट ᳰदया जायेगा
ᮧितिनिधत्
िवभागᮧमुख को सूचनाथᭅ।
सहायक काᳶमᭅक ᮧबंधक ᭭थापना”
Aggrieved by the order of termination dated 19.08.2000, claimant for redressal of his grievances,
approached the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow by filing Writ Petition No. 22 (SS) of 2000, dismissed by order
dated 08.03.2006 that an alternative and efficacious remedy was available to him before the Labour Court. So,
claimant filed Industrial dispute before the CGIT, New Delhi registered as ID case no. 13/2007.
Against registration of I.D case no. 13/2007, before CGIT, New Delhi, ITI, Rae Bareli flied a WP No.
4636 (MS) of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow on the ground that the ID case no.
13/2007, field by the claimant was not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction, allowed by order
dated 11.04.2008 that CGIT, Delhi has no jurisdiction, thereafter claimant filed, present claim petition
before CGIT, Lucknow registered as ID case on.64/2013.
During the pendency of the present adjudication case the claimant, attained age of superannuation, on
16.08.2011.
In view of the above said background, the core question to be considered that whether action on the
part of the respondent thereby terminating the services of workman on the ground of unauthorized absence by
order dated 19.08.2000 is contrary to the clause 11.7 of the Standing Order, or not?
In order to decide the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to have a glance on the following
clauses of the Standing Order:
“11.7
.If an employee absents himself without leave for more than fifteen days or remains
absent beyond the period of leave granted for more than fifteen days, he shall be considered as
having voluntarily land abandoned the company's service and voluntarily terminated his
employment with company without notice.”
Clause 16: Procedure for Punishment, relevant clause 16 (a):
16 (a) The Manager shall frame a charge sheet against the employee in writing setting out the
allegations and the alleged misconduct. The employee shall be given an opportunity of
explaining his conduct within a specified time limit.
Clause 18: ‘Termination of service by the Company’:
18.1
The employment of any permanent employee may be terminated, if it is no longer required in
the interest of the company by giving one month notice or by payment of wages at the basic rate of pay
plus dearness allowance if any, for a like period in lieu of notice. Provided, always that no notice will
be required where an employee is dismissed for misconduct after enquiry.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, as the per the case of the respondent, the workman was
absent from his duties, without any sanctioned leave a show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was sent to the
workman’s official residence, H-838/840, Doorbhash Nagar, Rae Bareli, available with the respondent through
Ram Karan, process server on 01.08.2000 for service on claimant, but the same was not served on the workman
as he was not present at his residence.
So the process server, Sri Ram Karan again went to the official residence of claimant to serve it as he
was not available pasted the same on the door of house No. 840, allotted to the workman, in presence of one Sri
Goldie Singh, S/o Sri Majid Singh, resident of Quarter No. 838, and submitted his report.
In spite of the said fact/service of notice, as per the case of respondent, claimant has not submitted his
reply, to show cause notice, so, his services were terminated by order dated 19.08.2000 as per Clause 11.7 of the
Standing Order.
Accordingly, the first point to be considered is “whether the service of show cause notice dated
31.07.2000 on claimant/workman is proper or not?”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1401
From the pleadings as well as the documents filed on behalf of workman as well as evidence field by
workman (examination-in-chief on 02.05.2018) and his cross-examination on 20.02.2020 the position which
emerge out that he categorically stated that he has not received the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000; and the
said fact was denied by respondent on the ground that show cause notice was pasted on the official
accommodation allotted to him, so, the same is proper service of show cause notice, as claimant/\workman did
not submit any reply to show cause notice, as such, impugned order has been passed.
In order to prove the service of show cause notice in addition to pleading and documents on behalf of
the respondent one Sri Ramakant Tiwari, Asstt. Officer HR (SMNE), ITI, Rae Bareli has been produced as
witness and evidence (examination-in-chief) was filed on 20.12.2020 and his cross-examination was done on
20.01.2021. In his cross-examination he has stated as under:
“Karmkaar ko vibhag ki taraf se aavasiya suvidha di gayi thi. Quarter colony mein allot kiya
gaya tha. Karmkaar ko karan batao notice dinankit 31.7.2000 uske colony vale ghar ke pate
par bheji gai thi. Yah notice chaspa ki gai ki karmkaar ko vyaktigat roop se ya uske parivaar
ke sadasyon ko di hagi ya nahi yah mein nahi bata sakta.
Termination order mein agar notice ke vaapas aane ki baat likhi ho to mein nahi bata sakta.
Shramik ko yah notice dinankit 31.7.2000 registered post dwara bheji gayi thi. Mujhe yah nahi
pata ki vah registered notice karyalay mein vapas aayi thi ya nahi. Karkaar ke seva abhilekh
mein uska sthai pata ankit tha. Mujhe vah pata yaad nahi lekin vo pata dilli ka tha. Main
nishchit roop se nahi bata sakta ki sewa pustika ken karmkaar ka sthai para D-93, Anand
Nikunj, nai dilli ankit hai. Yah sahih ai ki shramik ko notice dinak 31.7.2000 ya is sambandh
mein koi aur notice uske sthai pate par bheji gai ye main nahi bata sakta”
In order to verify the service of show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 on the workman, original records
were summoned by the Tribunal, produced by one Sri A.D. Joshi, Legal Officer, ITI, Rae Bareli.
After going through the record following order was passed on 22.12.2022, reproduced as under:
“22.12.2022
In pursuance to earlier order passed by this Tribunal Sri A.D. Joshi, Legal Officer, IT, Rae
Bareilly has produced the original record.
Original records produced before the Tribunal have been perused.
And on the basis of material on record, Sri A.D. Joshi, Legal Officer, Rae Bareilly submits that
show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 has been sent by way of Dasti Notice sent through Ram
Karan on the residence, which was allotted to workman, R.P Sharma at Rae Bareilly i.e. quarter
no. H-838-840 in an envelope; but workman was not available, so the same was returned back
to the concerned authority after the endorsement on it by Sri Ram Karan (notice server). SA.D.
Joshi further on the basis of documents on record submits, that thereafter the show cause notice
was pasted on the door of house no. 840 allotted to the applicant in presence of one Sri Goldie
Singh S/o Sri Majeed Singh who is resident of quarter no. 838. In this regard Sri Ram Karan
submitted his report with the signature of Goldie Singh.
The photocopies of the said documents are taken on record.
Moreover, for adjudication/clarification of certain facts in order to decide the matter following
questions have been asked by the Tribunal form Sri A.D. Joshi:-
(i)
whether the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 issued to the applicant was sent
through registered post or not at his last known address of workman/claimant,
registered with the company?
(ii)
Whether the cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was displayed on the company's notice
board?
(iii)
At what date and time the cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was handed over to Ram
Karan, peon, issued by Sahayak Karmik Prabandhak (Sthapna) to serve on the
claimant?
(iv)
On what date and time the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000, Ram Karna has served
on claimant, and what report he has given when he found that door of House (H-838-
840) were closed?
1402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After going through record, Sri A.D. Joshi has given the answer to the above said questions as
follows:
(i)
On basis of record which are available with him today, the show cause notice dated
31.07.2000 was not sent to the claimant/workman through registered post or to last
known address of workman/claimant, registered with the company.
(ii)
Sri A.D. Joshi, after going through record, submits that there is no material available
on record that the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was displayed on the Company's
notice board, and the said fact is also not within his knowledge.
(iii)
show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was handed over to Ram Karan on 01.08.2000.
(iv)
Sri A.D. Joshi submits that show cause notice was given to Ram Karan on 01.08.2000
and there is dispatch number 1198/1-8 on the envelop in which the show cause notice
was send to the claimant. The said document is on record, paper no. 305 written that "
838-840 से³टर िĬतीय घर म¤ ताला बंद था म¤ कोई नहé िमला है। 12-14 बजे तक ढूंढने पर नहé िमला है।"
Needless to mention herein that if an employee who is working in a corporation and he is unauthorizedly absent
then his services can be terminated as per clause 11.7 read with clause 34, on the following conditions which
reads as under:
(a) Show cause is not served upon the employee if he is on leave or any other reason
(b) Copy shall be sent by registered post to his last known address, registered with the company
(c) Display at the notice board.
(d) Such posting of orders shall be considered to be good service in law or order etc. on the employee.
As per material on original record the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000, was initially sent by
respondent through Sri Ram Karan, process server to serve it on claimant at his residence, allotted to him by the
respondent i. e. House No. 838-840; but, he was not present. And there is a report in this regard by process
server on the envelop in which the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was sent.
Thereafter, Sri Ram Karan, process server again went to serve the notice and pasted the same on the
door of house no. 840, allotted to the workman, in the presence of one Sri Goldie Singh, S/o Majid Singh who
was residing in the adjacent house, the house which was allotted to the workman.
From perusal of the original record, the position which emerged out is that there is noting by the
process server on the envelop in which the show cause notice dated 31.07.2000 was given to him (Process
server, Ram Karan) for service on 01.08.2000, that the claimant is not available in his official residence.
Thereafter, as per the facts on record Sri Ram Karan again went to the official residence allotted to claimant to
serve the same, as he was not available, so process pasted the show cause notice on the door of house no. 840,
allotted to the claimant, in presence of one Sri Goldie Singh S/o Majid Singh and submitted his report. From
record the admitted positon which emerged out that Sri Goldie Singh S/o Majid Singh in whose presence Ram
Karan has pasted the notice, his statement was not recorded, whether the said act was done in his presence or not
and without doing so, only on the statement of Ram Karan that he has pasted the notice on the house no. 840, it
has been assumed by the respondent the said fact. Even Sri Ram Karan was also not examined prior to the
passing of the impugned order, whether the report submitted by him is correct or not and he has pasted the show
cause notice on the residence of claimant. So, in view of the said facts, it cannot be said that under law it can be
presumed that show cause notice has been served on claimant.
Moreover, as per law the said procedure, adopted by the respondent is contrary to clause 34 of the
Standing Order because as the said per clause 34 of the Standing Order, if the show cause notice is not served on
the employee, if he is on leave than in that circumstance the same is required to be sent by registered post at his
last known address, registered with the Company. The said act has not been done on one and on the other hand
as per facts of the case, as stated hereinabove, the respondent has come up with a case that show cause notice
was sent through process server, Ram Karan, the same cannot in any manner be said to a proper service as per
the terms of clause 34 of the Standing Order on workman.
Moreover, from the perusal of original record, it is also clear that the show cause notice dated
31.07.2000 was not displayed on the notice board.
Further, as per the Standing Order, if a person who is willfully absent from his duties than in that
circumstances the procedure, to be adopted by the ITI in regard to service of show cause notice procedure, as
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1403
per clause 3.4 of Standing Order was not followed, which is mandatory, thus, it was not a proper service of
show cause notice on claimant by respondent.
Because if law provides that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner than it has to be
done in same manner not in otherwise. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis
Bank and Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 707 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“15. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in
a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among
others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure
prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to
find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the case of Chandra
Kishor Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration
observed as hereunder:
It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a
particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.
Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the
Authorised Officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure
laid down under the statute. As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing
which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process under law. We have found
fault with the Authorised Officer and declared the action bad only in so far as not following the
legal requirement before and after freezing the account. This shall not be construed as an opinion
expressed on the merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the matter and the action
initiated against the Appellant and its Directors which is a matter to be taken note in appropriate
proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved party.”
Accordingly form the material on record as well as perusal of original record, the show cause notice
dated 31.07.2000 was not served on workman as per Clause 34 of the Standing Order.
Next point to be considered that whether action on the part of respondent terminating the services of
claimant by order dated 19.08.2000 on the ground absence without leave, on the basis of show cause notice
dated 31.07.2000 is a valid exercise or not?
Law relating to unauthorized absence:
Termination from service cannot be automatic. Absence cannot be taken as bringing in an effect of
termination automatically, even under the Service Rules. In Jai Shankar Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966
SC 492, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there can be no automatic termination for unauthorized absence,
even if there be such a provision in the relevant Service Rules. The Court said that a removal is a removal and if
it is punishment for over-staying one’s leave, an opportunity must be given to the person against whom such an
order is proposed, no matter how the Regulation describes it.
Long unauthorized absence of a confirmed employee does not lead to a presumption that the employee
is no longer willing to service. His continued absence cannot be treated as resignation nor abandonment of
service as there are positive activities and more than absence would require to constitute them. In Sukhoo Vs.
Union of India, (1997) 35 ATC 283(All), it was held that there could be no automatic termination on account of
absence from duty.
The Hon'ble Apex Court obtained support from its earlier decision in Syndicate Bank Vs. General
Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, (2000) 5 SCC 65 where the absenting employee was rightly held
to have voluntarily retired and that the Bank could not be faulted for passing the order without any formal
enquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"In the present case action was taken by the Bank under Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. It
is not disputed that Dayanand absented himself from work for a period of 90 or more
consecutive days. It was thereafter that the Bank served a notice on him calling upon him to
report for duty within 30 days of the notice stating therein the grounds for the Bank to come to
the conclusion that Dayanand had no intention to joining duties. Dayanand did not respond to
the notice at all. On the expiry of the notice period the Bank passed orders that Dayanand had
voluntarily retired from the service of Bank."
1404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On these facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that there was need for holding any enquiry before the
order was passed. "An enquiry would have been necessary if Dayanand had submitted his explanation which
was not acceptable to the Bank or contended that he did report for duty but was no allowed to join by the Bank."
In the cases of Chander Bhan Vs. Union of India (1991) 2 ATJ 596 and Gurdip Singh Vs. Union of
India (1991) 2 ATJ 627 it has been held that in the case of ex parte proceedings at least the appellate order
should contain the material showing reasons for the order of punishment. A removal order was made on ex
parte proceedings and appellate authority rejected the appeal without narrating the facts or stating the grounds
for rejection, the Tribunal quashed the order and directed reinstatement.
In the case of D.K. Yadav v. M/s J.M.A. Industries 1993 AIR SCW 1995 Hon’ble Apex Court has held
as under:
“14. In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no enquiry was held.
The appellant's plea put forth at the earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on December
3, 1980 and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty he was prevented to report to
duty, nor he be permitted to sign the attendance register. The Tribunal did not record any
conclusive finding in this behalf. It concluded that the management had power under Cl. (13) of
the certified Standing Order to terminate with the service of the appellant. Therefore, we hold
that the principles of natural justice must be read into the standing order No. 13(2)(iv).
Otherwise it would become arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Arts. 14. When so read the
impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice.
In the case of Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd v. Ram Bahagat AIR 2002 SC 2914, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has held as under:
“14. While it is true that a later Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Punjab and Sind
Bank and Ors. v. Sakattar Singh (2001 (1) SCC 214) sounded a different note but the same
should not detain us any further, since the factual context differs in material particulars and
even the bi-partite settlement involved therein was of much accommodative in nature.
15.It is thus in this context one ought to read the doctrine of natural justice being an in-built
requirement on the Standing Orders. Significantly, the facts depict that the respondent-workman
remained absent from duty from 13th October 1990 and it is within a period of four days that a
letter was sent to the workman informing him that since he was absenting himself from duty
without authorised leave he was advised to report back within 48 hours and also to tender his
explanation for his absence, otherwise his disinterestedness would thus be presumed. Is this in
strict compliance with the Certified Standing Order - the answer possibly cannot be in the
affirmative. Though however, if the letter dated 25th October, 1990 as noticed above is to be
taken note of, then and in that event the same thus come within the ambit of the Certified
Standing Order of 10 days' continued absence the situation however, is slightly different in the
present context since the letter of 25th October is an intimation of his name being struck off the
rolls of the company. It is an act; subsequent to the order of termination and if the letter of 17th
October is an indication for such an order of termination the same does not come within the
ambit of the Certified Standing Order. The High Court on this score stated as below:
"Even if it presumed that the petitioner- management may have afforded an opportunity
to the respondent-workman to tender his explanation and as such complied with the
principles of natural justice in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in
Hindustan Paper Corporation_tm)s case (supra), yet the question remains, whether the
determination of the petitioner management was arbitrary and without application of
mind?"
…………………….
In our considered view, the rejection of the claim of the respondent-workman is
absolutely arbitrary and without consideration of the material placed on record by the
respondent- workman (as discussed in the foregoing paragraph). The Labour Court
examined in detail the factual position and returned a finding that the respondent-
workman had not absented himself from service deliberately or intentionally and also
that he had not abandoned. his service. It was further concluded that his absence was
based on account of his illness which could be affirmed from the medical certificates
produced by him. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in our considered view, the action
of the petitioner-management in rejecting the representation of the respondent-
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1405
workman dated 30.1.1991 was clearly arbitrary and as such it is not sustainable in
law".
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar
& others AIR 11998 SC 2722, relevant para as under:
“10. Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge- sheet,
its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to
submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the
show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action
proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an
opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "Communication" cannot be invoked and "Actual
Service" must be proved and established. It has already been found that neither the charge-sheet
nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original respondent. Dinanath Shantaram
Karekar. Consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated.”
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M/s Scooters India Ltd vs. M. Mohammad Yaqub & another
AIR 2002 SC 227 has held as under:
“12. The question which then arises is whether the principles of natural justice were followed in
this case. As has been set out hereinabove Mr. Swarup had submitted that the workman had been
given an opportunity to join the duty and that he did not join duty even though repeatedly called
upon to do so. t is contended that principles of natural justice have been complied with in this
case. However, the material on record indicates otherwise. The Labour Court in its Award sets out
and accepts the respondent's case that he had not been allowed to join duty. The respondent has
given evidence that even though he personally met Chief Personnel Officer he was still not allowed
to enter the premises. The evidence is that in spite of slip Ext. W.2, he was prevented from joining
duty when he attempted to join duty. The slip Ext. W.2 had been signed by the Security Inspector of
the Appellant. This showed that the Respondent had reported for work. As against this evidence
the Appellant has not led any evidence to show that the workman had not reported for duty. Even
though the slip Ex. W-2 had been proved by the workman, the Security Inspector, one Mr. Shukla,
was not examined by the Appellant. Further the evidence of the Senior Time Keeper of the
Appellant established that the workman had worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12
calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination of service. This was proved by a
joint inspection report, which was marked as Ext. 45/A. It was on the basis of this material and
this evidence that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was retrenchment without
following the provisions of law. As the workman was not allowed to join duty, Standing Order
9.3.12 could not have been used for terminating his services.”
And Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Uptron India Ltd. vs. Shammi Bhan and another AIR 1998 SC 1681,
held as under:
“16.
This Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh, (1985) 3
SCC 116 (AIR 1985 SC 722) held that any provision in the Regulation enabling the management
to terminate the services of a permanent employee by giving three months' notice or pay in lieu
thereof, would be bad as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such a Regulation was held
to be capable of vicious discrimination and was also held to be naked 'hire and fire' rule. This
view was reiterated in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly,
(1986) 3 SCC 156:(AIR 1986 SC 1571).
17.
Again in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., (1986) 4
SCC 337 (AIR 1987 SC 111), this Court held that Rule 31(v) of the Indian Tourism Development
Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978, which provided that the services of
a permanent employee could be terminated by giving him 90 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof,
would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
18.
The whole case law was reviewed by the Constitution Bench in Delhi Transport
Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 (AIR 1991 SC 101), and
except the then Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, who dissented, the other 4 Judges reiterated
the earlier view that the services of a confirmed employee could not be legally terminated by a
simple notice.
………………..
1406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21.
This Court in D. K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 (1993 AIR SCW
1995) has laid down that where the Rule provided that the services of an employee who
overstays the leave would be treated to have been automatically terminated, would be bad as
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that if any action was
taken on the basis of such a rule without giving any opportunity of hearing to the employee, it
would be wholly unjust, arbitrary and unfair. The Court reiterated and emphasised in no
uncertain terms that principles of natural justice would have to be read into the provision
relating to automatic termination of services.”
In view of the facts stated, of the case, and the position of law on the point of unauthorised absence,
impugned order dated 19.08.2000 by which the services of the workman, Rajendra Prasad Sharma was
terminated is not in accordance with law (contrary to the clause 11.7 read with clause 34 of the Standing Order),
same is liable to be set aside.
Another question to be considered in the present case is that if the workman service is terminated not in
accordance with law (Standing Order), then whether the workman is entitled for back wages and other service
benefits or not, keeping in view the fact that the workman during the pendency of the present adjudication case,
before this Tribunal, attained age of retirement on 06.08.2011.
To decide the said point it will be appropriate to have a glance to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC
917 wherein it has been held that if order of punishment of dismissal for unauthorized absence is
disproportionate, then was ordered to be reinstated with some other prejudice or penalty.
And Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Versus S. Narasagoud, (2003) SCC 212 held
that ‘the employee having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit
notionally earned during the period merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of
continuity to service’. The same view was adopted in the case of Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan,
(1998) 6 SCC 538 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the term of employment and came
to the conclusion that termination on the strength of Certified Standing Orders would amount to
“Retrenchment”, entailing retrenchment benefits.
In Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 917 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that when there is absenteeism on the part of the employee the best course would have been
to warn and impose fine in the manner of treating the period as leave without pay, even if the employee had to
his credit sufficient deposit of admissible kind of leave. The Court said that “it is impossible to think that an
employee would have been imposed under such circumstances, the extreme penalty of dismissal.”
In N. Hanumantha Vs. Union of India, 2007 (8) SLR 199 (HC) (MP), the Madhya Pradesh High
Court noticed that the employee writ petitioner was removed from service on ground of unauthorized absence
just for a month when the Service Rules for CRPF required a period of 60 days in unauthorized absence for the
purposes of invoking the rule of desertion. Relying on Hon’ble the Apex Court decision in the case of
Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, (2004) 4 SCC 560, the High Court held removal from service
was shockingly disproportionate and ordered reinstatement.
In Union of India Vs. Giriraj Sharma, 1995 SCC (L&S) 290, the penalty of dismissal was imposed on
account of overstaying the period of leave (12 days in this case). The High Court quashed the punishment and
ordered reinstatement with all monetary and service benefits. But the State preferred an appeal where the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in view of cogent explanation having been submitted by the employee the
quantum of punishment was disproportionate and the High Court decision was modified to the extent that liberty
to employer was given to impose a minor penalty, if they so desire. The same view was reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh Versus State of Punjab, (1996) 7 SCC 634 wherein it was held that
mere absence from duty could not be met with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of H. S. Arora Versus Union of India, 1998 SCC (L&S) 172,
Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 917 & Malkiat Singh Versus
State of Punjab, (1996) 7 SCC 634 held that dismissal on account unauthorized absence simpliciter was
disproportionate and ordered for lesser penalty.
A Full Bench of CAT in K. L. Gulati Versus Union of India (Bahri Bros.’Full Bench Judgments,
Vol.III, P.367) held:
“…… when there is no allegation of misconduct involving moral turpitude or any charge of
corruption or of suspected doubtful integrity on the part of the applicant the quantum of
punishment of removal from service appears to be wholly disproportionate.”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1407
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of M/s
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & others AIR 1979 SC 75, has held as under:
“7. The question in controversy which fairly often is raised in this Court is whether even where
reinstatement is found to be an appropriate relief, what should be the guiding considerations for
awarding full or partial back wages. This question is neither new nor raised for the first time. It
crops up every time when the workman questions the validity and legality of termination of his
service howsoever brought about, to wit, by dismissal, removal, discharge or retrenchment, and
the relief of reinstatement is granted. As a necessary corollary the question immediately is
raised as to whether the workman should be awarded full back wages or some sacrifice is
expected of him.
8. Let us steer clear of one controversy whether where termination of service is found to be
invalid, reinstatement as a matter of course should be awarded or compensation would be an
adequate relief. That question does not arise in this appeal. Here the relief of reinstatement has
been granted and the award has been implemented and the retrenched workmen have been
reinstated in service. The only limited question is whether the Labour Court in the facts and
circumstances of this case was justified in awarding full back wages.
9. It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be
given that the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service. The
specter of common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced
or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this branch of law. The relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to
be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the
workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the
workman of his earnings.
If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of "which the workman is directed to
be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the
workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer. Speaking
realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman
has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the
protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when
relief is granted. More so in our system where the law's proverbial delay has become stupefying.
If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which period the
workman just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he
will be denied the back wages which would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a
sort of penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman
whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the
extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness.
That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigating
activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is
motivated as in this case, viz., to resist the workman's demand for revision of wages the
termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement
being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the
Constitution would assist us in reaching a just conclusion in this respect. By a suitable
legislation, to wit, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State has endeavoured to secure
work to the workmen. In breach of the statutory obligation the services were terminated and the
termination is found to be invalid; the workmen though willing to do the assigned work and earn
their livelihood, were kept away therefrom. On top of it they were forced to litigation upto the
apex Court and now they are being told that something less than full back wages should be
awarded to them. If the services were not terminated the workmen ordinarily would have
continued to work and would have earned their wages. When it was held that the termination of
services was neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always
willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for
the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on
account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back
wages which were very legitimately due to them. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in
Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal MANU/GJ/0120/1970 , and a Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour
1408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court II, Lucknow and Ors. [1971] 1 L.L.J 327, have taken this view and we are of the opinion
that the view taken therein is correct.
10. The view taken by us gets support from the decision of this Court in Workmen of Calcutta
Dock Labour Board and Anr. v. Employers in relation to Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Ors.
(1973)IILLJ254SC . In this case seven workmen had been detained under the Defence of India
Rules and one of the disputes was that when they were released and reported for duty, they were
not taken in service and the demand was for their reinstatement. The Tribunal directed
reinstatement of five out of seven workmen and this part of the Award was challenged before this
Court. this Court held that the workmen concerned did not have any opportunity of explaining
why their services should not be terminated and, therefore, reinstatement was held to be the
appropriate relief and set aside the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that there was no
justification for not awarding full back wages from the day they offered to resume work till their
reinstatement. Almost an identical view was taken in Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The
Workmen (1971)ILLJ233SC .
11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of
back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion
addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the
party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the
Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the
discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising
discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is
said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be
done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to
be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular (See Susannah Sharn v. Wakefield [1891]
AC 173.
12. It was, however, very strenuously contended that as the appellant company is suffering loss
and its carry-forward loss as on 31st March 1978 is Rs. 8,12,416.90, in order to see that the
industry survives and the workmen continue to get employment, there must be some sacrifice on
the part of workmen. If the normal rule in a case like this is to award full back wages, the
burden will be on the appellant employer to establish circumstances which would permit a
departure from the normal rule. To substantiate the contention that this is an exceptional case
for departing from the normal rule it was stated that loss is mounting up and if the appellant is
called upon to pay full back wages in the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-, it would shake the
financial viability of the company and the burden would be unbearable. More often when some
monetary claim by the workmen is being examined, this financial inability of the company
consequent upon the demand being granted is voiced. Now, undoubtedly an industry is a
common venture, the participants being the capital and the labour. Gone are the days when
labour was considered a factor of production. Article 43A of the Constitution requires the State
to take steps to secure the participation of workmen in the management of the undertaking,
establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry. Thus, from being a factor of
production the labour has become a partner in industry. It is a common venture in the pursuit of
desired goal.
13. Now, if a sacrifice is necessary in the overall interest of the industry or a particular
undertaking, it would be both unfair and iniquitous to expect only one partner of the industry to
make the sacrifice. Pragmatism compels common sacrifice on the part of both. The sacrifice
must come from both the partners and we need not state the obvious that the labour is a weaker
partner who is more often called upon to make the sacrifice. Sacrifice for the survival of an
industrial undertaking cannot be an unilateral action. It must be a two way traffic. The
management need not have merry time to itself making the workmen the sacrificial goat. If
sacrifice is necessary, those who can afford and have the cushion and the capacity must bear the
greater brunt making the shock of sacrifice as less poignant as possible for those who keep body
and soul together with utmost difficulty.”
In case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) AIR 2014 SC
(Supp) 121, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:
“this Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan MANU/SC/0184/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 477.
Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with, in the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1409
facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved, though,
however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. As regards
the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. be it noted that though broad
guidelines, as regards payment of back wages, have been laid down by this Court but having
regard to the peculiar facts of the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back wages only.
The issue as raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with by the Labour Court in the
manner as above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter in the issue, upon
exercise of its discretion and obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In
the event, however, the High Court's interference is sought for, there exists an obligation on the
part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before however denouncing a
judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of which, the judgment in our view cannot stand
the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable. There ought to be available in the judgment itself a
finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon
recording therewith the High Court has the authority to interfere. Unfortunately, the High Court
did not feel it expedient to record any reason far less any appreciable reason before denouncing
the judgment.
21. The aforesaid judgment became a benchmark for almost all the subsequent judgments. In
Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya (2002) 6 SCC 41, the Fifth Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal had found that the finding of guilty recorded in the departmental inquiry
was not based on any cogent and reliable evidence and passed an award for reinstatement of the
workman with other benefits. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the
employer and quashed the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High
Court reversed the order of the learned Single Judge. This Court issued notice to the Respondent
limited to the question of back wages. After taking cognizance of the judgments in Hindustan Tin
Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra) and P.G.I.
of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar (supra), the Court observed:
“As already noted, there was no application of mind to the question of back wages by
the Labour Court. There was no pleading or evidence whatsoever on the aspect
whether the Respondent was employed elsewhere during this long interregnum. Instead
of remitting the matter to the Labour Court or the High Court for fresh consideration at
this distance of time, we feel that the issue relating to payment of back wages should be
settled finally. On consideration of the entire matter in the light of the observations
referred to supra in the matter of awarding back wages, we are of the view that in the
context of the facts of this particular case including the vicissitudes of long-drawn
litigation, it will serve the ends of justice if the Respondent is paid 50% of the back
wages till the date of reinstatement. The amount already paid as wages or subsistence
allowance during the pendency of the various proceedings shall be deducted from the
back wages now directed to be paid. The Appellant will calculate the amount of back
wages as directed herein and pay the same to the Respondent within three months,
failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The award of
the Labour Court which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court
stands modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There will
be no order as to costs.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. In Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC 579, this Court
was called upon to consider whether the services of the Respondent could be terminated by
dispensing with the requirement of inquiry enshrined in Indian Railway Construction Company
Ltd. (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981 read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that there was no legal justification to
dispense with the inquiry and ordered reinstatement of the workman with back wages. The
Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The two Judge Bench of this Court
referred to the judgments in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan
Tin Works Private Limited (supra) and P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v.
Raj Kumar (supra) and held that payment of Rs. 15 lakhs in full and final settlement of all
claims of the employee will serve the ends of justice.
23. In M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.) (supra), the two Judge Bench referred to
P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar (supra) and held that it is
1410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
always incumbent upon the Labour Court to decide the question relating to quantum of back
wages by considering the evidence produced by the parties.
24. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma (supra), the Court found that the services
of the Respondent had been terminated under Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the charge that he was absconding from
duty. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that no material was available with the
disciplinary authority which could justify invoking of Rule 19(ii) and the order of dismissal
could not have been passed without holding regular inquiry in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the Rules. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did not
accept the Appellants' contention that invoking of Rule 19(ii) was justified merely because the
Respondent did not respond to the notices issued to him and did not offer any explanation for his
willful absence from duty for more than two years. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and
dismissed the writ petition. The High Court further held that even though the Respondent-
employee had not pleaded or produced any evidence that after dismissal from service, he was
not gainfully employed, back wages cannot be denied to him. This Court relied upon some of the
earlier judgments and held that in view of the Respondent's failure to discharge the initial
burden to show that he was not gainfully employed, there was ample justification to deny him
back wages, more so because he had absconded from duty for a long period of two years.
25. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591, the three
Judge Bench considered the question whether back wages should be awarded to the workman in
each and every case of illegal retrenchment. The factual matrix of that case was that after
finding the termination of the Respondent's service as illegal, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court awarded 50% back wages. The writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This Court set aside award of 50% back wages on the
ground that the workman had raised the dispute after a gap of 2 years and 6 months and the
Government had made reference after 8 months. The Court then proceeded to observe:
“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a
finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire
back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of
selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or
inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely,
whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any
special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced
in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors,
which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman
had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of
service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial
back wages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by
him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total
length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our
experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another
important factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of
employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or
intermittent daily-wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
26. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (supra), the two Judge
Bench observed:
“No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of
entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is
automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or
otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of
Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.”
27. The Court also reiterated the rule that the workman is required to plead and prima facie
prove that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period.
28. In Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Jayaram Reddy
(supra), this Court noted that the services of the Respondent were terminated because while
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1411
seeking fresh appointment, he had suppressed the facts relating to earlier termination on the
charges of grave misconduct. The Labour Court did not find any fault with the procedure
adopted by the employer but opined that dismissal was very harsh, disproportionate and
unjustified and accordingly exercised power Under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 for ordering reinstatement with back wages. This Court referred to the judgments in P.G.I.
of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar (supra) and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v.
K.P. Agrawal (supra) and held that the Labour Court was not justified in awarding back wages.
29. In Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal (supra), the services of the workman were
terminated on the charge of not joining the place of transfer. The Labour Court quashed the
termination of services on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice and passed an
award of reinstatement of the workman with back wages. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant but the letters patent appeal was allowed
by the Division Bench on the ground that the State of West Bengal was not the appropriate
Government for making the reference. The special leave petition filed by the workman was
allowed by this Court and the Division Bench of the High Court was asked to decide the letters
patent appeal on merits. In the second round, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. This
Court referred to shift in the approach regarding payment of back wages and observed:
“There can, however, be no doubt whatsoever that there has been a shift in the
approach of this Court in regard to payment of back wages. Back wages cannot be
granted almost automatically upon setting aside an order of termination inter alia on
the premise that the burden to show that the workman was gainfully employed during
interregnum period was on the employer. This Court, in a number of decisions opined
that grant of back wages is not automatic. The burden of proof that he remained
unemployed would be on the workmen keeping in view the provisions contained in
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This Court in the matter of grant of back wages
has laid down certain guidelines stating that therefor several factors are required to be
considered including the nature of appointment; the mode of recruitment; the length of
service; and whether the appointment was in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India in cases of public employment, etc.
It is also trite that for the purpose of grant of back wages, conduct of the workman
concerned also plays a vital role. Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the
quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact of each case. Back wages are
ordinarily to be granted, keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind. It
cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”
Hon’ble in the case of Buvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s Hindalco Industreis Ltd. AIR 2014 SC
2258, has held as under:
“30. On the issue of back wages to be awarded in favour of the Appellant, it has been held by
this Court in the case of Shiv Nandan Mahto v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0730/2013 :
(2013) 11 SCC 626 that if a workman is kept out of service due to the fault or mistake of the
establishment/company he was working in, then the workman is entitled to full back wages for
the period he was illegally kept out of service. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as
under:
“5. ...In fact, a perusal of the aforesaid short order passed by the Division Bench would
clearly show that the High Court had not even acquainted itself with the fact that the
Appellant was kept out of service due to a mistake. He was not kept out of service on
account of suspension, as wrongly recorded by the High Court. The conclusion is,
therefore, obvious that the Appellant could not have been denied the benefit of back
wages on the ground that he had not worked for the period when he was illegally kept
out of service. In our opinion, the Appellant was entitled to be paid full back wages for
the period he was kept out of service.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History,
Coimbatore & Anr. vs. Mathew K. Sebastian AIR Online 2021 Mad 1827, held as under:
“8. A Division Bench of this Court in S.Sivaraj V. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Forest
Plantation Corporation Limited, 2007 (5) CTC 579, held as follows:
1412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"9. In fact the Supreme Court has considered the entitlement of an employee for backwages
when the order of dismissal is set aside in the decision in Banshi Dhar V. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2007 (1) SCC 324 (AIROnline 2006 SC 542), wherein the Supreme Court observed that
no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the grant of backwages and each case has to
be determined on its own facts. In the decision in Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam
Prakash Srivastava and another, 2007 (1) SCC 491 (AIR 2007 SC 519), the Supreme Court has
reiterated the same law by holding that the payment of full backwages is not a natural
consequence of setting aside an order of termination of services.
10. It is not a rule of thumb that in every case where reinstatement is ordered, the payment of
backwages is a natural consequence. It depends on the facts of each case. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the termination which was set
aside by this Court is purely on the ground of procedural irregularity and such order will not
confer an automatic right for the appellant to draw backwages."
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.K. Distillery Limited vs. Mahendra Ram (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
134, has held as under:
“14. In the case of P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar
MANU/SC/0829/2000 : 2000(8)SCALE469 , this Court has held that:
“12. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it, has to be dealt with,
in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be evolved,
though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety.”
15. The issue as raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with by the Labour Court in
the manner as above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter in the issue,
upon exercise of its discretion and obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in
nature. There exists an obligation on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the
reasoning before however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of
which, the judgment in our view cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable.
16. In the case of Hindustan Motors v. T.K. Bhattacharya MANU/SC/0584/2002 :
(2002)IILLJ1156SC , this Court has stated that Section 11A as amended in 1971, is couched in
wide and comprehensive terms. It vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of
awarding proper punishment and also in the matter of the terms and conditions on which
reinstatement of the workman should be ordered. It necessarily follows, that, the Tribunal is
duty-bound to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, back wages have to be
awarded and if so, to what extent. Court then held that:
“Industrial Tribunal and Division Bench of High Court erred in proceeding on the assumption
that quashment of dismissal order should be followed by reinstatement with full back wages as
a matter of course.
16. …..On consideration of the entire matter in the light of the observations referred to supra
in the matter of awarding back wages, we are of the view that in the context of the facts of this
particular case including the vicissitudes of long-drawn litigation, it will serve the ends of
justice if the respondent is paid 50% of the back wages till the date of reinstatement.”
17. In U.P. State Brassware Corp. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey MANU/SC/2321/2005 :
(2006)ILLJ496SC , it is observed that:
“A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If
that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their
significance.”
18. Although direction to pay full back wages on a declaration that the order of termination was
invalid used to be the usual result but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the
matter is being taken by the court realizing that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the
workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all to it
and/or for a period that was spent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1413
compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman
was retrenched.
19. In the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal MANU/SC/7290/2007 :
(2007)2LLJ1030SC , it is stated that:
“7. ……….. it is now also well-settled that despite a wide discretionary power
conferred upon the Industrial Courts under Section 11A of the 1947 Act, the relief of
reinstatement with full backwages should not be granted automatically only because it
would be lawful to do so. Grant of relief would depend on the fact situation obtaining
in each case. It will depend upon several factors; one of which would be as to whether
the recruitment was effected in terms of the statutory provisions operating in the field,
if any.”
20. In deciding the question, as to whether the employee should be recompensed with full back
wages and other benefits until the date of reinstatement, the tribunals and the courts have to be
realistic albeit the ordinary rule of full back wages on reinstatement. [Western India Match Co.
Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal (1978)ILLJ206SC .]
21. In Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees MANU/SC/0272/1978 : (1978)IILLJ474SC ,
this Court has held that:
“9. ……..The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where
termination of service is found to be invalid. It, therefore, does not lay down a law in
absolute terms to the effect that the right to claim back wages must necessarily follow
an order declaring that the termination of service is invalid in law.”
22. In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court MANU/SC/0316/1980 : (1981)ILLJ386SC , this Court has observed that:
“6……….Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services
of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if
the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be
exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the
employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the
industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen
concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such
situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential
orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible
because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back
wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other
exceptional cases the court may mould the relief.”
23.In Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai MANU/SC/0349/2005 : (2005)IILLJ847SC ,
this Court has observed:
“6. A law in absolute terms cannot be laid down as to in which cases, and under what
circumstances, full back wages can be granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or
Industrial Tribunal before which industrial dispute has been raised, would be entitled
to grant the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. For the
said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into consideration.
24. In Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan MANU/SC/0139/2005 :
(2005)IILLJ1SC , the quantum of back wages was confined to 50%, stating:
“19……….It is an undisputed fact that the workman had since attained the age of
superannuation and the question of reinstatement does not arise. Because of the award,
the respondent workman will be entitled to his retiral benefits like gratuity, etc. and
accepting the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mills that it is
undergoing a financial crisis, on the facts of this case we think it appropriate that the
full back wages granted by the Labour Court be reduced to 50% of the back wages."
25. In the instant case, the notice had been issued limiting the question to the payment of 50% of
the total back wages. This does not mean that the respondent is not entitled to further relief. The
point that his services were terminated in the year 1985 and since then the case is pending for
1414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the last two decades in different courts also has no relevance, since he had approached the court
within a reasonable time. It is not his fault that the case is still pending before the court. These
grounds could not be held against him for denying the relief of back wages otherwise he would
suffer double jeopardy of losing back wages and delay in getting the reinstatement for no fault of
his. Therefore, it would have been more enlightening, had the High Court reasoned out as to
why the appellant should reinstate the respondent with full employment benefits and should pay
full back wages to him for nothing in return from him in terms of work, production etc.
26. Giving a realistic approach to the matter and in spite of all these circumstances we are
restricting ourselves to the question of 50% of the total back wages.
27. Although services of the respondent have been terminated unjustifiably and illegally, it itself
does not create a right of reinstatement with full employment benefits and full back wages.”
Taking into consideration the above judgments, on the point of back wages, in nutshell it cannot be
said that it is not rule of thumb that in every case where reinstatement is ordered the payment of back wages is
natural consequence, it depends upon the facts of each case.
Reverting to the facts of present case, taking into consideration the above said facts and the workman was not
engaged/gainfully employed from the date of his termination i.e. 19.08.2000 till the date he attained the age of
superannuation i.e. 16.08.2011, not disputed by the respondent so, the interest of justice would subserve if he
may be given 50% (Fifty percent) of the back wages from the date of termination (19.08.2000) to the date of
retirement (16.08.2011) and after his superannuation, other consequential benefits for which he is entitled.
AWARD
For the foregoing reasons impugned order dated 19.08.2000 is set aside and the shall pay 50% (Fifty
percent) of back wages from the date of his termination till the date of retirement (16.08.2011) and after his
superannuation claimant is also entitled for consequential/retrial benefits as per Rules/Standing Order, within
two months from receipt of copy of this award.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 746.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार महाᮧबंधक, ᳲहंदु᭭तान एयरोनॉᳯटस िलिमटेड, लखनऊ; मैससᭅ शाह बंधु, ᳇ारा ᮰ी योगᱶᮤ ᮧसाद शाह,
᭭व᭒छता ठेकेदार, हरजᱶᮤ नगर, कानपुर ; मैससᭅ ᮕुप-4 फैिसिलटी सᳶवᭅस, ᳇ारा ᮰ी नवल कपूर, िनदेशक काᳶमᭅक,
1/97, िव᳒ुत खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी गया ᮧसाद, कामगार,के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 74/2011)
को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
4/05/2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2023-79- आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow ;M/s Shah Bandhu, through Shri Yogendra
Prasad Shah,Sanitation Contractor, Harjendra Nagar, Kanpur ; M/s Group -4 Facilities Service, through Shri
Nawal Kapoor, Director Personnel, 1/97, Vidyut Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, and Shri Gaya Prasad,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04/05/2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-79- IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1415
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 74/2011
BETWEEN
Gaya Prasad, son of Late Badalu, Resident of Village Samuddipur.
Post Gazipur, B Block, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.
AND
1. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division, Lucknow through its General Manager.
2. General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
3. M/s Shah Bandhu, through Sri Yogendra Prasad Shah,
Sanitation Contractor, 504, Viman Nagar, G.T. Road.
Harjendra Nagar, Kanpur.
4. M/s Group -4 Facilities Service, through Sri Nawal Kapoor,
Director Personnel, 1/97, Vidyut Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
AWARD
On 28.02.2010 the claimant/workman has field the ID case No. 72/2011 as per the provisions of
Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Facts of the case:
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division (hereinafter referred to as Establishment), is a
factory registered under the provisions of the Factories Act, which is situated at Faizabad Road, Lucknow and
the sanitation work of the premises of the Establishment as well as Plant and Machinery installed at the factory
premises is a perennial as well regular nature of job.
Establishment is an Engineering Industry and the Government has issued a notification dated
24.04.1990 under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 after the
recommendation of Contract Labour Advisory Board, whereby 18 works of the Engineering Industry, which are
regular or perennial in nature has been prohibited.
However, it was the prevalent practice in establishment that they employed the contract labour for
sanitation work of the establishment/premises despite the fact that the sanitation work was regular in nature; and
the claimant/workman was working in the establishment right from the very beginning i.e. from the date, the
factory was established and continuously worked till the date of termination i.e. 21.12.2001.
As per the case workman order of termination dated 21.12.2001 by which his services in an illegal and
unjustified manner was terminated, inasmuch as in establishment of the employers there were more than 100
workmen employed as such the compliance of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was necessary but
before terminating the services of the workmen, the employers have not complied with the provisions of Section
25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Further, the services of the workman have been terminated by the principal employer not by the
contractor and the work which were being performed by the concerned workman still exist with employers and
the same is being carried out by employing new workmen on contract basis.
In the claim petition it has been pleaded that earlier the workmen’s Union in Establishment i.e.
Hindustan Aeronautics Karamchari Sabha, raised the dispute of the workman along with some other workmen
1416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
before the State Government which, was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal (II), U.P.,
Lucknow, registered before Industrial Tribunal (II), U.P., Lucknow as Adj. Case No.: 126 of 2002.
However, on account of the fact that the workman along with some other workmen were not satisfied
with the pairavi of the Union as such an authority letter was filed along with an application by 20 workmen
amongst the concerned workman to represent the said case but the Union, filed objection that as applicants who
have filed the application are not party in the said case as such they are not entitled to represent the case. By an
order dated 10.03.2010, the Hon'ble Presiding Officer held that the workmen are not satisfied with the
proceedings through Union, they can raise separate dispute "under the provisions of Act.
Thereafter, an application was filed by 36 workmen including the claimant/workman on 10.07.2010
before, the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U.P., Lucknow for deletion of the names of the
workmen from the reference order so that they may be in position to raise fresh industrial dispute before the
competent Forum and the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U.P., Lucknow after hearing the
parties concerned was pleased to allow the said application except three whose names were not mentioned in
reference order.
In pursuance to order dated 20.07.2010 the workman concerned along with 32 other workman filed an
application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow which was registered as
Case No. LKO-8(2-32)/2010: Laxmi Narain and 32 others Vs. General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited and others.
Thereafter, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, called upon the parties for
conciliation proceedings and in pursuance thereof Hindustan Aeronautics Limited appeared before him and filed
their objections and due to the negative attitude of the employers, no settlement could be arrived between the
parties.
Since the mandatory period i.e. 45 days as specified under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010) had been expired as
such the concerned workman seek the permission from the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow
to withdraw the case and to approach the Hon'ble Court on 27.01.2011, which was duly accepted by the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow.
In view of above said factual background the present case has been filed u/s 2A (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with following prayer:
“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare
that the action of the management in terminating the services of workman with effect from
21.12.2001 is neither legal nor justified and accordingly the workman concerned is entitled to
get reinstatement in service together with entire consequential benefits including back wages
and other service benefits, in the interest of justice.”
On behalf the respondent written statement has been filed on 02.05.2012 in which following
preliminary objection was taken:
“1. That the aforesaid ID Case No.74/2011 is not maintainable as per the provisions of ID Act
1947 (as mended by ID (Amendment) Act 2010) because the same is barred by limitation U/S
2A(3) of the ID Act (Amendment 2010) which is quoted as below:
2A(3) "the application referred to in sub section 2 shall be made to Labour Court or
Tribunal before the expiry of 3 years from the date of discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or otherwise termination service as specified in sub section 1".
In addition to the above said facts, the respondent in its written statement also given the parawise
reply to the case as set up by the claimant in his statement of claim.
Sri Adarsh Jadghari has submitted that before deciding the matter in question on merit, the
question “whether the claim petition filed by the claimant on 28.02.2011 as per the provisions of section
2A (2) of the Act, aggrieved by the order of termination/retrenchment dated 21.12.2001 is barred by the
period of limitation as provided u/s 2A(3) of the Act or not?”
Sri Adarsh Jadghari in support of his argument submits, admittedly as per the case of the
claimant his services were terminated on 21.12.2001, aggrieved by the same he filed present industrial
dispute u/s 2A (2) of the Act; however, u/s 2A (3) of the Act the period of limitation is provided for three
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1417
years, from the date of retrenchment/termination, so, the present claim petition is barred by the period of
limitation as provided u/s 2A (3) of the Act, liable to be dismissed.
Sri D.K. Gupta, learned counsel for claimant, rebutting the said contention has placed reliance as
pleaded in the statement of claim and submits that in view of the facts as stated hereinabove especially in
paragraph 27 & 28, which are quoted herein below:
“27. That since the mandatory period i.e. 45 days as specified under Section 2- A (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act,
2010 (No. 24 of 2010) had been expired as such the concerned workman seek the
permission from the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow to withdraw
the case and to approach the Hon'ble Court on 27.01.2011, which was duly accepted
by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow.
28.
That in pursuance thereof, the workman concerned approaching the Hon'ble Tribunal
for the adjudication of the industrial disputes as prevalent between the workman and
the employers.”
The present claim petition filed u/s 2 (2) of the Act is maintainable and the arguments as raised
by the learned counsel for respondent that same is barred by the period limitation is devoid of merit, be
rejected.
I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.
Before deciding the same it will be appropriate to go through aims and objects of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in
brief which are that Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced by the Government of India in the Legislative
Assembly on the 28th October 1946. After the Select Committee’s report on 3rd February 1947, with some
amendments, it was passed in March 1947 and became the law from Ist April 1947 repealing the Trade Disputes
Act 1929.
While retaining most of the provisions of the earlier law, this Act introduced two new institutions for
the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes; works committees consisting of representatives of
employers and workers; and machinery for industrial adjudication.
A reference to an industrial tribunal under this Act lies where both parties to any industrial dispute
apply for such reference, and also where the appropriate Government considers it expedient so to do. An award
of a tribunal has normally to be enforced by the Government and is binding on both parties to the dispute for
such periods as may be specified, upto a maximum of one year. This Act seeks to give a new orientation to the
entire conciliation machinery.
Another important new feature of the Act is the prohibition of strikes and lockouts during the
pendency of conciliation and adjudication proceedings of settlements reached in the course of conciliation
proceedings and of awards of industrial tribunals declared binding by the appropriate government.
Rules, orders or notifications requiring the larger industrial establishments to set up works committees
were issued by the Government of India and most of the State Governments.
Objectives: General
The objectives of industrial relations and industrial disputes legislation, may be outlined as under:-
(i)
Industrial Peace: For prosperity of industry, it is necessary that there be a continuous and growing
production which is only possible if (a) there are no interruptions and stoppages in production i.e.
absence of disputes, and (b) if the various agencies of production are satisfied and are in a harmonious
bent to work. In other words industrial peace is very necessary for the vitality of industry.
(ii)
Economic Justice: All interruptions in production arising out of industrial dispute are really caused by
the dissatisfaction of labour with their existing economic condition. The history of labour struggle is
nothing but a continuous demand for fair retrun to labour expressed in varied forms e.g. (a) increase in
wages, (b) resistance to decrease in wages, (c) grant of allowances and benefits etc.(Hariprasad Vs.
A.D.Divelkar, AIR 1957 SC 121)
Social and economic justice which is the bedrock of our Constitution and economic organisation also requires
that any industrial relations or disputes legislation, to be effective remedial statute, must embrace not only law
for regulation of labour relations with capital, process for channelizing collective bargaining methods for
negotiation, mediation, conciliation and settlements of industrial conflict, but also a system for giving fair play
and justice to labour and removal of economic injustice.
1418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The preamble of the Act states that its main object is to make provision for investigation and settlement of
industrial disputes. Viewed in the above background, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is a progressive piece of
social legislation and is designed to settle the disputes on a new pattern known under the Act as adjudication
machinery. The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production
might not be adversely affected. (Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 167)
The purpose of the Act is to provide machinery for a just and equitable settlement by adjudication, (G. Claridge
and Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, AIR 1951 Bombay 100) and amelioration of the
conditions of workmen in industry.
Individual and collective industrial disputes: Individual as well as collective disputes may ripen into industrial
disputes. The true nature of an individual dispute is that it is a collective dispute. Though a dispute may at the
inception be initiated by an individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow-workers or a union, or a sufficient
number of workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an industrial dispute. (Standard
Vacum Oil Co. Errakulam Vs. I.Tribunal, Errakulam 1952-II LLJ 612). A dispute which continues to
retain its individual character cannot be regarded as an industrial dispute. This being the basic law, it is within
the competence of the legislature to widen or narrow the coverage of an industrial dispute. The Industrial
Disputes Act has also been amended to cover some individual disputes. It is not necessary that a majority
should take u[ an industrial dispute. It is sufficient if a substantial group of workmen take it up. When thus
taken, it becomes an industrial or collective dispute.
Individual dispute an industrial dispute: The important amongst the above are however the amendments of
1965. By the Act of 1965, a new Section 2A has been added in Act whereby specified categories of individual
disputes are also deemed to be industrial disputes. The section reads as under:
“2A. Dismissal, etc of an individual workman to be deemed to be industrial dispute-
Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an
individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected
with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an
industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute.”
This amendment revives, impediment in the way of workman with the necessity that to make an industrial
dispute it must be taken up or espoused by substantial section of the workmen or any union of those workmen
and gives an individual workman a remedy for security of his service and indirectly freedom to join or not to
join any union. Thus, individual disputes could be referred to Tribunal as per Section 2A after 1.12.1965.
(National Productivity Council, 1969-II LLJ 186).
Thereafter, by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No.24 of 2010), Section 2A(a), was renumbered
as Sub-section (1) and by the same Act i.e. Act No.24 of 2010 Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) have been
inserted after Section 2A (1) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 which came into effect w.e.f. 15.09.2010, which
reads as under:
"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute -
"(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the
services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and
his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other
workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified
in sub-Section(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for
adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the
date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate
Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the
Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply
in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute
referred to it by the appropriate Government.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1419
(3) The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or
Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section(1)."
Now the core question to be considered is that in view of the facts which are stated hereinabove, that admittedly
the services of applicant was terminated on 21.12.2001, thereafter he has filed the present case before this
Tribunal u/s 2A of the Act on 28.02.2011 on the grounds as taken by him in his claim petition, is maintainable
or barred by the period of limitation as provided u/s 2A(3).
Answer to the said question find place in the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Karnataka High Court in ITC
Infotech India Ltd. vs. Venkataramana Uppada ILR 2016 Karnataka 3041, relevant potion quoted as under:
“19. Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an
irresistible conclusion that time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or
the Tribunal as the case may be, has to be necessarily "before the expiry of three years from the
date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in
sub-Section (1)." Time limit for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-
Section (3) of Section 2A does not appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2)
of Section 2A. In any event right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding
the date of expiry of three years from the date of dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the
limitation of three years prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2A being mandatory, same
cannot be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no
application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
20. It is well settled principle that if an act is required to be performed within a specified time, the
same would primarily be mandatory. It has been held in the case of NAZIRUDDIN VS SITARAM
AGARWAL reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908 to the following effect:
"The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It
is well known that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the
texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language
of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or
read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation. It is also
necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has not used any
superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered
from the language used."
21. Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in NAZIRUDDIN's case referred to supra,
when Section 2A is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of
limitation provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A was to be construed as directory, then it would not
have prescribed the limitation of three years and it would have used the words "at any time" instead of
using the words "before the expiry of three years". Though the words at any time' is found in Section
10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2A which would clearly depict the
intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-Section (3)
of Section 2A and as such legislature did not employ the words at any time' in the said provision as
found in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words before the expiry of
three years'. Hence, to interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A as
directory and not mandatory would amount to adding something which is not provided in the provision
by the legislature or it would amount to doing violence to the provision, if such interpretation is sought
to be made."
And Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Pankaj Swami vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & ors. MANU/RH/1788/2019 after taking into consideration the provisions of sedation 2A(2) &
2A(3) of the Act held as under:
“The provisions are explicit, wherein the workman can approach the Labour Court for adjudication of
the dispute in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment etc., however, sub-section (3) provides that
the application should be made to the Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified.
8. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the cause of action arose to the
petitioner prior to introduction of the provision of limitation by sub-section (3) the same would have no
application is concerned, the submission made is fallacious, inasmuch as, the provision under which
the application has been filed by the petitioner i.e. section 2-A(2) of the Act, itself was introduced by
1420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the amendment Act of 2010 alongwith the limitation therein and therefore, the provision of limitation
which was introduced in the year 2010 alongwith the main provision providing for the limitation
would apply with all force and the submission that the same would have no application to the cause of
action, which arose prior to 2007, has no basis.
The submissions as made, if accepted, would result in circumstances where if the cause of action has
arisen post 2010, the same would be barred, whereas the causes, which arose prior to 2010 like in the
year 2007 in the present case and the application is filed after 7 years, the same would never become
barred by limitation, such a result is legally untenable.
9. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner had approached
the Conciliation Officer and had raised the dispute before him, where there was no limitation and the
petitioner approached the Labour Court only as per the directions of the Conciliation Officer the claim
could not be rejected by barred by limitation also does not advance the cause of the petitioner,
inasmuch as, the petitioner could have taken advantage of the said position, if the Conciliation Officer
had sent a failure report to the appropriate Government who in turn had referred the dispute to the
Labour Court. Merely because the Conciliation Officer suggested approaching the Labour Court,
which suggestion was accepted by the petitioner, cannot be termed as a reference under section 10 of
the Act to the Labour Court.
10. In view of the above discussion in so far as the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the
Labour Court being barred by limitation is concerned, the same cannot be faulted.”
And in the case of Parthasarathy vs. Souther Pins and Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/TN/6691/2020
Hon’ble the High Court of Madras has held as under:
“Inasmuch as the notice of termination of the Petitioner in the present case has been made on
06.10.2014 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act after the said amendment has come into force, the
limitation of three years prescribed under Section 2-A(3) of the Act would necessarily apply. As such,
there is no infirmity in the decision-making process of the Labour Court in refusing to entertain the
application made by the Petitioner has time barred. This view is supported by the decisions of this
Court in the following cases:-
(i) ITC Infotech India Ltd. v. Venkataramana Uppada (Order dated 03.03.2016 in W.P. No.
27510 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka)
(ii) Management of Ashok Leyland v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Order dated
13.04.2016 in W.P. Nos. 9640 and 9641 of 2016 passed by this Court)
(iii) Ravi Kumar v. Management, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation (Order
dated 11.04.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4269 of 2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of this
Court)
(iv) K. Settu v. Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Order dated 20.09.2019 in
W.P. No. 8413 of 2019 passed by this Court)
5. A feeble attempt is made on behalf of the Petitioner to suggest that the period of conciliation must be
excluded while computing the limitation. It is, no doubt, true that Section 2-A(2) of the Act
contemplates such application to be made to the Labour Court after the expiry of 45 days from the date
of application to the Conciliation Officer is made. However, it does not require that the conciliation
proceedings should have been completed before making that application under Section 2-A(2) of the
Act. The words in Section 2-A(3) of the Act are clear enough that the limitation has to be reckoned on
the expiry of three years from the date of termination. The Petitioner in the instant case had made the
application for conciliation on 12.04.2017 which had also concluded on 27.06.2017, but the Petitioner
had not approached the Labour Court after 45 days either from 12.04.2017 or even from 27.06.2017.
As such, the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced.”
(see also Kandasamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd. vs S. Palanisamy and Ors. MANU/RN/6831/2019
Thus, in view of above said fact, combined reading of section 2A (2) and 2A (3) of the Act, the legal
position which emerge out is that if a workman is aggrieved by order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
otherwise termination, he may approach the Tribunal within a period three years from dated of passing of order.
Taking into consideration, above said facts and positon of law as well that “if law provides a particular
thing that all other modes or methods of doing that thing must be deemed to have been prohibited”, the said
proposition of law is first held in the case of Tylor Vs. Tylor (1875) LR 1 ChD 426 and adopted later by the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1421
Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and thereafter by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a series of judgments including those in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & another Vs. State of
Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358, Chandra
Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad 1999 (8) SCC 266, Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC
9 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar Power Ltd. 2008 (4) SCC 755.
In the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of
interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other
words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every
provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said
that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while
considering a statute is to gather the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are
clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly
conveyed, there is no scope for the Court to take upon itself the task of amending or alternating the
statutory provisions. Wherever the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered
from the language used. While doing so what has been said in the statute as also what has not been
said has to be noted. The construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words
or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided”.
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC
111, held as under:-
“24.
True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what provides by its
clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law.
25.
Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged when the
language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must
ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or
modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible,
absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute”.
In the case of Harshad S. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 257, it has been held as under:-
“There is no doubt that if the words are plain and simple and call for only one construction that
construction is to be adopted whatever be its effect”.
In the case of Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devo (2002) 7 SCC 273, Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“9.It is a cardinal principle of construction of statute that when language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous, then the court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open
to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more
consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act.”
In the case of Patango Kadam Vs. Prithviraj Sayajiro Yadav Deshmukh (2001) 3 SCC 594, took the view:-
“12. Thus when there is an ambiguity in terms of a provision, one must look at well-settled principles
of construction but it is not open to first to create an ambiguity which does not exist and then try to
resolve the same by taking recourse to some general principle.”
Reverting to the facts of the present case, as per the admitted position, the services of the workman was
terminated on 21.12.2001 and the same has been challenged by him by filing the present industrial dispute on
28.02.2011.
So, keeping in view the above said facts as well as the workman cannot derive any benefit from the
facts on which he has approved the Tribunal after expiry of period three years from the date of his termination,
because his services were terminated on 21.12.2001 and filed the present case on 28.02.2011 u/s 2A (2) of the
Act, as such, the claim petition is barred by the period of limitation provided u/s 2A (3), liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the same is rejected on the ground that same is barred by period of limitation as per
section 2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
1422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 747.—औ᳒ोिगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औ᳒ोिगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औ᳒ोिगक vf/kdj.k pSUUbZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (11/2019) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12011/84/2018 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen
[No. L-12011/84/2018- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 11/2019
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer
Date: 16.02.2023
Sri A. Mohan
Represented by the General Secretary
Indian Bank Employees Union
No. 6, Moore Street, Mannady
Chennai-600001
…1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
Indian Bank, HRM Department
Corporate Office
254-260, Avvai Shanmugham Salai
Royapettah
Chennai-600014 ….2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
Advocates, M/s KM Ramesh
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Advocates, M/s T.S Gopalan & Co.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/84/2018-IR
(B.II) dtd. 09.01.2019 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, in terminating the services of
Sri A. Mohan, Tiny Deposit Collector is justified? If so, to what relief is Sri A. Mohan
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered as ID No. 11/2019 and due notices were issued to both sides for their appearance on 25.03.2019. The
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1423
Petitioner / 1st Party Union did not appear. The case was listed to four more dates till 16.09.2019. On that day
the Petitioner filed the Claim Statement and the case was listed for Counter Statement and the Respondent filed
Counter Statement on 19.12.2019. Accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to file Affidavit-Evidence and
documents fixing the case to 07.01.2020.The Petitioner did not turn up resulting two more dates will
19.03.2020. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. The case was listed to 12.05.2020. The Petitioner failed
to file the Affidavit-Evidence. Due to the outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19, the case was suo-moto listed and
relisted to several dates in the whole of the year 2020 and also till 15.06.2021 intervening several dates of
adjournment. The Petitioner did not appear nor filed any Proof of Affidavit on 15.06.2021. The case was again
re-scheduled to further dates for the same purpose till 05.01.2022 intervening 4 adjournments. The Petitioner did
not turn up. However without resorting to any coercive steps, the Petitioner was afforded with further 7
adjournments till 13.09.2022. The Petitioner chose not to file any Affidavit-Evidence despite of the
adjournments. However, for the interest of justice, the Petitioner was again afforded with last chance fixing the
case to 20.10.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up. None behalf of the Petitioner nor any Authorized
Representative appeared. The case is reserved for final order. Even till the date of final adjudication, neither any
Petition nor the Affidavit-Evidence is filed by the Petitioner Union
3.
It appears the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case even if sufficient opportunities were
afforded to it. It is felt the Petitioner deliberately withheld to introduce himself in dock. In such circumstance,
the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government vide
dtd.09.01.2019. The case is liable for dismissal due to non-cooperation and default of the Petitioner. In the
circumstance, it is held proper to dispose of the case without wasting the valuable time of the Tribunal.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the ID case stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 748.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार ᮧबंध िनदेशक, भारत इ᭥यूनोलॉिजकल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड, ओपीवी ᭡लांट, चौला, बुलंदशहर
(यू.पी);महाᮧबंधक, भारत इ᭥यूनोलॉिजकल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड, ओपीवी ᭡लांट, चौला, बुलंदशहर (यू.पी), के
ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी अरᳲवंद सोलंकᳱ, और सु᮰ी जगवती, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 155/2012) को जैसा ᳰक
अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को
ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42012/26/2012 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 155/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Managing Director, Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., OPV Plant, Chaula, Bulandshahr
(U.P) ;The General Manager, Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., OPV Plant, Chaula, Bulandshahr (U.P),
and Shri Arvind Solanki, & Ms Jagwati ,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L-42012/26/2012 - IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
1424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 155/2012
Date of Passing Award- 26th April, 2023
Between:
Shri Arvind Solanki, S/o Sh. Harfool Singh,
Vill & PO Chola, Distt.,
Bulandshahr (U.P.)
Substituted by LRs namely.
Jagwati W/o Late Arvind Kumar Solanki.
….Workman
Versus
Managing Director,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.,
Vill. Chaula,
Bulandshahr (U.P).
General Manager,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.,
Vill. Chaula,
Bulandshahr (U.P).
….Managements.
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma , Ld .A/R for the claimant.
None for the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42012/26/2012 (IR(DU) dated 15.10.2012 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of management in terminating services of workman Sh. Arvind
Solanki S/o Harfool Singh without complying with provisions of 25 F , 25 N is illegal and
unjustified? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
As per the claim statement the claimant Arvind Kumrar Solanki ( Since dead and substituted by wife
Smt. Jagwati) was initially appointed 28.10.1998 as a casual labour in the establishment of the mgt for doing the
work of grass cutting and general cleaning in the premises of the mgt. He was discharging a perennial of work.
At the time of initial appointment the mgt had obtained the signature of the workman on some plane papers and
on some vouchers on the pretest that EPF and ESI subscriptions shall be made for him. But in fact except the
ESI subscription no other benefit was granted to him by the mgt. The claimant during the course of employment
had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year for 3 consecutive years. Hence, the mgt had
paid bonus to him. During this process the claimant had work continuously from 28.10.1998 to 06.01.2011 as a
causal labour. But as per the notification dated 15.06.1985 issued by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh the service of
the claimant should have been made regular with the mgt since his land was acquired by the mgt. But the mgt
did not regularize his service and workman was insisting for the same. This created annoyance in the mind of
the mgt and on 07.01.2011 his service was illegally terminated by the mgt. On that day, when he reached the
factory premises the security guard did not allow him entry and showed a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the
Deputy CGM(U) in which it was clearly mentioned that the claimant workman should not be allowed entry into
the premises of the mgt to perform his duty. The said action amounts to termination of the service of the
claimant who was working continuously from Oct 1998 to Jan 2011. At the time of such termination, the mgt
had neither given the notice of termination notice pay, retrenchment compensation gratuity etc. to the claimant
in compliance of the provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. No disciplinary action was also
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1425
taken against him before his termination. There were 14 other co-workmen whose services were regularize by
the mgt on the ground that there lands were acquired by the mgt along with this claimant. Being aggrieved he
had raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner and on failure of conciliation the appropriate govt.
referred the matter to this Tribunal to adjudicate if a service of the claimant has been illegally terminated. Thus
in the claim petition the claimant had prayed for an award to the effect that the benefits to which the deceased
claimant is entitled to be granted to his legal heirs as per the provisions 25 F and 25N of the Id act along with
any other relief which would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The mgt filed written statement denying the stands of the claimant. The maintainability of the claim has
been challenged on the ground that there exists no Industrial Dispute between the claimant and the mgt. It has
been specifically stated that the provisions of section 25F 25G and 25H are not applicable since the service of
the claimant as admitted by him was on account of non performance of duty and disobeying the directives of his
monitoring officer. The claimant had raised a dispute before the conciliation officer Dehradun, where it was
pointed out that the claimant was working as a casual labour/daily wager for grass cutting and maintenance of
garden. He had worked for a short period as a casual worker and paid wage for the said period. Neither he was a
regular employee nor the nature of work executed by him was perennial. Rather the engagement was need
based. Hence, the service of the claimant came to an end automatically when there was no work. The claimant
of the claimant for reinstatement and continuity of service not maintainable. It has also been stated that the mgt
is a public sector undertaking having its own rules for recruitment into regular post. The claimant was never
appointed as a regular employee. Not only that the claimant had not completed 240 days of work in the
preceding calendar year of the alleged termination and as such notice u/s 25F of the ID Act or any kind of
compensation was payable to him. This claimant along with few other workers was found stealing valuable
articles from the premises of the mgt and for the said incident FIRE was lodged. For loss of confidence the
engagement of the claimant was discontinued the claimant has not come up with clean hands. Initially he had
filed the claim petition claiming his appointment as an Assistant. On realization of the mistake he amended the
claim petition. Hence, the reliefs sought cannot be granted to him.
The claimant filed written replication to the w.s of the mgt in which it has been explained that the
amendment was for correction of some bona fide mistakes and the earlier claim petition in view of the
amendment cannot be looked into.
On these rival pleadings the following issued are framed for adjudication.
Issues
1. Whether the action of the mgt in non engaging the claimant amounts to punitive action
2. Whether the claimant had completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year with the mgt.
3. As in terms of reference.
The claimant since died his wife Jagwati testified as WW1. She proved the documents marked in a
series of ww1/1 to ww1/8. The witness was cross examined at length by the mgt. After closer of the evidence of
the claimant, when the mgt was called upon to adduce evidence, none turned up to adduce evidence and the mgt
evidence was closed by order dated 13.10.2022.
Findings
Issue no.1
It is the stand of the claimant that he was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis on
28.10.1998. Though no document has been produced by the claimant to prove the said engagement, the mgt
while filling w.s has admitted the date of initial engagement. The mgt has also admitted in the pleading that the
claimant was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis for maintenance of the garden and grass cutting. It
has been alleged by the claimant that on 07.01.2011 when he reported for work the security guard did not allow
him entry and show him a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM R.K Shukla directing that four
persons should not be allowed to enter and discharge duty. The said letter has been marked as ww1/7. The
claimant has asserted that the list does not contain the name of the claimant Arvind Kumar Solanki. But he was
not allowed to work. In the w.s the mgt has stated that for the unruly behavior of the claimant and his
involvement in a theft case a decision was taken not to allow the claimant into the premises of the mgt and as
such his service was discontinued. The other stand taken by the mgt is that the engagement of the claimant was
need based and for non availability of the work his service was discontinued. But surprisingly, no evidence has
been adduced by the mgt to prove that the claimant was ever involved in a case of theft or any dissatisfaction
was expressed by the supervising over about his non performance. The stand taken in the w.s justifying the
action stands not proved. Accordingly it is held that the decision of the mgt in not engaging the claimant who
1426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was working continuously from 28.10.1998 to 06.01.2011 without any justification is illegal. This issue is
answer in favour of the claimant.
Issue no.2
The claimant has stated that during his employment he had completed working for 240 days in a
calendar year including the year preceding to his termination. The termination becomes illegal for non
compliance of the provisions of the 25FR of the ID Act. In the w.s, the mgt has taken a plea that the claimant
had never worked for 240 days in a calendar and thus there was no need of complying the provisions of 25F or
25N of the ID Act. Besides the oral statement, the claimant had filed the photo copies of the few pages of the
attendance register. The claimant had filed an application for a direction to the mgt to produce the attendance
register but the mgt denied possession of the same. The photo copy of the attendance register filed by the
claimant proves that the attendance register In respect of the claimant and other casual workers was being
maintained by the mgt. Hence it is concluded that the mgt is guilty of surpassing the material documents. In the
oral testimony, the claimant has stated that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year and as such the mgt
had paid him bonus. To prove this aspect the document has been filed as WW1/4. During cross examination the
mgt has not disputed the contents of this document. Hence from the oral evidence coupled with the documents
filed by the claimant it is proved that the claimant had worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding to his
termination which had earned him bonus in the year 2010 as stated in the documents marked as WW1/4 issued
from the establishment section of the mgt the issue is also answered in favour of the workman.
Issue no. 3
The reference has been received to adjudicate on the legality of the termination of the Service of the claimant
and what relief he is entitled to. The claimant while adducing oral evidence has stated that his land was acquired
by the mgt and the govt. of Uttar Pradesh has issued a GO directing grant of permanent employment to the
persons by the mgt whose land has been acquired. The claimant has filed the said GO as WW1/6. In addition to
that he has stated that 14 persons standing gin the same footing have been regularized in service by the mgt. But
absolutory evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove that the policy of the Govt. for giving permanent
employment to the land oustees is still in force. Thus, the claim of the claimant for absorbing him in a regular
post on account of land acquisition since not legally justified.
In the preceding paragraph it has been held that the termination f the service of the claimant by the mgt is illegal
for non compliance of the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act which is mandatory in nature as has been held
by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries ltd. (2014
LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court). Now it is to be seen what relief the claimant is entitled to on account of the
said illegal termination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya”has held as under:
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
I)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages
is the normal rule.
II) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the
Court to visit instance on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then
I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of
service. This is so because it is settled lat that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies
on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always employed, the onus lies
on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
In this case the oral evidence of the workman proves that he is unemployed and having no source of
income. No rebuttle evidence has been adduced by the mgt. in the case of Anoop Sharma vs. Executive
Engineer Public Health Division Panipat(2010) 5SSF497) the Hon’ble Apex Court have further held that when
the termination of service happens without complying the provisions of section 25F the action of termination
becomes nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in the employment as if his service was never
terminated. The Hon’b Apex Court in other cases have also stated that factors which are to be considered while
deciding the claim of the claimant for full back wages. The factors are the length of service the nature of the
work whether regular or perennial, temporary or seasonal nature etc. In this case the claimant had worked for
the mgt from 1998 to 2011 i.e. for a period of 14 years. The claim of the claimant that he was discharging
function of perennial nature has remained unrebutted. Hence, the Tribunal from the evidence adduced on record
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1427
is of the opinion that the claimant should be reinstated in to service with full back wages. This issue is
accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is allowed in favor of the claimant. It is held that the service of the claimant
was illegally terminated by the mgt in complete violation of the provisions of 25 F and 25N of the ID Act and
for his unemployment he is required to be reinstated into service with full back wages. But in this case, the
claimant Arvind Kumar Solanki since died during the pendency of the dispute the mgt is directed to notionally
reinstated him into service from the date of illegal termination and grant him full back wages within 2 months
from the date of publication of the award without interest. The monetary entitlements of the deceased claimant
shall be paid to his legal heir Smt. Jagwati who has been substituted as the legal heir in this proceeding. It is
made clear that the benefits payable to the claimant if would not be paid within the time stipulated, the same
shall carry interest @of 6 % from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 749.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार महाᮧबंधक, भारत इ᭥यूनोलॉिजकल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड, ओपीवी ᭡लांट, चौला, बुलंदशहर (यू.पी), के
ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी िजते᭠ᮤ ᳲसंह, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक
अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 91/2012) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया
है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42012/104/2011 -आईआर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., OPV Plant, Chaula, Bulandshahr
(U.P), and Shri Jitender Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L-42012/104/2011 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 91/2012
Date of Passing Award- 1st May, 2023
Between:
Shri Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Ramesh Singh
Vill & PO Chola, Distt.,
Bulandshahr (U.P.)
…. Workman
1428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
General Manager,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.,
Vill Chaula,
Bulandshahr (U.P).
…..Management.
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma , Ld .A/R for the claimant.
None for the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42012/104/2011 (IR(DU) dated 22.02.2012 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd. in
terminating the services of workman Sh. Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Ramesh Singh without
complying with section 25 F & 25 N of the ID Act., 1947 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
As per the claim statement the claimant Jitender Singh was initially appointed on 26.02.2007 as a
casual labour in the establishment of the mgt for doing the work of grass cutting and general cleaning in the
premises of the mgt. He was discharging a perennial nature of work. At the time of initial appointment the mgt
had obtained the signature of the workman on some plain papers and on some vouchers on the pretext that EPF
and ESI subscriptions shall be made for him. But in fact except the ESI subscription no other benefit was
granted to him by the mgt. The claimant during the course of employment had completed 240 days of
continuous service in a calendar year for 3 consecutive years. Hence, the mgt had paid bonus to him. During this
process the claimant had worked continuously from 26.02.2007 to 06.01.2011 as a causal labour. But as per the
notification dated 15.06.1985 issued by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh the service of the claimant should have been
made regular with the mgt since his land was acquired by the mgt. But the mgt did not regularize his service and
workman was insisting for the same. This created annoyance in the mind of the mgt and on 07.01.2011 his
service was illegally terminated by the mgt. On that day, when he reached the factory premises the security
guard did not allow him entry and showed a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM(U) in which it
was clearly mentioned that the claimant workman should not be allowed entry into the premises of the mgt to
perform his duty. The said action amounts to termination of the service of the claimant who was working
continuously from Feb2007 1998 to Jan 2011. At the time of such termination, the mgt had neither given the
notice of termination notice pay, retrenchment compensation gratuity etc. to the claimant in compliance of the
provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. No disciplinary action was also taken against him before
his termination. There were 14 other co-workmen whose services were regularize by the mgt on the ground that
there lands were acquired by the mgt along with this claimant. Being aggrieved he had raised a dispute before
the Labour Commissioner and on failure of conciliation the appropriate govt. referred the matter to this Tribunal
to adjudicate if a service of the claimant has been illegally terminated. Thus in the claim petition the claimant
had prayed for an award to the effect that the benefits to which the deceased claimant is entitled to be granted to
his legal heirs as per the provisions 25 F and 25N of the Id act along with any other relief which would be
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The mgt filed written statement denying the stands of the claimant. The maintainability of the claim has
been challenged on the ground that there exists no Industrial Dispute between the claimant and the mgt. It has
been specifically stated that the provisions of section 25F 25G and 25H are not applicable since the service of
the claimant was terminated, as admitted by him on account of non performance of duty and disobeying the
directives of his monitoring officer. The claimant had raised a dispute before the conciliation officer Dehradun,
where it was pointed out that the claimant was working as a casual labour/daily wager for grass cutting and
maintenance of garden. He had worked for a short period as a casual worker and paid wage for the said period.
Neither he was a regular employee nor the nature of work executed by him was perennial. Rather the
engagement was on need based. Hence, the service of the claimant came to an end automatically when there was
no work. The claim of the claimant for reinstatement and continuity of service is not maintainable. It has also
been stated that the mgt is a public sector undertaking having it’s own rules for recruitment into regular post.
The claimant was never appointed as a regular employee. Not only that the claimant had not completed 240 days
of work in the preceding calendar year of the alleged termination and as such notice u/s 25F of the ID Act or any
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1429
kind of compensation was not payable to him. This claimant along with few other workers was found stealing
valuable articles from the premises of the mgt and for the said incident FIR was lodged. For loss of confidence,
the engagement of the claimant was discontinued. The claimant has not come up with clean hands. Initially he
had filed the claim petition claiming his appointment as an Assistant. On realization of the mistake he amended
the claim petition. Hence, the reliefs sought cannot be granted to him.
The claimant filed written replication to the w.s of the mgt in which it has been explained that the
amendment was for correction of some bona fide mistakes and the earlier claim petition in view of the
amendment cannot be looked into.
Findings
On these rival pleadings the following issued are framed for adjudication.
Issues
1 Whether the action of the mgt in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Jitender Singh, without
complying with 25F and 25N of the ID Act 1947 is legal and justified? If so its effect?
2. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
The claimant testified as WW1. He proved the documents marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/26.
The said documents include the wager attendance record the details of arrears on revision of minimum wages
etc. The witness was cross examined at length by the mgt. After closer of the evidence of the claimant, when the
mgt was called upon to adduce evidence, none turned up to adduce evidence and the mgt evidence was closed
by order dated 13.10.2022.
Findings
Issue no.1
It is the stand of the claimant that he was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis on
26.02.2007. Though no document has been produced by the claimant to prove the said engagement, the mgt
while filling w.s has admitted the date of initial engagement. The mgt has also admitted in the pleading that the
claimant was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis for maintenance of the garden and grass cutting. It
has been alleged by the claimant that on 07.01.2011 when he reported for work the security guard did not allow
him entry and showed him a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM R.K Shukla directing that four
persons should not be allowed to enter and discharge duty. The said letter has been marked as WW1/11. In the
w.s the mgt has stated that for the unruly behavior of the claimant and his involvement in a theft case a decision
was taken not to allow the claimant into the premises of the mgt and as such his service was discontinued. The
other stand taken by the mgt is that the engagement of the claimant was need based and for non availability of
the work his service was discontinued. But surprisingly, no evidence has been adduced by the mgt to prove that
the claimant was ever involved in a case of theft or any dissatisfaction was expressed by the Supervising Officer
about his non performance. The stand taken in the w.s justifying the action stands not proved. Accordingly it is
held that the decision of the mgt in not engaging the claimant who was working continuously from 28.10.1998
to 06.01.2011 without any justification is illegal. This issue is answer in favour of the claimant.
Issue no. 2
The reference has been received to adjudicate on the legality of the termination of the Service of the
claimant and what relief he is entitled to. The claimant while adducing oral evidence has stated that his land was
acquired by the mgt and the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh has issued a GO directing grant of permanent employment to
the persons by the mgt whose land has been acquired. The claimant has filed the said GO as WW1/6. In addition
to that he has stated that 14 persons standing in the same footing have been regularized in service by the mgt.
But absolutory no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove that the policy of the Govt. for giving
permanent employment to the land oustees is still in force. Thus, the claim of the claimant for absorbing him in
a regular post on account of land acquisition seems not legally justified.
In the preceding paragraph it has been held that the termination of the service of the claimant by the
mgt is illegal for non compliance of the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act which is mandatory in nature as
has been held by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco
Industries ltd. (2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court). Now it is to be seen what relief the claimant is entitled
to on account of the said illegal termination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya have held as under:
1430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
I)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
II) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting
back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or
the Court to visit instance on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of
service. This is so because it is settled lat that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact
lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always employed, the onus
lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
In this case the oral evidence of the workman proves that he is unemployed and having no source of
income. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the mgt. In the case of Anoop Sharma vs. Executive
Engineer Public Health Division Panipat (2010) 5SSF497) the Hon’ble Apex Court have further held that
when the termination of service happens without complying the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act the
action of termination becomes nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in the employment as if his
service was never terminated. The Hon’ble Apex Court in other cases have also stated that factors which are to
be considered while deciding the claim of the claimant for full back wages. The factors are the length of service,
the nature of the work, whether regular or perennial, temporary or seasonal nature etc. In this case the claimant
had worked for the mgt from 2003 to 2011 i.e. for a period of 8 years. The claim of the claimant that he was
discharging function of perennial nature has remained unrebutted. Hence, the Tribunal from the evidence
adduced on record is of the opinion that the claimant should be reinstated into service with full back wages for
the illegal termination of the service. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. Hence
ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is allowed in favor of the claimant. It is held that the service of the claimant
was illegally terminated by the mgt in complete violation of the provisions of 25 F and 25N of the ID Act and
for his unemployment he is required to be reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service.
The mgt is directed to reinstate the claimant into service within a period of one month from the date of
publication of the award and release him the back wages within a further period of one month from the date of
reinstatement without interest failing which the amount accrued shall carry interest @of 6% from the date of
accrual and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 750.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार महाᮧबंधक, भारत इ᭥यूनोलॉिजकल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड, ओपीवी ᭡लांट, चौला, बुलंदशहर (यू.पी), के
ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी राम अवतार ᳲसंह, ᳇ारा - रा᭔य महासिचव, सीटू कायाᭅलय ᭭थानीय बस ᭭टᱹड,
देहरादून, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के
पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 114/2012) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42012/144/2011 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1431
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., OPV Plant, Chaula, Bulandshahr
(U.P), and Shri Ram Avtar Singh, through- State General Secretary, CITU office Local Bus Stand, Dehradun,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42012/144/2011 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 114/2012
Date of Passing Award- 1st May, 2023
Between:
Sh. Ram Avtar Singh,
S/o Late Shri Sukha Singh,
C/o Sh. Virendra Bhandari, State General Secretary,
CITU office Local Bus Stand,
Dehradun.
Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.,
OPV Plant, Chaula,
Bulandshahr (U.P).
….Management.
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma , Ld .A/R for the claimant.
None for the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42012/144/2011 (IR(DU)) dated 26.03.2012 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd. in
terminating the services of workman Ram Avtar Singh S/o Late Sh. Sukha Singh without
complying with section 25 (F)(G) (H) is justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per the claim statement the claimant Ram Avtar Singh was initially appointed on 01.11.1998 as a
casual labour in the establishment of the mgt for doing the work of grass cutting and general cleaning in the
premises of the mgt. He was discharging a perennial nature of work. At the time of initial appointment the mgt
had obtained the signature of the workman on some plain papers and on some vouchers on the pretext that EPF
and ESI subscriptions shall be made for him. But in fact except the ESI subscription no other benefit was
granted to him by the mgt. The claimant during the course of employment had completed 240 days of
continuous service in a calendar year for 3 consecutive years. Hence, the mgt had paid bonus to him. During this
process the claimant had worked continuously from 01.11.1998 to 06.01.2011 as a causal labour. But as per the
notification dated 15.06.1985 issued by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh the service of the claimant should have been
made regular with the mgt since his land was acquired by the mgt. But the mgt did not regularize his service and
1432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman was insisting for the same. This created annoyance in the mind of the mgt and on 07.01.2011 his
service was illegally terminated by the mgt. On that day, when he reached the factory premises the security
guard did not allow him entry and showed a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM(U) in which it
was clearly mentioned that the claimant workman should not be allowed entry into the premises of the mgt to
perform his duty. The said action amounts to termination of the service of the claimant who was working
continuously from Feb 2007, 1998 to Jan 2011. At the time of such termination, the mgt had neither given the
notice of termination notice pay, retrenchment compensation gratuity etc. to the claimant in compliance of the
provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. No disciplinary action was also taken against him before
his termination. There were 14 other co-workmen whose services were regularize by the mgt on the ground that
there lands were acquired by the mgt along with this claimant. Being aggrieved he had raised a dispute before
the Labour Commissioner and on failure of conciliation the appropriate govt. referred the matter to this Tribunal
to adjudicate if a service of the claimant has been illegally terminated. Thus in the claim petition the claimant
had prayed for an award to the effect that the benefits to which the deceased claimant is entitled to be granted to
his legal heirs as per the provisions 25 F and 25N of the Id act along with any other relief which would be
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The mgt filed written statement denying the stands of the claimant. The maintainability of the claim has
been challenged on the ground that there exists no Industrial Dispute between the claimant and the mgt. It has
been specifically stated that the provisions of section 25F 25G and 25H are not applicable since the service of
the claimant was terminated, as admitted by him on account of non performance of duty and disobeying the
directives of his monitoring officer. The claimant had raised a dispute before the conciliation officer Dehradun,
where it was pointed out that the claimant was working as a casual labour/daily wager for grass cutting and
maintenance of garden. He had worked for a short period as a casual worker and paid wage for the said period.
Neither he was a regular employee nor the nature of work executed by him was perennial. Rather the
engagement was on need based. Hence, the service of the claimant came to an end automatically when there was
no work. The claim of the claimant for reinstatement and continuity of service is not maintainable. It has also
been stated that the mgt is a public sector undertaking having it’s own rules for recruitment into regular post.
The claimant was never appointed as a regular employee. Not only that the claimant had not completed 240 days
of work in the preceding calendar year of the alleged termination and as such notice u/s 25F of the ID Act or any
kind of compensation was not payable to him. This claimant along with few other workers was found stealing
valuable articles from the premises of the mgt and for the said incident FIR was lodged. For loss of confidence,
the engagement of the claimant was discontinued. The claimant has not come up with clean hands. Initially he
had filed the claim petition claiming his appointment as an Assistant. On realization of the mistake he amended
the claim petition. Hence, the reliefs sought cannot be granted to him.
The claimant filed written replication to the w.s of the mgt in which it has been explained that the
amendment was for correction of some bona fide mistakes and the earlier claim petition in view of the
amendment cannot be looked into.
On these rival pleadings the following issued are framed for adjudication.
Issues
1 Whether the action of the mgt in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Ram Avtar Singh S/o
Late Sh. Sukhla Singh without complying with 25(F) (G) (H) is justified? If so its effect?
2. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
The claimant testified as WW1. He proved the documents marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/12.
The witness was cross examined at length by the mgt. After closer of the evidence of the claimant, when the mgt
was called upon to adduce evidence, none turned up to adduce evidence and the mgt evidence was closed by
order dated 13.10.2022.
Findings
Issue no.1
It is the stand of the claimant that he was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis on
26.02.2007. Though no document has been produced by the claimant to prove the said engagement, the mgt
while filling w.s has admitted the date of initial engagement. The mgt has also admitted in the pleading that the
claimant was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis for maintenance of the garden and grass cutting. It
has been alleged by the claimant that on 07.01.2011 when he reported for work the security guard did not allow
him entry and showed him a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM R.K Shukla directing that four
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1433
persons should not be allowed to enter and discharge duty. The said letter has been marked as WW1/11. In the
w.s the mgt has stated that for the unruly behavior of the claimant and his involvement in a theft case a decision
was taken not to allow the claimant into the premises of the mgt and as such his service was discontinued. The
other stand taken by the mgt is that the engagement of the claimant was need based and for non availability of
the work his service was discontinued. But surprisingly, no evidence has been adduced by the mgt to prove that
the claimant was ever involved in a case of theft or any dissatisfaction was expressed by the Supervising Officer
about his non performance. The stand taken in the w.s justifying the action stands not proved. Accordingly it is
held that the decision of the mgt in not engaging the claimant who was working continuously from 28.10.1998
to 06.01.2011 without any justification is illegal. This issue is answer in favour of the claimant.
Issue no. 2
The reference has been received to adjudicate on the legality of the termination of the Service of the
claimant and what relief he is entitled to. The claimant while adducing oral evidence has stated that his land was
acquired by the mgt and the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh has issued a GO directing grant of permanent employment to
the persons by the mgt whose land has been acquired. The claimant has filed the said GO as WW1/6. In addition
to that he has stated that 14 persons standing in the same footing have been regularized in service by the mgt.
But absolutory no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove that the policy of the Govt. for giving
permanent employment to the land oustees is still in force. Thus, the claim of the claimant for absorbing him in
a regular post on account of land acquisition seems not legally justified.
In the preceding paragraph it has been held that the termination of the service of the claimant by the
mgt is illegal for non compliance of the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act which is mandatory in nature as
has been held by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco
Industries ltd. (2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court). Now it is to be seen what relief the claimant is entitled
to on account of the said illegal termination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya have held as under:
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
I)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
II) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting
back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or
the Court to visit instance on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of
service. This is so because it is settled lat that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact
lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always employed, the onus
lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
In this case the oral evidence of the workman proves that he is unemployed and having no source of
income. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the mgt. In the case of Anoop Sharma vs. Executive
Engineer Public Health Division Panipat(2010) 5SSF497) the Hon’ble Apex Court have further held that
when the termination of service happens without complying the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act the
action of termination becomes nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in the employment as if his
service was never terminated. The Hon’ble Apex Court in other cases have also stated that factors which are to
be considered while deciding the claim of the claimant for full back wages. The factors are the length of service,
the nature of the work, whether regular or perennial, temporary or seasonal nature etc. In this case the claimant
had worked for the mgt from 2003 to 2011 i.e. for a period of 8 years. The claim of the claimant that he was
discharging function of perennial nature has remained unrebutted. Hence, the Tribunal from the evidence
adduced on record is of the opinion that the claimant should be reinstated into service with full back wages for
the illegal termination of the service. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. Hence
ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is allowed in favor of the claimant. It is held that the service of the claimant
was illegally terminated by the mgt in complete violation of the provisions of 25 F and 25N of the ID Act and
for his unemployment he is required to be reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service.
1434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The mgt is directed to reinstate the claimant into service within a period of one month from the date of
publication of the award and release him the back wages within a further period of one month from the date of
reinstatement without interest failing which the amount accrued shall carry interest @of 6% from the date of
accrual and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 751.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार ᮧबंध िनदेशक, मैनकाइंड फामाᭅ िलिमटेड, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और महासिचव,
भारतीय मेिडकल से᭨स, सुभाष रोड, रोहतक, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह-
᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 70/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत
करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42011/41/2022 -आईआर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Managing Director, Mankind Pharma Ltd., New Delhi, and The General Secretary, Bhartiya
Medical Sales, Subhash Road, Rohtak, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42011/41/2022 -IR (DU)
D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 70/2022
Shri J. P Kaushik,
General Secretary, Bhartiya Medical Sales,
Representatives Mahasangh, 41, 1st Floor, Ganga
Place Complex, Subhash Road, Rohtak -124001.
….claimant
Versus
1. Pratueush Managing Director,
Mankind Pharma Ltd.,
208, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III,
New Delhi110002.
….Management.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/41/2022 IR (DU) dated 21.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1435
“1. Whether the claim of Bhartiya Medical & Sales Representatives Mahasangh (BMSRM) ,
Rohtak Vide Letter dated 10.06.2019 that the management of Mankind Pharma Ltd. New
Delhi compelled the members of Bhartiya Medical and Sales Representatives Mahasangh
(BMSRM), Rohtak to resign from the membership of the union is proper, legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the union is entitled and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?
2. Whehter the claim of the management of Mankind Pharma Ltd. vide letter dated 17.07.2019
that Bhartiya Medical & Sales Representatives Mahasangh (BMSRM), Rohtak resorted to
unfair labour practice by indulging in acts of force or violence or to hold out threats of
intimidation against the workman with a view to prevent from attending work, and
demonstration at the resident of the managerial staff of the company, is proper, legal and
justified? If yes, to that relief the management of Mankind Pharma Ltd. is entitled and what
other directions are necessary in the matter?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management. Neither
the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that
postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of
the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
Dated. 1st May, 2023
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 752.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार अ᭟यᭃ, मुयालय ᳰद᭨ली ᭃेᮢ, ᳰद᭨ली कᱹट; कायᭅकारी िनदेशक,मुयालय ᳰद᭨ली ᭃेᮢ, ᳰद᭨ली कᱹट; वृषभ
᭭टेशन कᱹटीन 25, द मॉल, ᳰद᭨ली कᱹट, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ ᮰ी राम बहारदुर, कामगार , के बीच अनुबंध
मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया
26/2016) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के
साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-81 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chairman, HQ Delhi Area, Delhi Cantt ; The Executive Director, HQ Delhi Area,Delhi Cantt ;
Taurus Station Canteen 25, The Mall, Delhi Cantt, and Shri Ram Bahardur, Worker, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-81-IR (DU)
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
1436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 26/2016
Date of Passing Award- 25.04.2023
Between:
Shri Ram Bahardur, S/o Sh. Gayadeen
R/o V-17, Old Nangal,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
…. Workman
Versus
1. Chairman,
HQ Delhi Area,
Delhi Cantt—110010.
2. Executive Director,
HQ Delhi Area,
Delhi Cantt-110010.
3. Taurus Station Canteen
25, The Mall,
Delhi Cantt-110010
…..Managements
Appearances:-
Shri S.B Shaily,
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey
For the Management
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application u/s 2A filed by the claimant alleging illegal termination by management.
As per the claim statement the claimant was appointed on contractual basis in the management as
Goods checker in March 2010 by the canteen management of headquarter Delhi area Taurus Shopping Arcade
in station canteen, Delhi Cantonment. The appointment letter dated 18.03.2010 was issued to him and the agreed
remuneration per month was 6000/- . The said appointment was for a period of 9 month i.e upto 18.03.2011.
Again by letter no. 31.12.2011, his employment was extended for one year i.e from 31.12.2011 to 30.11.2012.
Though the emolument was the same, this time his appointment was as the Driver. Thereafter by letter dated
03.04.2013 his contract as the driver was extended for a further period of 1 year i.e from 03.04.2013 to
02.03.2014 and the emolument was fixed at Rs. 8008/- per month. Thereafter, on 10.03.2014 the mgt again
extended the contract of the claimant as the Driver for a further period of 11 months w.e.f 10.03.2014 to
09.2.2015 on fixed emolument @ of 8918/- p.m. When the workman was performing his duties with utmost care
and sincerity without giving any scope of complaint, on 11.01.2015 he was served with a show cause notice by
the mgt on the basis of complaint received from Major Manish Narayan on 10.1.2015. The claimant submitted
the written show cause intimating that on 10.01.2015 he was at the gate of the canteen as the guard when Major
Manish Narayan visited CSD canteen with his family. Since, it was the closing time for the canteen the
workman informed him the same. But the officer asked him to open the gate and allow him and his family into
the canteen. Major Manish Narayan being aggrieved and lodged a complaint against him. The show cause filed
by the claimant was perhaps founds satisfactory and thus the mgt took no action against him. While the matter
stood thus on 09.02.2015, the mgt asked 17 employee including the claimant working on contract basis to go on
a compulsory one month leave. The said direction was compiled by the claimant and others. On 07.03.2015 all
the 16 employees except the claimant were allowed to join but the mgt refused to take back the claimant for
work. The decision was taken to punish the claimant for the baseless complaint received from Mj. Manish
Narayan, Thereby an order of dismissal dated 08.02.2015 was served on the claimant dismissing him from
service under the title expiry of contract. Being aggrieved the claimant gave representation to the higher officials
but the same was not considered. The mgt while terminating his service did not comply the provisions of the ID.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1437
Act. No notice of termination, notice pay or termination compensation was paid to him. Since, the action of the
mgt in terminating his service was illegal and unjust and arbitrary the claimant raised a dispute before the
Labour commissioner for redressal of the grievance . The attempt for conciliation failed and the claimant filed
this petition invoking the provisions of Section 2 A of the ID. Act. In the claim it has been prayed that a
direction be issued to the mgt to reinstatement him into service with all consequential benefits and the order of
dismissal be set aside.
The mgt when served with the notice appeared and filed the written statement denying the stand of the
claimant. The maintainability of the proceeding has been challenged on the ground that this is not a case of
termination of service of dismissal but disengagement on expiry of the contract. Hence, the application filed u/s
2 A is not maintainable. It is also stated that the claimant having not being retrenched or dismissed from service
he is not entitled to the notice pay, retrenchment compensation etc as claimed by him. The other stand taken by
the mgt is that the claimant alongwith others were engaged purely on contract basis and the said contract was for
a fixed term. According to the exigencies he was given new appointments on the basis of new contract. On
expiry of the last contract the mgt by letter dated 08.02.2015 had given due intimation to the claimant. His
engagement was never continuous but intermittent. During the intervening period the claimant was never
unemployed but gainfully employed. The claim statement is liable to be dismissed as it is not a case of
termination but denial of reemployment of new contract. It has been stated that the claimant was initially
appointed as a good checker from 19.03.2010 to 18.03.2011. After expiry of the terms of the contract his service
was automatically terminated. He was again appointed as a Driver after a gap of 10 months i.e on 31.12.2011 for
a period of one year. After that period he was reemployed for another period of 1 year i.e from 31.12.2011 to
30.12.2012. Again on 3.4.2013 he was appointed as a Driver for a period of 11 months. Thus, the engagement of
the claimant was never continuous nor he had worked continuously in the establishment of the management.
That being the position the claimant is not entitled to the benefits he has prayed for.
The claimant filed rejoinder denying the stand of the management. It has been stated that he was in
continuous employment of the mgt though the contracts were renewed from time to time and the claimant was
appointed sometimes as good checker and sometimes as driver.
On these rival pleadings following issues were framed for adjudication:
ISSUES
1. Whether the termination of the workman is just and proper, if so its effect?
2. Whether the claim is maintainable, if so its effect?
3. Whether the present claim is covered under the provision of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act. 1947?
4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to?
During the hearing the claimant testified as WW1 and produced a series of documents marked as Exh.
WW1/1 to Exh. WW1/9. The documents includes the appointment letter issued to the claimant on different
dates which are marked as WW1/1 to WW1/5, the copy of the complaint made by Major Manish Narayan the
show cause notice, the reply to the show cause notice, the letter dated 8.02.2015 by the mgt to the claimant
intimating him about the expiry of the contract, his show cause etc. On behalf of the mgt one of the officers of
Taurus Station Canteen testifies as MW1. No document has been filed by the mgt witness. Both the witnesses
are cross examined at length by their adversaries.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that the entire claim is based
upon misconception of facts. The claimant was neither a regular employee nor his service was terminated
entitling the claimant to invoke the provision of Section 2 A of the Id. Act. It is a case simpliciter non
engagement after expiry of the contract. The Ld. A/R for the workman on the contrary submitted that the
claimant is a young person and had worked in the canteen of the mgt from March, 2010 to 09.02.2015. His last
drawn emolument per month was 8918/- . The mgt while filing w.s has clearly admitted about non compliance
of provision of 25 F, 25 H and 25 N of the ID Act. The same amounts to unfair labour practice meted to the
claimant and he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages as the mgt is having vacancies and the
juniors to the claimant have been reappointed.
FINDINGS
Issue No. 1 and 3.
Since the claimant has alleged illegal termination and the management has counter the same saying that
the claimant was not reappointed after expiry of the contract , it has became expedient to examine the nature of
the employment of the claimant with the mgt. Before looking into the evidence it is necessary to examine the
provision of law section 2(oo) defines retrenchment which means termination by employer of the service of a
workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but
1438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
doesnot includes as stated in clause (bb) the termination of service of the workman as a result of the non
renewable of the contract of the 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.
In this case it is a specific stand of the mgt that the claimant was not reemployment after expiry of
contract and it was duly intimated to him. The said letter of intimation has been marked by the claimant as Exh.
WW1/8. The document is in the nature of intimation to the claimant that his contractual engagement will expire
on 9.2.2015 and he will be relieved at 5 p.m of the said date. The claimant has filed the letters of his engagement
as Exh. WW1/1 to WW1/5. From these letters it is noticed that the claimant was interviewed on 13.02.2009 and
appointed as goods checker on a probation period of 3 months starting from 19.02.2010. In Ex. WW1/1 it was
specifically mentioned that on successful completion of probation he will be employed on contract basis for a
further period of 9 months. On 19.06.2010 he was appointed for a period of 9 months i.e upto 18.03.2011. The
document marked as WW1/3 shows that after a gap of 10 months he was given appointment on 31.12.2011 for a
period of 1 year ending on 30.11.2012. Again after a gap of 4 month on 3rd April, 2013 he was given another
contract of employment for a period of 11 month w.e.f 3rd April 2013 to 2nd March, 2014 on the monthly
remuneration of Rs. 8008/-. This time his appointment was as a driver. Again after a gap of few days he was
appointed as a driver from 10.03.2014 to 9.02.2014 as driver on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 8918/-. The
statement of the mgt in the w.s as well as by the MW1 finds corroboration from these documents to the effect
that the claimant was never appointed on contractual basis continuously but he was given engagement pursuant
to different contract for specific period. His service was never continuous. The cases of the claimant thus vary
well false within the exceptional clauses of Section 2 (oo) of ID. Act. The cessation of work of the claimant by
the management cannot be held as termination of service or retrenchment of service. The claimant while signing
the agreement was very much aware that his engagement is for a fixed term and co terminus with the
termination of the contract. Hence, it is concluded that the service of the claimant was never terminated nor he
was retrenched from service. Rather the case of the claimant falls under the provision of Section 2(oo) and (bb)
of the ID. Act. These two issues are accordingly answered against the claimant.
Issue No. 1 and 4.
The witness examine by the management has stated in clear terms that the service of the claimant was
never terminated. When his contract of employment came to an end he was duly intimated by the letter dated
8.02.2015. The said letter has been exhibited by the claimant as WW1/8. The Ld. A/R for the mgt while drawing
the attention of this tribunal to the provision of section 25 F and 25 N of the Id. Act submitted that the said
provision apply as condition precedent to retrenchment. The case of the claimant doenot fall under the category
of retrenchment but a case of non –renewable of contract. Hence, the provision of section 25 F and 25 N were
not applicable in the case of the claimant The document filed by the claimant as WW1/1 to WW1/5 clearly
shows that he was appointed not continuously but intermittently. Hence, the question of working for 240 days
doesnot arise which applies to continuous service rendered by the workman. Hence, it is concluded that the
claim filed under section 2 A of the ID. Act is not maintainable and the claimant is not entitled to the relief
sought for. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The claim filed by the claimant be and the same is dismissed on contest for want of merit. The claimant
is held not entitled to the benefits sought for.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the
ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 753.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार कायᭅ महािनदेशक, सीपीड᭣᭨यूडी, िनमाᭅण भवन, नई ᳰद᭨ली ; कायᭅपालक अिभयंता, वातानुकूलन ᮧमंडल-5
सीपीड᭣᭨यूडी, िव᳒ुत भवन, नई ᳰद᭨ली,के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी िजते᭠ᮤ ᳲसंह,कामगार , अिखल
भारतीय कᱶᮤीय पीड᭣᭨यूडी (एमआरएम) कमᭅचारी संगठन (रिज.), बलबीर नगर एसटᱶशन, शाहदरा, ᳰद᭨ली, के
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1439
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ
संया 158/2015) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट
कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2023-80--आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 158/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director General of Works ,CPWD, Nirman Bhawan , New Delhi ; The Executive Engineer, Air
Conditioning Division-5 CPWD, Vidyut Bhawan, New Delhi, and Shri Jitender Singh , Worker, Through- All
India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd), Balbir Nagar Extention, Shahdra, Delhi, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025/07/2023-80-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 158/2015
Date of Passing Award- 19th April,2023
Between:
Shri. Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Lift Operator,
C/o All India Central PWD (MRM)
Karamchari Sangathan (Regd),
House No. 4823, Gali No. 13,
Balbir Nagar Extention,
Shahdra, Delhi-110032
….Workman
Versus
1. The Director General of Works
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi
2. The Executive Engineer
Air Conditioning Division-5
CPWD, Vidyut Bhawan,
New Delhi
…..Managements.
Appearances:-
Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma. Ld. A/R for the claimant
Sh. Avtar Kaur Dingra, A/R for the management
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying a
direction to the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other
consequential benefits.
As per the claim statement the claimant was engaged to work as a Lift Operator in the premises of the
mgt CPWD at Asia House Curzon Road and Foreign Affair Building New Delhi with effect from 12.05.2013
1440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
through a contractor. The contractor engaged for hiring the service of the workman was changed from time to
time but the workman continued to perform his duty till 10.05.2014. He was performing duty in a 12 hour shift
at both the places without break. But he was not getting the minimum wage notified by the Govt. and all other
statutory benefits like overtime allowance, leave etc. On account of the same, the workman was often raising
demand, which caused annoyance in the mind of the mgt CPWD. Hence, the JE of CPWD by an oral order
illegally terminated his service on 11.05.2014. At the time as such termination, the provisions of section 25F of
the ID Act was not followed. Though his appointment was through the contractor, he was in fact serving under
the mgt CPWD and performing the duty of Lift Operator in the establishment of the mgt which is a part of their
primary and obligatory service. The mgt CPWD is having regular sanctioned posts of Lift Operator and regular
employees are working in such posts all over India and enjoying the benefits of regular employees. Once the
claimant had raised a dispute about the minimum wage before the appropriate authority and the mgt CPWD
appeared before the said authority and informed that the claimant has been engaged through the contractor and
all the benefits he is entitled to shall be granted. But CPWD did not stick to the same. The representation filed
by him was not replied. When the matter stood thus, the mgt terminated his service and the claimant made a
representation to the Executive Engineer CPWD Vidyut Bhawan requesting reinstatement. As no action was
taken the claimant approached the union which too took up the matter. But no fruitful result could be achieved.
Finding no other way the claimant raised a dispute before the conciliation officer and during the hearing before
the Conciliation Officer, it was intimated that the claimant has taken full and final settlement from the mgt
which was a false statement. For the failure of the conciliation, the claimant filed the present claim petition
asserting that he was engaged directly under principal employer CPWD and performing the duties under the
supervision and control of the JE/AE of CPWD. Hence, for the illegal termination of his service the mgt be
directed to reinstate him into service with back wages and also to regularize his service from the date of his
initial employment with regular pay and other benefits at par with the regular counter parts.
The mgt CPWD being noticed, filed written statement denying the stand taken by the claimant. It has
been stated that CPWD is an office functioning under the Ministry of Urban Development and it has it’s own
rules and regulations for appointment of the employees. The regular employees of CPWD are governed by CCS
regulation and statuary instructions issued by DOPT. The claimant was never appointed by the mgt CPWD and
as such, his claim for regularization for service and reinstatement with back wages is baseless. It has been
specifically stated that the CPWD, following the codal procedure awards contract to different contractors for
execution of specific nature of work. The said contractor after entering into the contract, engages persons to
accomplish the work. The persons engaged by the contractor are the employees of the said contractor and can
never be construed as the employees of CPWD. For all purposes, the contractor is the principal employer of the
persons engaged by him. The mgt has admitted that claimant was appointed as a Lift Operator on 12.05.2013 by
M/s Akash Enterprises and he was working under one shift at Asia House. The said area was earlier not under
the supervision of the answering mgt. It was under ECD-VII division of CPWD. The said site was transferred to
ACD-V on 09.09.2013. As per records available the claimant was initially engaged through M/s Akash
Enterprises who was awarded a contract for 8 months i.e. from 12.12.2012 to 23.09.2013. Thereafter, another
contractor namely M/s Guruji Elevator was awarded with the contract. But the claimant continued to work as
the Lift Operator in Asia House and performing the duty on shifts. On exceptional circumstances and with his
consent, he was working for 12 hours. While matter stood thus on, 11.05.2014 the contractor was asked to
change the duty of the claimant from the said site as there were reports about his anti-social behavior and the
Resident Welfare Association had doubt with regard to the involvement of the claimant on the repeated
occasions of theft. One police complaint and enquiry was also made against the claimant. The CPWD in order to
retain it’s image asked the contractor who was the employer to change the location of the claimant from that
site. But the claimant refused his relocation to the other site and accepted his full and final settlement from the
office of the said contractor on 12.05.2015. He also signed the papers relating to his full and final settlement
without any pressure from any quarters. The claimant had never made any allegation with regard to non
payment of minimum wage to him by the contractor or denial of the statutory benefits. The mgt CPWD only
came to know about the grievance of the claimant after getting notice of this proceeding. Thus the mgt has
stated that the claim filed by the claimant against CPWD is not maintainable and he is not entitled to the relief
sought for.
In the written replication the claimant stated that after the contract labour prohibition notification,
neither the mgt CPWD got itself registered under section 7 of the CLRA Act nor the so called contractor has
license in terms of section 12 of the said Act. The claimant, since was discharging duty in connection with the
affairs of the mgt and in the premises of the mgt under it’s supervision and control, he is entitled to the relief and
be treated as the employee of the mgt CPWD.
On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1441
Issues
1. Whether there exists employee and employer relationship between the workman and the mgt? if so its
effect.
2. Whether the contract system in this case is sham and camouflage ? if so it’s effect.
3. Whether the claim is barred by time? If so, it’s effect.
4. Whether workman Sh. Jitnder Singh is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages since he
is alleged illegal termination? If so its effect.
5. Whether workman is entitled to regularization of service with effect from the initial date of appointment
with regular pay and allowances?
The claimant examined himself as WW1 and relied upon the document marked as WW1/1 to WW1/7.
These documents include the log books allegedly containing the signature of the JE some documents relating to
repair of the elevator by the engineers in which the signature of the claimant was taken as the customer, the ID
card issues to the claimant by the contractor and the bill raised by the contractor. On behalf of the mgt one
Narender Kumar, executive engineer testified as MW1. While supporting the averments made in the w.s, he
described the claimant as a person engaged through the contractor for discharging the duty of lift operator. He
has also relied upon few documents which include the contract entered between the CPWD and contractor
namely M/s. Guruji Elevator and M/s. Akash Enterprises. He has also filed the copy of the log books maintained
by M/s. Guruji Elevator and M/s. Akash Enterprises the contractors engaged for the work. With this the witness
has stated that the claimant was never the employee of CPWD and there was no need for registration under the
CLRA as at no point of time more than 20 persons were ever engaged by CPWD in the work of lift operator.
Both the witnesses were cross examined at length by their adversaries.
At the outset of the arguments, the Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted that this is a typical case of
unfair labour practice meted to the claimant. He was engaged in the premises of the mgt to act as the lift
operator and the mgt after the abolition of the contract labour system had never registered itself under CLRA for
engagement of contract labour. The agreement between the mgt and the contractor is sham and intended to
camouflage the legal rights of the claimant. On the other hand, the Ld. A/R for the mgt argued that there was
valid and legal contract between the mgt CPWD and the contractors for operation of the lifts. As a part of the
work assigned the contractor had engaged manpower and the claimant being engaged by the contractor for
execution of the work assigned to the contractor, has not relationship with CPWD. The ld. A/R for the mgt
submitted that the claimant in a mischievous move had obtained the photo copy of the log books unauthorizely.
But the said log books and the payment made by the contractor towards his full and final settlement clearly
proves that he was a n employee of the contractor.
Finding
Issue no 1,2&5
All the issues being inter dependent are taken up for consideration together..
In his pleadings the claimant had admitted at one point of time that he was employed through the
contractor M/s Akash Enterprises. At the other point he has stated that he was the employee of CPWD and
getting the remuneration in cash from the JE. Except the log book containing the signature of the JE at some
placed no other documents have been filed by the claimant to establish a connection between him and the mgt
CPWD as it’s employer. The I-Card produced by him and exhibited was also issued by the contractor. The mgt
has filed the contract document entered between CPWD and Akash Enterprises and CPWD and Guruji Elevators
which proves that there was a valied contract between the said contractor and CPWD. No evidence has been
filed and adduced by the claimant to prove that the said contract was sham and intended to camouflage the right
of the claimant. A mere pleading cannot substitute or take place of evidence. In this case, the mgt has stated that
for some reason the contractor was asked to relocate the claimant form the site of CPWD at Asia House to
Parliament Street. But the claimant refused the proposal and took his full and final settlement. But the claimant
has denied the same. It has been described that the said amount of Rs.52,137/- was paid towards arrear
minimum wages.
The evidence adduced by the parties and the stand taken by them made it imperative on the part of this
tribunal to examine if the claimant, who was admittedly employed through a contractor can maintain a dispute
against the mgt CPWD. The law contained in Section 10 of the CLRA 1987, provides for prohibition of
employment of contract labour. As per the said provision, the appropriate Govt. in consultation with the Central
Board prohibit by notification the employment of contract labour in any process operation or other work in any
1442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
establishment. While doing so the govt. shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the
contract labour in that establishment and the relevant factors are:
A. Whether the process operation or other work is incidental or necessary of the industry or the business
carried on in the establishment.
B. Whether the work is up perennial nature.
C. Whether it is ordinarily done through regular workman of that establishment.
From the said provision it is evidently clear that the appropriate Govt. may make notification
prohibiting employment of contract labour in any establishment. Then the question arose what shall be the status
of the contract labour employed in the establishment. The question was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Steel authority of India (2001(7)) SCC1) the apex court ruled that there cannot be automatic
absorption of contract labour by principal employer or issuance of notification of the govt. It was further held
that after prohibition notification issued, if any industrial dispute is brought before the Tribunal or court, the
industrial adjudicator has to consider whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result in the establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the work of
the establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade complains of beneficial
legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits therein. In the said judgment of Steel Authority of India,
it has also been held where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of a establishment by the
principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent. So there will be master and servant
relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But when the workman is hired in or in
connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor either because he has undertaken to produce a
given result for the establishment or because he supplies workman for any work of the establishment the persons
were employed shall be the employee of the contractor.
In this case, the claimant, as admitted by him was engaged as the Lift Operator through the contractor
and the mgt CPWD has produced documents to prove the valid contract entered between the contractor and the
mgt for execution of the work. Since the claimant was engaged by the contractor for accomplishment of the
work assigned to the contractor, it cannot be construed that the claimant was engaged for the work of the
establishment CPWD and an employee of CPWD. In this case the claimant ha s not adduced any evidence to
prove that he was working under the supervision and control of the mgt or getting remuneration directly from
the mgt. Though he had made an oral statement about the remuneration received by cash from JE, neither any
document has been produced nor called for by the claimant. He had worked for a period of one year only as lift
operator through two separate contractor who were awarded the work by CPWD. In absence of proof on the
employee employer relationship and in absence of evidence to the effect that the claimant was working under
the supervision and control under the mgt CPWD it is held that the claimant had failed to prove his relationship
as the employee of CPWD. The contract entered between CPWD and the contractor in absence of proof to the
contrary, is held to be genuine and not sham. The claimant is held not entitled to reinstatement or regularization
of service. All the issues are answered against the claimant. Hence ordered
The claim be and the same is dismissed on context. The claimant is held not entitled to the benefit
prayed for.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 754.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार नई ᳰद᭨ली नगरपािलका, पᳯरषद, पािलका भवन, संसद मागᭅ, नई ᳰद᭨ली,के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ
और ᮰ी उमाकांत मालाकार, कामगार , ᳇ारा एनडीएमसी जनरल मजदूर यूिनयन शाहजहाँ रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ
सं. 53/2019) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी
के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/247/2018 -आईआर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1443
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to New Delhi Municipal, Council, Palika Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi, and Shri Umakant
Malakar, Worker , Through NDMC General Mazdoor Union, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42011/247/2018 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 53/2019
Date of Passing Award- 25th April, 2023
Between:
Sh. Umakant Malakar,
Through NDMC General Mazdoor Union,
Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10 , Jam Nagar House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.
….Workman
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Palika Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
Appearances:-
Shri B. K Prasad,
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Raghvendra Úpadhaya
For the Management
(A/R)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of NDMC, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d)
of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter
No. L-42011/247/2018 (IR(DU) dated 12.02.2019 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated on the post of MALI w.ef 15.11.2014 (date
of termination) with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits including
regularization in the category of unskilled workman ? If so, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
As per the claim statement, the claimant is a visually impaired person had met the Secretary of
New Delhi Municipal Corporation on 02/03/2013/ during the public hearing and the secy, considering his
physical impairment, allowed him to work as a Mali w. e. f. 04.03. 2013 against the post reserved for
employment of physically handicapped persons. Thus the claimant started working as a Mali in the office of the
Management at Laxmibai Nagar. No appointment letter was issued to him by the Management. Initially he was
paid the remuneration in cash by putting signature on revenue stamps. Subsequently, he was granted the
employee code No and since then the Management transferred his remuneration to his Bank account maintained
with State Bank of India. But on 15.11.2014, the management without assigning any reason terminated his
employment and while doing so the provisions of ID Act as provided u/s 25F, 25G and 25H were not followed.
The juniors to the claimant were retained, whereas the service of the claimant was terminated. He made several
representations to the management praying reinstatement, but those were not considered. Finding no other way
1444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
out he approached the union and the union after proper espousal raised a dispute before the labour
commissioner. Before the said commissioner, the management appeared and filed objection to the stand taken
by the claimant. Attempt was made for conciliation of the dispute, but no fruitful result could be achieved.
Hence, for failure of conciliation, the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication in terms of the
reference. The claimant has stated that he has passed the examination of 10th standard from CBSE and has been
granted a certificate from the appropriate authority for his 100% visual impairment. His candidature should have
been considered as a special case by the Management for the order issued by DOPT reserving 3% of the
vacancies for physically handicapped persons. Hence a prayer has been made for a direction to the management
to reinstate him into service with full back wages from the date of his illegal termination describing the same as
an unfair labour practice.
The management filed WS denying the claim advanced by the claimant. It has been pleaded that the
claimant is neither a workman nor the management an Industry. The claimant was never working as a Mali w. e.
f. 04.03.2013 as claimed by him. He was working as a Temporary Muster Roll Employee to do the work as and
when required. His engagement was purely on need basis and was being done on the approval of the appropriate
authority. The management took a policy decision for appointment /regularization of TMR/ RMR/ Contractual/
Casual Employees working for the management. As per the said decision, the workmen who had completed 500
days of work as on 31.01.2014 were conferred the status of Regular Muster Roll Employees. Since the claimant
had not completed 500 days of work, his case was kept out of consideration. More over the claimant cannot be
granted the relief as claimed since he was never appointed as a Mali which is a regular post on account of his
physical impairment. With this the management has prayed for dismissal of the claim.
On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed.
ISSUES
1-Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2- Whether the termination of the workman is illegal.
3-Whether the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in the post of Mali with full back
wages.
4- To what other relief, the workman is entitled to.
The claimant testified as WW1 and filed some documents marked as WW1/1 to WW1/ 6. The
documents are the certificate of educational qualification and disability of the claimant issued by the appropriate
authority. He has also filed the order of DOPT relating to 3% reservation of posts for physically handicapped
persons. Along with this he has also filed the copy of the failure report of conciliation and the resolution of
espousal by the union and the representation to the management for reinstatement. At the stage of argument the
claimant also filed the copy of the written statement filed by the management before the conciliation officer with
the annexure which is the No of days as per the management the claimant had worked as TMR. To supplement
the work man has also filed a calculation sheet of working days spent by the claimant as RMR.
On behalf of the management one Jitender Kumar, Deputy Director of Horticulture, NDMC testified as
MW1. No document has been placed on record by the Management to support the stand taken in the WS.
At the outset the learned AR for the management submitted that the claimant is not sure about his own
stand. In the claim petition he has claimed to have been appointed as a Mali, which is a permanent post in the
Management. In the evidence he has claimed benefit for having worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
year. While relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble SC including the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs
Ds Bahadur SinghCA No 2195/2007 decided on 27/04/2007, he argued that the Law is well settled that merely
because a person has worked in establishment for 240 days, a right is not created in his favour for regularization.
The Hon’ble Appex court have held that the concept of 240 days was to put a restriction on the employer and
prevent illegal termination. He also argued that no document or other evidence has been filed by the claimant to
prove that he was employed by the management and his service was illegally terminated. It has been argued that
the allegation that the juniors were retained but the claimant’s service was terminated is also wrong. The
management took a policy decision to confer the status of RMR to those TMR who have worked for 500 days or
more as on 31/01/2014. Since the claimant could not qualify in terms of the days of work he was not upgraded
to the cadre of RMR.
The counter argument advanced by the claimant is that he had worked for more than 500 days as TMR
as on 31/01/2014. But he was subjected unfair labour practice by the management. In view of the admission of
facts by the management in the WS filed before the conciliation officer and before this Tribunal, the claimant
cannot be faulted for not adducing adequate evidence.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1445
FINDING
Issue no 1
The claimant has filed a document relating to espousal of the dispute by the Union. The document marked as
WW1/6 has not been challenged by the management. The other challenge is that the claimant is not a workman
as defined u/s 2 s of the ID Act. This provision defines” workman “to be a person employed in any Industry for
work on hire or reward, may be skilled, unskilled technical or manual work, subject to the conditions mentioned
there under. It does not distinguish between regular or temporary workers. This argument as advanced by the
management is held not acceptable and accordingly answered in favour of the claimant.
Issue No 2&3
The grievance of the claimant was that considering his impairment, the secy. of the management
ordered for his engagement on 02/03/2013 as a Mali and he started working in the office of the Management at
Laxmi Nagar. During cross examination he has stated that the nature of the work discharged by him was similar
with the regular employees. His job included watering the plants etc, which is basically the job of the Mali. It is
true that all along the claimant has stated that he was appointed as a Mali and taking advantage of the same the
management has stated that the claimant is illegally demanding the job of a permanent employee and the claim
is not supported by any document.
The WS filed by the Management clearly contains the admission of that the claimant was appointed as
a TMR by the Management. A similar statement was also made in the WS filed before the conciliation officer
which has been filed by the claimant. The management has also admitted that as the TMR an employee code
was allotted to the claimant. The statement of the claimant that with reference to the code allotted to him
management was making payment in his SBI account has not been disputed by the management.
The only dispute is about the termination of service of the claimant. Whereas the claimant has stated
that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and management terminated his service without
complying the provisions of 25F 25 G and 25H of the ID Act, the stand of the management is that for the nature
of the engagement which was intermittent and need based, the provisions of ID Act needs no compliance. The
management has further stated that a decision was taken by the management to regularize the service of TMR
and confer on them the status of RMR ,if a person had worked for 500 days or more before 31.01.2014 as TMR.
The claimant could not qualify the standard and there being no work for him his engagement was not extended
as was done earlier. The management has disputed the initial date of engagement as stated by the claimant to be
04/03/2013. According to the management the claimant had started working on 18.06.2013 at Laxmi Bai Nagar
and as per the available records he had worked for 381 days only as on 15.11.2014. Hence he was not
considered for conferment of the RMR status. Though the statement the management is based on available
records, surprisingly neither with WS nor while examining the Deputy Director as a witness , the related records
were not produced no explanation regarding the same has been offered.
Argument was advanced by the management that I is incumbent upon the workman to prove that he
had worked for a particular No of days to get the benefit under law. In this case the claimant has failed to prove
the same. This argument of the management sounds not convincing as the claimant of this proceeding is a
visually impaired person fighting the litigation against the mighty employer. There is no dispute on facts that the
management has referred to the documents available in their office, relating to the days of work done by the
claimant and basing on the said record, claimant was denied the status of RMR. In such a situation, it is the
management which could have filed the records for disputing or disproving the stand of the claimant. On the
other hand the claimant has filed a calculation showing the no of days year wise and month wise he had worked
in the establishment f the management.
In the case of Gopal Krishanaji Ketkar vs Md Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1413, the
Hon’ble SC have held that the burden of proving a fact is on the management as the party in possession of the
evidence. It can not rely on the abstract doctrine of onus of proof to disown the responsibility. The same view
was later taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of BalKishan vs Presiding
Officer, 1996 (3)SCT,548 and Ramesh Kumar vs P O Industrial Tribunal Panipat & another ,2018 LLR
1229.Thus in absence of documents which are in the custody of the management, this Tribunal has no hesitation
in accepting the claim of the claimant that he had worked for the required No of days entitling him to the
benefits granted to his co workers and it is also held that the stand of the management that the claimant having
not worked for 500 days preceding to 31.1.2014 was not considered for appointment as the RMR is held
unfounded.. The denial by the management to grant the benefits to the claimant at par with the co workers
standing in the same footing amounts to unfair labour practice.
Now it is to be examined, what relief the workman is entitled to. The learned AR for the management
by drawing attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble SC in the case of D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A Industries Ltd,
1993, LLJ II, 696, submitted that the Hon’ble SC have held that the termination of service of a person not only
impacts his livelihood but also the carrier and livelihood of the dependants. In this case the claimant a visually
1446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
impaired person was earning his livelihood from the employment with the management. The claimant as a
witness has stated that he is having the wife and four children as dependents and he is unemployed since the
date of termination of his service and does not have any other source of income. In view of the evidence, it is
felt expedient in the interest of justice to issue a direction to the management to confer him the status of RMR
w.e.f. 23rd September 2014 , when persons standing in the same footing, by office order No I/c CGIT
Cell/248/H.A dt 23rd Sept 2014,were conferred the RMR status on Group D and grant him all consequential
benefits including the remuneration. These two issues are accordingly decided in favour of the claimant.
ISSUE No 4
In view of the finding arrived in respect of issue no2&3, the claimant is held not entitled to any other
relief except as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the claimant
workman is entitled to the status of RMR w.e.f. 23rd September 2014 , when persons standing in the same
footing, by office order No I/c CGIT Cell/248/H.A dt 23rd Sept 2014,were conferred the RMR status on Group
D and grant him all consequential benefits including the remuneration. The management is further directed to
induct the claimant into the list of RMRs within one month from the date of publication of the award and pay
him the financial benefits including the arrear and other consequential benefits within a further period of one
month. The arrear shall be paid with a nominal interest of 3% from the date of accrual as the claimant, for the
unfair labour practice meted to him, is fighting the litigation since 2014, in different forums. If the amount as
directed, would not be paid within the time stipulated, the same shall carry interest @6% from the date of
accrual and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 755.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार महाᮧबंधक, भारतीय रा᳦ीय साइᳰकल िनगम,ᳲहंद नगर, गािजयाबाद, (यू.पी), के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब
िनयोजकᲂ और महासिचव, सीड᭣᭨यूसी मजदूर यूिनयन, राजीव नगर कॉलोनी, चारहोली एसटᱶशन पूवᱮ ᳰद᭨ली, के
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ
संया 57/2015) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट
कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/5/2014 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Managing Director,Central Warehousing Corporation,Inland Container Depot Near Gazipur
Village, Patparganj Delhi; Suman Forewarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. CD, Near Gazipur Village, Patparganj.Delhi,
and The General Secretary,CWC Mazdoor Uinon, Rajiv Nagar Colony, Charoli Ext East Delhi, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42011/5/2014-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 57/2015
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1447
Date of Passing Award- 10th April, 2023.
Between:
The General Secretary,
CWC Mazdoor Uinon,
B-1/200, Gali No.1 Rajiv Nagar Colony,
Charoli Ext East Delhi-110096
….Claimant
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Inland Container Depot Near Gazipur Village,
Patparganj Delhi- 110096
2. Suman Forewarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.
ICD, Near Gazipur Village,
Patparganj.Delhi-110096
….Managements
Appearances:-
None for the Claimant.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. A/R for the management.
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of(i) The Managing Director,Central Warehousing
Corporation,,(ii) The Regional Manager,Central warehousing Corporation,(iii) The Manager, Aqdas marititime
Agency Pvt. Ltd. (iv) The Manager, Suman Forewarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. and its workman/claimant herein,
under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide
letter No. L-42011/5/2014(IR(M)) dated 30/10/2014 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect’;
“Whether the engagement of contractors in the establishment of Central Warehousing
Corporation for the work of loading/unloading & stuffing/De-stuffing can be considered as
Sham and Camouflage? If yes, whether non-regularization of workmen in the establishment of
Central Warehousing Corporation is just, fare and legal? If not, what relief the workmen
concerned (202 workmen) are entitled to?”
As per the claim statement, the Management CWC is a statutory corporation established under the statutory
corporation Act 1962. It maintains warehouses to store and facilitate transportation of agricultural products,
seeds, manures, fertilizers, agricultural implements and other notified commodities offered by individuals and
organizations. In order to fulfill the obligation and carry out it’s business , it has constructed 15 godowns and 1
yard a t Patparganj, in each godown, there are approximately 20 labourers and one packer engaged. The packer
also performs the duty of the Godown in charge and opens the cargo box for inspection of the custom
authorities and again repacks the same. He performs the duty with the risk of coming in contact with dangerous
gas and substance some times as no safety measure is provided by the CWC. The labourers engaged also
perform the work which is highly risky without any safety measure. The loading and unloading work of CWC is
basically done by the labourers. The nature of the work done by the packers and labourers as loaders and un
loaders is of perennial nature as the same is the primary function of CWC.
But the management CWC engages the loaders and the packers through some private agencies/ contractors,
who are no other than the name lenders. In fact the workmen discharge the functions directly under the
supervision and control of CWC and it’s officials and introduction of the contractor is only meant to deprive the
workmen of their right for regularization in the service of CWC. All these workers are paid their wages by CWC
which by it’s officials keeps control and supervision over the work of the workmen. Though the contractors are
changed on intervals, the workmen are never changed nor any break in their service is effected. Thus they are
continuously and un interruptedly working for the management and each of the workers have completed work
for 240 days or more in a calendar year in the establishment of the management. Neither the management CWC
is registered under CLRA nor the contractors engaged are having license to engage contract labours. Several
representations were made to the management of CWC claiming regularization of service of the workers
1448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
working for a long time as some of the workers are working since the year 1985. But no result could be
achieved. Hence the workmen through their union approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing CWP
No 48/2000. The Hon’ble court disposed of ft he CWP by order dt 17/10/2000 observing that the matter be
referred to the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board. Accordingly the board heard the matter from both the
parties and observed that the workmen are getting much less remunerating in comparison to the regular
employees discharging similar nature of work at the other centres of CWC across India. The Govt. as per the
observation of the Board issued Notification dt 17/11/2006, abolished engagement of contract labour in the
handling and loading unloading of import and export containers. The management CWC challenged the
notification by filing WP No 4114/2008 and operation of the notification was stayed. But the claim of the
claimants are that they are employed directly by the management of CWC and the contractors are shown as
engaged to deprive the workmen of their right for regularization. Having failed in their effort for redressal of the
grievance, the claimants through the union raised an Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer. The
attempt for conciliation failed for the non co operation of the management and the appropriate Govt. referred the
matter for adjudication in terms of the reference.
Being noticed the management CWC appeared and filed WS refuting the stand of the claimants taken in
the claim petition. Besides challenging the maintainability for want of espousal, it has been stated that the CWC
is operating the inland clearance Depot at Patparganj under the license issued by the Custom Authorities. The
center has to close down on withdrawal of the License as has been done in other centres of CWC. Hence there is
no possibility of employing any person permanently or on regular basis at Patparganj Depot. More over for
introduction of mechanized transporting, handling, packing etc, the man power requirement has diminished
considerably. The business of CWC has also decreased considerably in the current time. The notification
prohibiting engagement of contract Labour has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court. Moreover, the workmen
have never worked under the supervision and control of CWC. They are the persons engaged by the contractor
awarded with the contract for a specific work and for specific time. Hence the claim of regularization as
advanced by the workmen is baseless and liable to be rejected.
On the rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1- Whether the engagement of contractors in CWC for work of loading and unloading & stuffing can be
considered as sham and camouflage? If so effect.
2- Whether the non regularization of the workmen in the establishment of CWC is legal, just and fair?
3- Whether the management has challenged the reference order? If not effect.
4- Whether the dispute raised by the workmen through the Union has been properly espoused? If not
effect.
5- To what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?
The claimants thereafter were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their claim. Several
opportunities were allowed for the purpose and for non appearance of the claimants fresh notices were also
issued. Despite that when the claimants did not turn up, the opportunity for adducing evidence was closed.
Thereafter the management was called upon to adduce evidence. But there being no evidence adduced by the
claimants to discharge the burden of proof, the management expressed that no evidence by the management
shall be adduced. Hence evidence was closed, argument was heard being advanced by the management.
During argument the learned AR for the management submitted that the burden of proof being on the
claimant, they opted not to adduce evidence. Whereas the stand taken in the claim petition has not been
substantiated the stand taken by the management stands unrebutted. Hence the claim be decided against the
claimants.
On hearing the argument advanced by the management it is held that the claim advanced by the claimants
has not been established. Hence a no dispute award is to be passed. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The reference be, and the same is answered against the claimants. The claim having not been established,
this no dispute award is passed.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the
ID act 1947.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1449
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 756.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार महाᮧबंधक, भारतीय रा᳦ीय साइᳰकल िनगम,ᳲहंद नगर, गािजयाबाद, (यू.पी), के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब
िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी चमेल ᳲसंह, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म
᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 40/2011) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत
करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/4/2011 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, National Bicycle Corporation of India,Hind Nagar, Ghaziabad, (U.P.), and
Shri Chamel Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42011/4/2011-IR (DU))]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 40/2011
Date of Passing Award- 17.04.2023
Between:
Shri Chamel Singh S/o Sh. Richpal Singh
PO Chipiyana Bujurg,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P
….Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
National Bicycle Corporation of India,
Hind Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
….Management
Appearances:-
Shri Kailash, Ld. A/R for the Claimant.
Shri Praveen Sharma, Ld. A/R for the Management.
1450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of (i) The General Manager, National Bicycle Corporation of
India, Hind Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and
sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42011/4/2011-(IR(DU))
dated 09/05/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of Management of National Bicycle Corporation of India, Ghaziabad,
in removing the services of Shri Chamel Singh S/o Shri Richpal Singh, w.e.f. 18/06/1992, is
legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
This order deals with the grievance of the claimant with regard to the punishment imposed on him in
the domestic inquiry whichhe describes as unreasonably disproportionate to the charge leveled against him.
In order to deal with the dispute and the grievance of the claimant it is necessary to set out the relevant
facts as per the claim statement in detail.
The claimant was working as a turner in the factory of the management since 16.05.1983.he was
involved in the union activities and often raising demand in respect of the legal and legitimate claims of the
fellow workers. That had caused displeasure to the Management, which was searching opportunity of framing
the claimant and removing him from service. On 01/01.1990, on some false allegations charge was framed
against him and a show cause notice was served. The claimant workman submitted reply denying the charge.
But the management found the same unsatisfactory and un acceptable. A domestic inquiry was conducted in
respect of the said charges. The domestic inquiry was conducted in the most unfair manner in as much as the
principles of natural justice were not followed and the documents demanded by the claimant were not supplied.
In a pre determined manner the inquiry was closed and the major punishment in terms of removal from service
was imposed on him by order dt 18/06/1992. Being aggrieved the claimant raised an Industrial Dispute before
the labour commissioner. The effort for conciliation since failed,the appropriate Govt. referred the matter to this
Tribunal for adjudication in terms of the reference.
The management filed written statement denying the stand of the claimant. On behalf of the
management it was pleaded that the claimant had conducted gross misconduct by his in disciplined behavior at
work place. It is not the singular occasion, but a several previous occasions too he was proceeded with
punishment for such behavior. Once in the year 1979 and again in the year 1984, his service was terminated. But
on both the occasions on humanitarian consideration, the representations of the claimant was allowed and he
was re-appointed. But the claimant never tried to mend his behavior. His undisciplined behavior caused
disturbance in the work balance of the management. Hence as the last instance the domestic inquiry was
conducted against him by charge sheet dt 18/06/1992 and the charge being proved, his service was terminated
on 18/06/1992.
In view of the pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1-Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper?
2-Whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurates to his misconduct?
3-Whether delay in filing the claim statement frustrates the relevant claim?
4-Whether the Management has closed it’s business activities. If so it’s effect
5-As in terms of reference.
The Tribunal directed for hearing of issue no 1 as the preliminary issue. Both parties were allowed to
adduce oral as well as documentary evidence. On considering the evidence and after hearing argument, the
Tribunal by order dt 17/10/2022, came to a finding that the domestic inquiry against the workman was
conducted fairly following the principles of natural justice and due opportunity was allowed to him to set up his
defence. Thus the parties were called upon to advance argument on the proportionality of the punishment
awarded.
As directed both the parties advanced oral argument and also filed written notes of submission which
were taken on record.
During course of argument the learned counsel for the management submitted that the inquiry was
conducted in presence of the workman and the charge of misconduct was duly proved. This being a case of loss
of confidence on the employee, the punishment was appropriately imposed. Drawing the attention to the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1451
exhibited documents and the proceeding of the departmental inquiry, he submitted that the charge has been duly
proved against the claimant in this proceeding. Hence the Tribunal should not sit over the punishment imposed
as if the appellate authority.
Whereas the learned AR for the Management supported the order imposing punishment as proper, the
claimant has described the same as extremely harsh. During course of argument it was pointed out by the AR for
the claimant that for the long drawn litigation, the claimant was deprived of contesting the matter properly and
now suffering for the illegal order of dismissal. Hence a lenient view may be taken in the matter for deciding the
proportionality of the punishment. The counter argument by the learned AR for the management is that it is a
case of loss of confidence. The business of the management establishment has been permanently closed for the
order passed by the Hon’ble H C of Bombay followed by the decision taken by the Govt. The action of the
claimant had visibly impacted the business of the respondent in the past and the respondent establishment
having been closed permanently, no modification in the order of punishment is warranted and the claimant
workman does not deserve any sympathy.
Now, in view of the arguments advanced by the parties,a finding is to be given on the proportionality
of the punishment imposed on the claimant. In the case of Muriadih Colliery VS Bihar CoallieryKamgar
Union (2005) 3 SCC331,The Hon’ble SC have held
“it is well-established principle in law that in a given circumstance, it is open for the Industrial Tribunal
acting u/s 11-A of the I D Act 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good
and valid reasons. If the tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment awarded in domestic inquiry, it
should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and stringency of the
punishment.”
Whether a misconduct is severe or otherwise, depends on the facts of each particular case. In a case
where the charge is about indiscipline and refusal to undertake the work assigned, no doubt the same is serious
in nature and distinguishable from the charge of demeanor or in – subordination. More over it is a matter of
record that the claimant, on two previous occasions were proceeded for the misconduct and his service was
terminated once on 10.03.1979 and again on 18.06.1992. As stated by the witness examined by the
management, he was re appointed on consideration of his representations. The learned AR for the management
thus argued that the management on both the occasions had considered the case of the claimant on humanitarian
ground. But for the un amended conduct of the claimant, the management lost confidence and imposed the
punishment which has been challenged in this proceeding. No explanation has been offered nor there is any
evidence adduced by the claimant to believe that the action as stated by the management was not taken against
him. The argument that he was made a victim of the vindication on account of his union activities is found not
acceptable.
In the case of Regional Manager U.P. SRTC, Etawah & others VS Hotilal and another,2003(3)
SCC 605, reffered in the later case of U.P.SRTC VS Nanhelal Kushwaha(2009) 8 SCC, 772, the Hon’ble
Appex Court have held that “The court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record
reason as to why it is felt that the punishment inflicted was not commensurate with the proved charge. A mere
statement that the punishment is not proportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved ,but the
mental set up, the type of the duty performed and similar relevant circumstances, which go into the decision
making process are to be considered while deciding the proportionality of the punishment awarded. If the
charged employee holds a position of trust where Honesty and Integrity are in built requirements of functioning,
it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.”
As stated in the preceeding paragraph the allegation against the claimant was of misconduct on account
of refusal to perform the duty assigned, leading to loss of confidence of the employer on the employee. The
management was a factory engaged in manufacturing of Bi Cycles. Machines as well as man power was
involved in the process of production. The workman was working as a turner and on the relevant date he was
assigned the duty in the lever turning fencing from maintenance by the supervisor. The order was duly received
by the claimant, but he refused to perform the duty so assigned.
The learned AR for the management while placing reliance in the case of M/S Firestone Tyre and
Rubber Co of India vs The Management And Others argued that the discretion vested in the Tribunal u/s
11-A should be judiciously exercised. The crux of his argument is that the punishment imposed on the claimant
is appropriate to the charge and the Tribunal should not interfere.
The learned AR for the claimant on the other hand argued on the legislative intention behind
incorporation of sec 11A of the Act by placing reliance in the case of ML Singla vs Punjab National Bank,
AIR 2018 SC 4668, and submitted that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble SC have held that even if the issue
1452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relating to the fairness of the inquiry is decided in favour of the employer, even then the Tribunal has to consider
if the punishment commensurate the charge.
It is felt proper to observe herethat in the case of Firestone referred supra, the Hon’ble SC have held
that after incorporation of the provision of sec 11A in the ID Act, the Tribunal, in order to record a finding on
the fairness of the domestic inquiry or the proportionality of the punishment, can not be confined to the
materials which were available at the domestic inquiry. On the otherhand ‘material on record’ in the proviso to
sec 11A of the ID Act must be held to refer the materials before the Tribunal. Which are(1) the evidence taken
in by the parties during the domestic inquiry (2) the evidence taken before the Tribunal. But in this case no
evidence has been adduced by the claimant before this Tribunal to presume that the punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the charge. The evidence was adduced to prove the irregularities in conduct of the domestic
inquiry, which was not found worthy of acceptance. On the other hand the witness examined by the
management has proved the past misconduct of the workman and the punishment imposed which has attained
finality and admitted by the workman. Thus on considering the evidence adduced before this Tribunal, the one
and only conclusion is that the punishment imposed on the claimant for disobedience of the direction which
amounts to mis conduct, is proportionate to the charge and same has been imposed for loss of confidence on the
employee by the employer. Hence it is not felt proper to interfere and modify the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority, in exercise of the power conferred u/s 11A of the ID Act. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The claim advanced by the claimant be and the same is answered against him. The finding of the
disciplinary Authority in imposing the punishment is held proportionate to the finding of misconduct. The
claimant is held not entitled to any relief.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 757.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार ह᭭तिश᭨प और हथकरघा िनयाᭅत कापᲃरेशन,भारत, सरकार कᳱ एक इकाई भारत, ओ/ओ जवाहर ᳞ापार
भवन, अनुलᲨक-1, टॉल᭭टॉय मागᭅ, नई ᳰद᭨ली ; मैससᭅ लॉथ चैनल, 393, सेटर-29, नोएडा, िजला- गौतम बु
नगर, (यू.पी), के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी रहमत खान और 17 अ᭠य, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ
िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 21/2017) को
जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42012/12/2017 -आईआर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corp. India, A unit of Govt. India, O/o Jawahar Vyapar
Bhawan, Annex-1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi ; M/s Clothes Channel, 393, Sector-29, Noida, Distt. Gautam
Budh Nagar,(U.P), and Shri Rahmat Khan & 17 Ors, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L-42012/12/2017 - IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1453
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-LabourCourt-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 21/2017
Date of Passing Award- 18.04.2023
Between:
Sh. Rahmat Khan S/o Mohd. Shaffi,
& 17 Ors, R/o H.No. A-1296,
Durga Gali, Mandwali, Delhi-110092
….Workman
Versus
1. The Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corp.
India, A unit of Govt. India,
O/o Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Annex-1,
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. M/s Clothes Channel, 393, Sector-29,
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar,
Gautam Buddh Nagar (UP)
…..Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Ajit Singh Ld. A/R for the claimant.
None for the Management.
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. he management of (i) The Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corp. India, A
unit of Govt. India, (ii) M/s Clothes Channel, 393, Sector-29,Noida, and its workman/claimant herein, under
clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter
No. L-42012/12/2017-(IR(DU)) dated 05/06/2017 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the workmen i.e. Sh. Rahmat Khan S/o Mohd. Shaffi and 17 others whose
details are enclosed herewith in annexure HHEC are entitled for re-instatement against
the management of the Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation of India as
Tailor with all consequential benefits? If not, then, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
As stated in the claim petition, the claimants who are 18 in No were working in the establishment of
Management no 1 as it’s permanent employee since the date mentioned in the claim petition as tailors. Though
they were working for management No 1 with all sincerity and honesty, the later was not extending the legal
and legitimate service benefits to them. The management No 1 was not paying them the minimum wage as
notified from time to time by the Govt. the claimants were often raising the issue and demanding the legal
benefits from the said employer. Being aggrieved, the management No 1 made a statement that the claimants are
not the employees of HHE C but the employees of the contractor M/S Cloth Channel. But there never existed
employer employee relationship between the said contractor and the workmen. Any contract , if any, between
the Management No 1 and Mgt No 2 is sham and intended to camouflage the legal rights of the claimants. The
claimants had earlier raised a dispute before the appropriate authority claiming minimum wage and an order was
passed by the said authority in favour of the claimants.
Suddenly, the management no 1 stopped giving work to the claimants w. e. f.01.09.1991 and thereby
terminated their service without notice and without following the procedure laid down under the ID Act. On
04.03.1991, the claimants served a demand notice on management no 1. But the same was not replied. A dispute
was raised before the Labour commissioner Ghaziabad and the effort for conciliation failed. Hence an Industrial
Dispute was raised by these workmen before the Labour Court Ghaziabad and the learned Labour Court had
passed an award in favour of the claimants on 16.08.2010 directing reinstatement with full back wages.
1454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Respondent No 1 challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. There,
the management never came up with clean hand. However it agreed to pay the minimum wage as notified by the
Govt. thereafter the Management continued to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 1500/- per month to each of the
claimants as their wage until the dispute was finally decided by the Hon’ble H C of Allahabad by order dt
22.08.2016.theHon’ble H C of Allahabad in their final order came to hold that the Labour Court Ghaziabad
lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute and thereby set aside the impugned Award. Hence the reference was
again made to this Tribunal for adjudication. The claimants have further stated that the Hon’ble HC while taking
note of the fact that the claimants are unemployed since 26 years directed for expeditious disposal of the
reference.
The other stand as per the claim statement is that the claimants were the employees of Management NO
1 and working under it’s direct control and supervision it was paying remuneration to them and each claimant
had worked for the Management no 1 for more than 10 years before their services were terminated .hence an
award be passed in their favour directing the management to reinstate them in service with full back wages.
The Management No 1 appeared in response to the notice and filed WS denying all the stand taken by
the claimants. Amongst others it has been pleaded that the present proceeding is hit under the principle of
Resjudicata as the Hon’ble HC of Allahabad have already decided the employer and employee relationship
between the parties and the said judgment has attained finality not being challenged in any other higher forum.
Besides that it has been pleaded that the claimants were employed by the contractor Respondent No 2 , who was
awarded a contract for some work and for execution of the said work, the claimant workmen might have been
engaged. The said contractor, Respondent No 2 is a registered firm and besides paying remuneration to the
claimants, it was also making contribution to EPF and ESI in respect of these workmen and making necessary
deduction from their wage. The workmen of this proceeding had never worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year under the employment of the Respondent No 1. Hence their prayer for grant of temporary status
and reinstatement in to service is untenable under law. The claim is liable to be dismissed being barred by
limitation too.
In the rejoinder filed the claimants have denied the stand of the Respondent no 1 with regard to
limitation and Resjudicata. It has been stated that the claim was raised before the Labour Court Ghaziabad and
an award was passed in favour of these workmen. But the Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour
Court Ghaziabad and the Hon’ble HC of Allahabad disposed of the WPC giving liberty of raising the dispute in
the appropriate forum. Hence the proceeding is not barred by limitation. It has also been stated that the Hon’ble
HC of Allahabad have not expressed any view on the merit of the matter nor have decided any issue of
controversy. Hence the principle of Resjudicata does not apply to this proceeding.
On these rival pleadings the issues were framed as under by order dt 19/02/2018.
ISSUES
1- Whether the claim is not legally tenable in view of the various preliminary objections.
2- In terms of reference.
The workmen adduced evidence by examining 17 witnesses who are the claimants of this proceeding.
Except witness No 1 the Respondent No 1 did not cross examine the other witnesses and did not appear during
the dates of the proceeding, hence the cross examination of the witnesses were marked as nil by Respondent No
1 and the claimants closed their evidence. The respondent No 2i.e the Cloth channel did not appear in this
proceeding and by order dt 18/01/2019, the said Respondent was proceeded ex parte.
Findings
Issue no 1
The contesting respondent while filing WS has challenged the maintainability of the proceeding mainly
on two grounds i.e the proceeding is barred by limitation and the same is hit under the principle of Resjudicata
as the Hon’ble HC of Allahabad have already decided the relationship of the parties ab\nd their claim. As stated
above no evidence has been adduced in this proceeding by the Respondent No 1. The judgment of the Hon’ble
HC of Allahabad dt 22/08/2016, passed in Writ case No 28105/2011 has been placed on record by the parties.
On a careful reading of the said judgment, it appears that the order of the Labour Court Ghaziabad was set aside
on the ground of want of jurisdiction only andliberty was granted to the claimants for raising the dispute before
the appropriate forum. The Hon’ble Court have not decided the issues involved in the proceeding. Hence it can
not be held that the present proceeding is barred under the principle of Resjudicata.
So far as the objection relating to limitation is concerned, it is found from record that from the date of
their termination, the claimants are fighting the litigation before the Labour court Ghaziabad and before the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1455
Hon’ble HC of Allahabad. The Hon’ble court set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and liberty being
granted the present dispute has been referred by the appropriate Govt. to this Tribunal. The Hon’ble HC have
clearly observed that 26 years have passed in the meantime and the claimants are pursuing their cause which
needs early disposal. For the said observation of the Hon’ble Court and for the on going litigations, it is held that
the proceeding is not barred by limitation and the objection raised by the Respondent is rejected. This issue is
accordingly decided in favour of the claimants.
Issue No 2
The claimant no1 i.e. Rehamat Khan testified as WW1 and produced a No of documents marked in the
series of WW1/1 to WW1/8. Another claimant Bindan Singh also testified as WW2. He , besidesrelying upon
the documents filed by WW1 proved his bank pass book to prove that he was getting remuneration from the
Respondent 1. These two witnesses were cross examined by the Respondent No 1. All other claimants examined
as witnesses were not cross examined and their evidence stands un rebutted and un challenged. The witnesses
examined have stated in clear terms that they were employed by the management No 1 and getting remuneration
directly from the said management. However, the management was not paying them appropriate wage and not
extending the statutory benefits. Though the respondent has taken a stand that the claimants were engaged by
Respondent No2 , who was awarded a contract for execution of specific work and the contractor being their
employer was paying them wage and making statutory deductions, no evidence to prove the said stand has been
adduced by the management. Neither the copy of the agreement nor the documents relating to payment made by
the Respondent No 1 to Respondent No 2 towards the wage of these claimants has been placed on record. On
the contrary the documents filed by the claimants which include their Bank pass book and attendance register
clearly prove that the claimants from the first date of their engagement and till the date of their termination were
working under the establishment of Respondent No 1 under the supervision and control of it’s officers and had
discharged the duty continuously for more that 240 days in a calendar year. But Respondent Management No 1
terminated their services illegally w. e. f. 01.09.1991. at the time of such termination as admitted by the
Respondent no notice of termination, notice pay or termination compensation was paid as provided u/s 25 F of
the ID Act. It is a fact noticeable that the claimants are litigating for the injustice meted to them in one forum or
other and more than 30 years have passed in the mean time. The claimants who had appeared before this
Tribunal were all found to be old and already attained the age of superannuation. The termination of their
service is held at the instance of Respondent No 1 as no contrary evidence than adduced by the claimants is
available on record. Hence it is concluded that no order of reinstatement with back wages c can be passed in the
circumstances. The claimants are held entitled to a certain amount of compensation which would serve the ends
of justice. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimants.
Hence ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimants. It is held that the claimants were
engaged for work by the Respondent No 1 on different dates as mentioned in the list annexed to this order. But
their services were illegally terminated by Respondent No 1 w. e. f. 01.09.1991. more than 31 years have passed
in the meantime. In view of the circumstances, it is felt proper to allow them to get an amount of compensation
instead of a direction for re instatement with back wages. Accordingly the respondent No 1 i.e Handicrafts &
Handloom Export Corporation of India shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs 5,00,000/-(five lakh) to each of the
claimants within 60 days from the publication of the Award failing which the amount as directed shall carry
interest @6% per annum from the date of this award and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 758.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार कायᭅ महािनदेशक, कᱶᮤीय लोक िनमाᭅण िवभाग,िनमाᭅण भवन, नई ᳰद᭨ली; कायᭅकारी अिभयंता, कᱶᮤीय लोक
िनमाᭅण िवभाग, िव᳒ुत ᮧभाग संया VIII, िनमाᭅण भवन, नई ᳰद᭨ली; कायᭅकारी अिभयंता, कᱶᮤीय लोक िनमाᭅण
िवभाग िव᳒ुत िनमाᭅण, ᮧभाग-I, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और महासिचव, कᱶᮤीय लोक िनमाᭅण
िवभाग कमᭅचारी संघ, करोल बाग, नई ᳰद᭨ली,, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण-
1456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 03/2004) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को
ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42012/77/2003-आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi ;The
Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Electric Division No. VIII, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi;
The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Electric Construction, Division-I, New Delhi, and
The General Secretay, C.P.W.D Workers Organization, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42012/77/2003-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 03/2004
Date of Passing Award- 20.04.2023
Between:
The General Secretay,
C.P.W.D Workers Organization,
3A/38, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi
New Delhi-110005
….Workman
Versus
1. The Director General of Works,
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The Executive Engineer,
Central Public Works Department,
Electric Division No. VIII, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Executive Engineer,
Central Public Works Department
Electric Construction, Division-I,
New Delhi-110001
….Managements
Appearances:-
Shri B.K Prasad, Ld. A/R for the Claimant.
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. A/R for the Management.
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of (i) The Director General of Works, Central Public Works
Department,(ii) The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department Electric Division No. VIII, (iii) The
Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department Electric Construction, Division-I, and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42012/77/2003-(IR(CM-II)) dated 23/12/2003 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1457
“Whether the demand of the CPWD Workers’ Organisation for regularization/Absorption of
the services of workmen, namely S/Shri Rajiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar Singh and S/Shri
Ram Raj Singh, Raj Kumar and Bhupinder Singh (working as contract labourers, against the
job of Fire Alarm Operator) in the establishment of Central Public Works Department at Fire
Control Rooms, Nirman Bhawan and Shastri Bhawan Division, New Delhi respectively is legal
and justified? If yes, to what relief these workmen are entitled?”
As stated in the claim statement the claimants who are 5 in number have been continuously working for
the mgt CPWD as Fire Alarm Operator since the year 1996-1998-1999 and 2000 respectively. The details of the
workmen including their date of joining place of work and the salary drawn has been described in detailed in the
claim statement. It has further been pleaded that they are discharging the duty which is perennial in nature but
the CPWD was paying them less than the minimum wage which is even 1/3 of the wage paid to it’s regular
workers of similar category. They were not getting the facilities available to the regular employees who are
discharging similar nature of work including leave, bonus, uniform and medical facilities etc. The workmen
were often raising objection for the same. The mgt CPWD had entered into contract with the different
contractors and the claimants were shown engaged through the said contractors. But the contract so entered is
sham and intended to camouflage the rights of the claimants. The work performed by the workmen is of
perennial in nature and the same is incidental to the mandatory activities of CPWD. When the claimants for the
ill motive of CPWD were shown engaged through the contractor, the said contractor had no license as envisaged
in section 12 of the CLRA Act, 1970. Not only that, the CPWD has no registration to engage contract labour as
provided u/s 7 of the said Act. Since, the claimants were working under the supervision and control of CPWD in
it’s premises and the nature of work including the mandatory duties of CPWD, there exists a master and servant
relation between the claimants and the mgt CPWD. When the claimants were recruited, their qualifications were
verified by CPWD. The allotment of duty, supervision and control of the same are within the power and control
of the officers of CPWD, who use to make regular check of their attendance and performance. On the pretext of
the sham and bogus contract, CPWD was denying the legitimate rights to the claimants. Being aggrieved the
claimants had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition seeking their regularization
and abolition of contract labour system. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in view of the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Steel Authority of India, disposed of the
writ petition and granted liberty to the claimants to initiate legal proceeding before the appropriate authority
under the ID Act. The claimants, then raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner and the appropriate
govt. referred the matter to this tribunal to adjudicate on their claim for regularization/absorption of the services
in the establishment of CPWD.
Being noticed the mgt CPWD appeared and filed written statement denying the stand by the claimant
workmen. The relationship as employer and employee has been specifically denied. Tt has been stated that
CPWD floats tenders for execution of different works through contractors following the codal procedure. The
contract is awarded to the successful bidder who engages his own men for execution of the work entrusted. The
said contractor, makes payment to the persons employed as agreed between the said persons and the contractor.
In term the said contractor gets payments from the mgt CPWD as agreed in the contract. The said contract is in
principal to principal basis and the CPWD never exercises supervision and control over the persons employed
through the contractor. If the claimants were getting less wage or not getting legal benefits they should have
raised the same against the contractor. However, at no point of time any objection was raised by these claimants
before the CPWD relating to their less wage or denial of benefits. With this, the mgt CPWD has denied the
relationship as the employer of the claimants and its liability in respect of the relief sought for.
The claimants filed rejoinder stating that there is a real employer and employee relationship between
CPWD and the claimants. They have reiterated that the work being attended by the workmen within the
establishment of CPWD and they being Lift Operators were handling the machinery of CPWD under the
supervision and control of it’s officers. The denial of the relationship by the mgt is vague and false. Thereby the
claimants have prayed for an award in their favour.
On this rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.
Issues
1.Whether there exists relations of employer and employee between the workmen and the mgt. CPWD. If not,
its effect.
2.As per the terms of reference.
The claimants Ram Raj, Rajiv Kumar, Raj Kumar and Bhupinder Singh testified as WW1 to WW4.
They have relied upon several documents exhibited as WW1/1(colly) WW/1/2 (colly) and WW1/3(colly).
During the pendency of the proceeding the claimant Ashok Kumar, S/o Mukut Dhari Singh, died and his wife
1458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and son were substituted as legal heirs by order dated 25.11.2019. The mgt examined one witness, the Executive
Engineer as MW/1, who produced several documents marked in the series of MW1/1 to MW1/3(colly). The
witnesses were thoroughly cross examined by their adversaries.
When the matter stood thus, and adjourned for evidence to be adduced by the workmen, a petition was
filed under the provisions of section 33 of the ID Act alleging contravention of the said provision, as the mgt,
without prior permission terminated the services of the workmen namely Ram Raj Singh, Raj Kumar, and
Bhupinder Singh w.e.f. 01.02.2018. After hearing the said petition this Tribunal by order dated 14.12.2018
directed the mgt CPWD to reinstate the workmen named above in service with immediate effect along with back
wages from 01.02.2018 and till their reinstatement.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the mgt CPWD challenged the maintainability of the
claim on ground of non- joinder of the parties. He submitted that when the CPWD has specifically denied it’s
relationship with the claimants as employer, and the claimants have admitted in the pleadings that they were
engaged through a contractor, may be under a sham contract, the presence of the said contractor in this
proceeding is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the matter. He also challenged the
maintainability for want of espousal and cause of action. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Workmen vs. Coates India Ltd (2004) 3 SCC 547 and the photocopies of the bank
statement of the workmen marked as exbht. MW1/1 (colly) and vouchers of salary exhbt. MW1/2(colly), he
submitted that when the claimants were not getting their wage directly from CPWD but from the contractors,
there exists no employer and employee relationship. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union Vs. India Oil Corpn, Ltd (2005) 5SCC51 to
argue that some kind of control will not establish the employer and employee relationship unless the
establishment has the authority of making appointment, taking disciplinary action or removal from service. He
also relied upon the case of Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 and the case of BHEL
vs. Mahindra Prasad Jakhmola and Ors. decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no 1799-
1800/2019 to submit that the claimants since admitted that no appointment letter PF no. wage slip etc. were
issued to them by the mgt CPWD, they cannot be treated as the employees of the mgt CPWD and as such not
entitled to the relief asked for.
On the other hand, the ld. AR for the claimants citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ram Singh and Others vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 7 November, 2003 submitted
that the judgment of Steal Authority of India referred supra being delivered by a Bench of 5 judges of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment in the case of BHEL vs. Mahindra Prasad Jakhmola delivered by a
Bench of two judges cannot override the earlier judgment. He focused his arguments on the fact that the mighty
employer sometimes keeps the poor employees in dark by creating sham contracts and in such a situation it is
the duty of the Industrial Adjudicator to lift the veil and to find out who is the real employer. While relying upon
the judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported
in (2001) 7SCC page 1, he submitted that as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court the Tribunal should take up
the effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workmen with the mgt or the contractor. He
also relied upon the judgment of Chintaman Rao vs. State of MP (1958(II)LLJ252) & Workman of Food
Corporation of India vs. Food Corporation of India reported in (1985(ii)LLJ4) to argue that the Hon’ble
Apex Court has set out the guidelines to find out the relationship between the workmen and the principal
employer where a contractor employes a workman.
Findings
Issue no.1 &2
It is a fairly settled position that the ID Act as well as the contract labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act
1970 are essentially social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of CLRA Act 1970 is to regulate the
working conditions of the workers under the contract labour system and to abolish the same by the appropriate
Govt. as provided u/s 10of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractors from undertaking or
executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with the license issued. Section 23,
24 & 25 of the ID Act makes contravention of the provisions of the Act, punishable thereon. The Act requires
the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the CLRA Act, so as to avail the
benefits of the provisions of the Act.
In this proceeding, no separate issue has been farmed on the maintainability though the mgt took
specific stand challenging the maintainability. However, this aspect can be considered while deciding the other
issues.
The claimants examined as witnesses have admitted that they had joined CPWD and posted in the
Nirman Bhawan and Shastri Bhawan as described by them in respect of the individual workmen in the claim
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1459
statement. The said workmen as witnesses have further stated that they were working as Fire Alarm Operators
under the Executive Engineer of CPWD. The date of joining of individual workman and their place of posting
including their current salary varies from person to person as stated by them. During cross examination they
have admitted that no letter of appointment was issued to them nor any other document is available with them to
prove the employee and employer relationship with CPWD except the documents filed as Exbht. as WW1/1 to
WW1/262. All the claimants have relied upon the same set of documents. The documents include the attendance
register, the log book of duty in respect of the individual workers. On the basis of these documents the claimants
have asserted to prove that they were working under the supervision and control of the mgt CPWD.
On behalf of the mgt one Debasis Chaudhary Executive Engineer testified as MW1. While giving
evidence he produced the contract entered between CPWD and the contractor for operation and routine
maintenance of Automatic Fire Alarm System. The name of the contractor, as per the document marked as
MW1/3, is Ahluwalia Fire Protection Engineers. On the basis of this document the Ld. A/R for the mgt
submitted that the CPWD as a matter of standard practice engages contractors for execution of certain work.
The said contractor might have engaged his own manpower to execute the work, with whom CPWD has no
relations. In addition to this, the witness for the mgt produced a number of vouchers raised by the said
contractors for payment towards the work executed. Thus the Ld. A/R for the mgt argued that the claim of the
claimants about their direct employment, on the fact of the documents filed by the mgt, stands disproved and in
absence of proof of employment by CPWD the claim is untenable.
The workmen have filed affidavit stating that they were engaged directly by the mgt for discharge of
the duty as Fire Alarm Operators, which work is perennial in nature and a part of the primary duty of CPWD
maintaining different Govt. buildings. The workmen have specifically denied the stand of the mgt that they were
appointed by the contractor at any point of times. It is worth mentioning that the claimants are claiming their
employment starting from the year 1996 to 2000. No other document except MW1/1 to mw1/3 has been filed by
the mgt to prove that the year in which the claimants are alleging their employment under the mgt CPWD there
was a contractor, since the documents Mw1/3 only proves about the existence of a contract between CPWD and
one Ahuluwalia in the year 2014. Hence, it is difficult to believe that the claimants, from the beginning of their
employment were appointed through a contractor.
It is pertinent to observe that the claimants in their affidavit have clearly stated that they were working
and discharging duty under the supervision and control of the officers of CPWD who were not only marking
their attendance and also making arrangement of their duty roaster and shifts. The claimants have also stated
that they were receiving their remuneration from CPWD. Though the mgt in order to deprive them of their
lawful rights introduced a contractor in the meantime, the agreements entered between the contractor and
CPWD has not been placed on record except the document MW1/3. This said agreement no where contains the
references regarding the engagement of the claimants through the contractors from the first date of their
engagement. The vouchers filed by the mgt are self created documents and intended to defeat the claim of the
claimants.
There is no dispute about the proposition of law that onus to prove that the claimants are in the
employment on the mgt is always on the workmen and it is for them to adduce evidence to prove the factum of
their employment with the mgt. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or with regard to 240 days of
work or document of employment etc. The tribunal during adjudication has to consider the oral as well as the
documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties so as to decide the question of relationship of
employer and employee between the mgt and the claimants. But there are cases, where the claimants who stand
in a disadvantageous position in comparison to the mighty employer are not in a position to produce
documentary evidence. In such a case, the Tribunal or the Industrial Adjudicator has to act carefully to ascertain
the truth.
In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in
(2001) 7SCC page1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the
relationship of the workmen with the mgt or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao vs.
State of MP (1958(II)LL252) the Apex Court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i)
Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the
service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of
service between the employer and employee, where under the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to
his control and supervision. In the case of Workman of Food Corporation of India vs. Food Corporation of
India reported in (1985(ii)LLJ4) the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment always
discloses a relationship of command and obedience between them. Where a contractor employes a workman to
do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish, the workman of the contractor would not
become more than the workman of the third person. In the case of Ram Singh and Ors. vs. Union Territory of
1460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chandigarh and Ors. (2004) 1SCC 126, the Hon’ble Apext Court have elaborately discussed the factors to be
considered for determining the employer employee relationship and the factors include, control, integration of
power of appointment, liability to pay, liability to organize work etc. Thus from the above analysis of the
principle of law, it emerges that the effective control is a test to determine the employee and employer
relationship between the parties.
With regard to the case in hand, except for the bald statement of MW1 that the claimants are/were the
workers of the contractors, the mgt has not filed any evidence to resist the stand taken by the claimants that from
the beginning they are working for CPWD being engaged directly. The payment vouchers marked as MW/1/2
and the document of contract marked as MW1/3 are of no help since those are the documents relating to a
period much later than the period of employment as claimed by the claimants. The testimony of the workmen
that they are still working under the mgt from the respective dates of their initial appointment, though the
contractor has been introduced subsequently has gone on unassailed. It seems that the mgt has executed a
contract for operation of the Automatic Fire alarm in the year 2015, just to deny the claim of the claimants. All
these circumstance lead this Tribunal to draw an inference against the mgt that the contract entered by the mgt
with the contractor in the year 2015 is intended to eliminate the claim of the claimants who started working
since the year 1996-1998-1999 and 2000 respectively. The attendance register and the log books filed by the
claimants prove that they are working continuously in the establishment of CPWD under the supervision an
control of its official though after introduction of the contractor they are getting their remuneration through the
contractor. It is necessary to observe that the mgt is not registered u/s 7 of CLRA Act and the contractor has no
license u/s 12 of the said Act.
The reference has been received to adjudicate with regard to the justification in not regularizing the
service of these workmen by the mgt CPWD. In the preceding paragraphs it has already been held that the
claimants have successfully proved that they are the employees of the mgt CPWD. Now, it is to be seen if their
claim for regularization is proper and justified. The claimants examined as WW1 to WW4 have stated under
oath that they are working continuously since more than 20 years on a meager salary. The mgt is having
vacancies and the nature or work discharged by the claimants are perennial. Hence, they should be regularized
in the service of CPWD. The mgt witness examined as MW1 has admitted during cross examination that the
different categories of employees of CPWD get different categories of wage. But the witness has not stated, if
the claimants are getting appropriate remuneration according to the work done by them. As discussed in the
preceding paragraph, the mgt, though filed the contract executed between it and the contractor, failed to connect
these workmen with the said contractor in any manner. When asked about the wages paid to the workmen the
witness expressed his ignorance about the same. He was also called upon to say as to who by whome and when
the vouchers produced as MW1/2 were prepared. The witnesses express his ignorance about the same.
But the Ld. Counsel for the mgt strenuously argued that the claimants are none but the persons engaged
by the contractors for execution of the work assigned to the contractor and the claimants having not been
recruited through due process their candidature cannot be considered for regularizing their services.
To support his stand he placed reliance in the case of Secretary State of Karnatak and others vs.
Uma Devi and others reported in (2006)4 SCC Page 1. On behalf of the claimants objection was raised
regarding the applicability of the judgment of Uma Devi referred Supra to Industrial Dispute relating to unfair
labour practice.
In the case of Uma Devi the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the persons who were appointed on
temporary and casual basis without following proper procedure cannot claim absorption or regularization since
the same is opposed to the policy of public employment. But this is not a case of claiming automatic
regularization or absorption. The claimants of this proceeding have ventilated their grievance since they were
deprived of their status and entitlements despite long and continuous service describing the same as unfair
labour practice.
The effect of the constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi came up for
consideration with reference to unfair labour practice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahrashtra
State Road Transport and Another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sangathan reported in
(2009)8 SCC Page 556 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the judgment in the case of Uma
Devi has not over ridden the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts for passing appropriate order, once unfair
labour practice on the part of the employer is established. The judgment of Uma Devi does not denude the
Industrial and Labour Court of their statutory power.
Now it is to be seen if the claimants of this proceeding were subjected to unfair labour practice or not.
“Unfair Labour Practice” as defined u/s 2(ra) means any of the practice specified in the 5th Schedule of the ID
Act. Under the said 5th Schedule, to employ workmen as Badlis, Casual or temporaries and to continue them as
such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen amounts to
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1461
unfair Labour Practice. In this case the document filed by the workman and marked as exhibited as evidence are
the of log books maintained during the undisputed part of time, clearly indicates that these claimants are
working since the year 1996,1997, 1999 and 2000 respectively. The management, in utter disregard of law,
refused regularizing their service against the vacant post and the same amounts to unfair labour practice.
Besides the case of Maharashtra Road Transport referred supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Shri Ajay Pal Singh vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation decided in Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2014
disposed of on 09th July 2014 have held that:
“The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided
therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi’s case. The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was
neither the subject matter for decision nor was it decided in Umadevi’s case.”
Thus after going through the judgments of Maharashtra Road Transport and Ajay Pal Singh refereed
supra it is held that the observation made in the case of Uma Devi has no applicability to the facts of the present
case where the workmen have been subjected to Unfair Labour Practice being engaged for work on daily wage
basis for a prolong period. Not only that the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of J and
K Bank Limited vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others reported in 2018 LAB I.C. 2970
have held:
“Unfair Labour Practice-what amounts to-workmen continued in temporary/contractual capacity for
years together despite availability of vacant posts, aimed at depriving them of status and privileges of permanent
workmen- clearly amounts to unfair labour practice- directions issued by Tribunal to appellant Bank to frame
scheme for regularization of respondent workmen within period of 3 months and that respondents workmen
would be deemed to have been regularized in case of failure of appellant- Bank to frame scheme, held,
justified.”
In this case the oral and documentary evidence since proves the continuous service of the workmen for
the management on daily wage basis since the year 1996 and onwards, the decision of the management in not
regularizing their service against the permanent vacancy is held to be illegal and unjustified.
The witness examined on behalf of the management as MW1 has stated that 5 persons who are the
claimants of this proceeding are working for the management. Though under the scope of the reference this
tribunal is to adjudicate about the legality and justifiability of the management in not regularizing the service of
the workmen, the industrial adjudicator under the Industrial Dispute Act enjoys wide power for granting relief
which would be proper under a given circumstance. In the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs.
Employer I/R to Management FCI reported in (2014)7 SCC 190 the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that
the power conferred upon Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court by the Industrial Dispute Act is wide. The Act
deals with Industrial Dispute, provides for conciliation, adjudication, settlement and regulates the right of the
parties and the enforcement of the awards and the settlement. Thus, the Act empowers the adjudicating authority
to give relief which may not be permissible in common law or justified under the terms of the contract between
the employer and the workman. While referring to the judgment of Bharat Bank Limited vs. Employees of the
Bharat Bank Limited reported in (1950) LLJ 921 Supreme Court the court came to hold that in setting the
dispute between the employer and the workmen the function of the Tribunal is not confined to administration of
justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it consider reasonable
and proper, though those may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It can create new rights and
obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping Industrial peace.
Here is a case, where, as indicated above the workmen have been victimized on account of unfair
labour practice by the management. Keeping the situation in view, it is felt proper to issue a direction to the
management to regularize the service of the claimants/workmen within a period of three months as permanent
Fire Alarm Operators which would meet the ends of justice. This direction is specific in respect to the workmen
of this claim petition as per the list annexed to the award and passed in exercise of the power conferred on the
Tribunal to grant any other relief as per the reference received from the Appropriate Government. It is further
observed that during the pendency of this proceeding the mgt had terminated the service of three of the
workmen namely Ram Raj Singh, Raj Kumar and Bhupinder Singh. This Tribunal by order dated 14.12.2018
had allowed the application filed u/s 33 of the ID Act, by the said claimants and directed that they be reinstated
in service with immediate effect and paid the back wages from 1st Feb 2018 till their reinstated to service. The
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi VIkas Bank Ltd.
is Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and others, (Civil Appall No. 87-88 of 1986) have held that when the service
condition of an employee is changed during the pendency of an Industrial dispute in violation of the provisions
of section 33 of the ID Act, the said action shall stand as nonest or as if the order was never passed by the
employer. Keeping the said observation in mind, it is further directed, that that claimants, whose services were
1462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminated during the pendency of this proceeding and in respect of whom the order of reinstatement was passed
on 14.12.2018 shall be granted continuity of service.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workmen. It is held that the action of the
management depriving the workmen of their right for regularization their services is illegal and unjustified and
amounts to unfair labour practice. The Management department i.e. CPWD is hereby directed to regularize the
service of the workmen (as per the list annexed) from the date of their initiated engagement within 2 months
from the date of publication of this award and grant them all service benefits within a further period of 2 months
failing which the financial benefits including appropriate pay scale payable by the mgt to the claimants shall
carry interest @of 4% from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.
During the pendency of this proceeding one of the claimants named Ashok Kumar S/o Mukut Dhari
Singh died and by order dated 25.11.2019 his wife Smt. Mausmi Singh and son Master Ranjeet Singh were
substituted as legal heirs. For the death of the claimant Ashok Kumar Singh no direction and be given for
regularization of his service within two months from the date of publication of the award. Hence it is directed
that mgt shall regularize his service from the date of initial appointment, fix his pay and grant him all other
benefits as would be granted to the other claimants of this proceeding. In addition to that, the mgt shall pay an
additional amount of 2 Lakh to the legal heirs of the claimant Ashok Kumar in lieu of the benefits he would
have availed had he been alive on the date of publication of the award. All the financial benefits to the legal
heirs of the deceased claimant shall be paid within the time and in terms of direction given in the preceding
paragraph. The list of the claimants is attached herewith as annexure A:-
List of the workmen
Sr.
No
Name of the workers
Father’s Name of the workers
Designation
1
Rajeev Kumar
Late Sh. Matadin
Fire Alarm Operator
2
Ashok Kumar
(substituted by LR wife
Mausmi Singh
Sh. Mukutdhari Singh
Fire Alarm Operator
3
Ram Raj Singh
Sh. Gorelal
Fire Alarm Operator
4
Raj Kumar
Sh. Mohar Singh
Fire Alarm Operator
5
Bhupender Singh
Sh. Jangjit Singh
Fire Alarm Operator
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the
ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 759.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार िनदेशक, रा᳦ीय इलेᮝॉिनस और सूचना ᮧौ᳒ोिगकᳱ सं᭭थान, इंᮤलोक ᳰद᭨ली; सिचव, सूचना ᮧौ᳒ोिगकᳱ
िवभाग, एनसीटी ᳰद᭨ली सरकार, ᳰद᭨ली सिचवालय, आई.पी. ए᭭टेट ᳰद᭨ली; सेवा िवभाग, एनसीटी ᳰद᭨ली
सरकार, ᳰद᭨ली सिचवालय पᳯरसर, आई.पी ए᭭टेट ᳰद᭨ली; ᮧिशᭃण और तकनीकᳱ िशᭃा िवभाग, पीतमपुरा ,
ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और सु᮰ी िᮧयंका और 11 अ᭠य, ᳰद᭨ली ᮧशासन िवकास िवभाग औ᳒ोिगक
कमᭅचारी संघ (पंजीकृत), तीस हजारी, ᳰद᭨ली, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह-
᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 56/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत
करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/160/2021 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1463
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director,National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology, Inderlok Delhi ;The
Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P , Estate
Delhi ;Serivce Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat Complex, I.P Estate Delhi
;Department of Training & Technical Education, Pitampura, Delhi, and Ms. Priyanka & 11 others, Through-
Delhi Prashasan Vikas Vibhag Industrial Employees Union (Regd.) ,Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42011/160/2021 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. NO. 56/2022
Ms. Priyanka & 11 others.
Rept. By Delhi Prashanaik Vikas Vibhag Industrial
Employees Union (Regd.) Agarwal Bhawan, G.T Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.
….claimants
Versus
1. The Director
National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology,
2nd Floor, Parsvnath Metro Mall, Inderlok Delhi-110052.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology, Govt., of NCT of Delhi,
9th Level, B-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P , Estate Delhi-110002.
3. Serivce Department, govt., of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat Complex, 7th Level, B-Wing, I.P Estate Delhi-110002.
4. Department of Training & Technical Education,
Muni Maya Marg, Pitampura, Delhi-110054.
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/160/2021 IR (DU) dated 7.12.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“1. Whether the claim of Delhi Prashasanik Vikas Vibhag Industrial Employees Union in
respect of Ms. Priyanka &11 Others vide letter dated 02.08.2021 that the contract /
arrangement between the management of Department of Training and Technical
Education , Govt.of NCT of Delhi(DTTE), services Department, Government of NCT of
Delhi, Information of Technology Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (DIT) and
National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT) is sham and bogus,
is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs the disputant workers are entitled and
what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?
2. Whether the claim of Delhi Prashasanik Vikas Vibhag Industrial Employees Union in
respect of Ms. Priyanka &11 others vide letter dated 02.08.2021 to the management of
Department of Training and Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (DTTE) services
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Information of Technology Department,
1464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government of NCT of Delhi (DIT) and National Institute of Electronics & Information
Technology (NIELIT) for payment of arrears of difference in salary and salary as per pay
scale of Data Entry Operators/ LDC on the principle of “Equal pay for Equal Work”is
proper legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs the disputant workers are entitled and
what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimants union opted not to file the claim statement with
the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article send to the claimants, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimants. Despite service of the notice,
claimants opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is
clear that the workmen are not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workmen has neither put their appearance nor they led any evidence so as to prove their
cause against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 760.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार महाᮧबंधक, भारत इ᭥यूनोलॉिजकल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड, ओपीवी ᭡लांट, चौला, बुलंदशहर (यू.पी), के
ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी ᮧमोद कुमार सोलंकᳱ, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨लीके पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 92/2012) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 06.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42012/103/2011 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., OPV Plant, Chaula, Bulandshahr
(U.P), and Shri Pramod Kumar Solanki, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 06.05.2023.
[No. L- 42012/103/2011 -IR (DU) - IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 92/2012
Date of Passing Award- 1st May, 2023
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1465
Between:
Shri Pramod Kumar Solanki,
S/o Sh. Balbhadra Singh,
Vill & PO Chola, Distt.,
Bulandshahr (U.P.)
….Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.,
Vill Chaula,
Bulandshahr (U.P).
….Management.
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma , Ld .A/R for the claimant.
None for the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42012/103/2011 (IR(DU)) dated 22.02.2012 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd. in
terminating the services of workman Shri Pramod Kumar Solanki, S/o Sh. Balbhadra Singh,
without complying with section 25 F & 25 N of the ID Act., 1947 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per the claim statement the claimant Pramod Kumar Solanki was initially appointed on 21.05.2003
as a casual labour in the establishment of the mgt for doing the work of grass cutting and general cleaning in the
premises of the mgt. He was discharging a perennial nature of work. At the time of initial appointment the mgt
had obtained the signature of the workman on some plain papers and on some vouchers on the pretext that EPF
and ESI subscriptions shall be made for him. But in fact except the ESI subscription no other benefit was
granted to him by the mgt. The claimant during the course of employment had completed 240 days of
continuous service in a calendar year for 3 consecutive years. Hence, the mgt had paid bonus to him. During this
process the claimant had worked continuously from 21.05.2003 to 06.01.2011 as a causal labour. But as per the
notification dated 15.06.1985 issued by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh the service of the claimant should have been
made regular with the mgt since his land was acquired by the mgt. But the mgt did not regularize his service and
workman was insisting for the same. This created annoyance in the mind of the mgt and on 07.01.2011 his
service was illegally terminated by the mgt. On that day, when he reached the factory premises the security
guard did not allow him entry and showed a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM(U) in which it
was clearly mentioned that the claimant workman should not be allowed entry into the premises of the mgt to
perform his duty. The said action amounts to termination of the service of the claimant who was working
continuously from May 2003 to Jan 2011. At the time of such termination, the mgt had neither given the notice
of termination notice pay, retrenchment compensation gratuity etc. to the claimant in compliance of the
provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. No disciplinary action was also taken against him before
his termination. There were 14 other co-workmen whose services were regularize by the mgt on the ground that
there lands were acquired by the mgt along with this claimant. Being aggrieved he had raised a dispute before
the Labour Commissioner and on failure of conciliation the appropriate govt. referred the matter to this Tribunal
to adjudicate if a service of the claimant has been illegally terminated. Thus in the claim petition the claimant
had prayed for an award to the effect that the benefits to which the deceased claimant is entitled to be granted to
his legal heirs as per the provisions 25 F and 25N of the Id act along with any other relief which would be
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The mgt filed written statement denying the stands of the claimant. The maintainability of the claim has
been challenged on the ground that there exists no Industrial Dispute between the claimant and the mgt. It has
been specifically stated that the provisions of section 25F 25G and 25H are not applicable since the service of
the claimant was terminated, as admitted by him on account of non performance of duty and disobeying the
directives of his monitoring officer. The claimant had raised a dispute before the conciliation officer Dehradun,
where it was pointed out that the claimant was working as a casual labour/daily wager for grass cutting and
1466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
maintenance of garden. He had worked for a short period as a casual worker and paid wage for the said period.
Neither he was a regular employee nor the nature of work executed by him was perennial. Rather the
engagement was on need based. Hence, the service of the claimant came to an end automatically when there was
no work. The claim of the claimant for reinstatement and continuity of service is not maintainable. It has also
been stated that the mgt is a public sector undertaking having it’s own rules for recruitment into regular post.
The claimant was never appointed as a regular employee. Not only that the claimant had not completed 240 days
of work in the preceding calendar year of the alleged termination and as such notice u/s 25F of the ID Act or any
kind of compensation was not payable to him. This claimant along with few other workers was found stealing
valuable articles from the premises of the mgt and for the said incident FIR was lodged. For loss of confidence,
the engagement of the claimant was discontinued. The claimant has not come up with clean hands. Initially he
had filed the claim petition claiming his appointment as an Assistant. On realization of the mistake he amended
the claim petition. Hence, the reliefs sought cannot be granted to him.
The claimant filed written replication to the w.s of the mgt in which it has been explained that the
amendment was for correction of some bona fide mistakes and the earlier claim petition in view of the
amendment cannot be looked into.
On these rival pleadings the following issued are framed for adjudication.
Issues
1 Whether the action of the mgt in terminating the service of the workman Parmod Kumar Solanki
without complying with 25F and 25N of the ID Act is legal and justified ?
2. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
The claimant testified as WW1. He proved the documents marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/26.
The said documents include the wager attendance record the details of arrears on revision of minimum wages
etc. The witness was cross examined at length by the mgt. After closer of the evidence of the claimant, when the
mgt was called upon to adduce evidence, none turned up to adduce evidence and the mgt evidence was closed
by order dated 13.10.2022.
Findings
Issue no.1
It is the stand of the claimant that he was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis on
26.02.2007. Though no document has been produced by the claimant to prove the said engagement, the mgt
while filling w.s has admitted the date of initial engagement. The mgt has also admitted in the pleading that the
claimant was engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis for maintenance of the garden and grass cutting. It
has been alleged by the claimant that on 07.01.2011 when he reported for work the security guard did not allow
him entry and showed him a letter dated 05.01.2011 issued by the Deputy CGM R.K Shukla directing that four
persons should not be allowed to enter and discharge duty. The said letter has been marked as WW1/11. In the
w.s the mgt has stated that for the unruly behavior of the claimant and his involvement in a theft case a decision
was taken not to allow the claimant into the premises of the mgt and as such his service was discontinued. The
other stand taken by the mgt is that the engagement of the claimant was need based and for non availability of
the work his service was discontinued. But surprisingly, no evidence has been adduced by the mgt to prove that
the claimant was ever involved in a case of theft or any dissatisfaction was expressed by the Supervising Officer
about his non performance. The stand taken in the w.s justifying the action stands not proved. Accordingly it is
held that the decision of the mgt in not engaging the claimant who was working continuously from 21.05.2003
to 06.01.2011 without any justification is illegal. This issue is answer in favour of the claimant.
Issue no. 2
The reference has been received to adjudicate on the legality of the termination of the Service of the
claimant and what relief he is entitled to. The claimant while adducing oral evidence has stated that his land was
acquired by the mgt and the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh has issued a GO directing grant of permanent employment to
the persons by the mgt whose land has been acquired. The claimant has filed the said GO as WW1/6. In addition
to that he has stated that 14 persons standing in the same footing have been regularized in service by the mgt.
But absolutory no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove that the policy of the Govt. for giving
permanent employment to the land oustees is still in force. Thus, the claim of the claimant for absorbing him in
a regular post on account of land acquisition seems not legally justified.
In the preceding paragraph it has been held that the termination of the service of the claimant by the mgt is
illegal for non compliance of the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act which is mandatory in nature as has
been held by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries
ltd. (2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court). Now it is to be seen what relief the claimant is entitled to on
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1467
account of the said illegal termination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya have held as under:
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
I)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
II) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting
back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or
the Court to visit instance on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of
service. This is so because it is settled lat that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact
lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always employed, the onus
lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
In this case the oral evidence of the workman proves that he is unemployed and having no source of
income. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the mgt. In the case of Anoop Sharma vs. Executive
Engineer Public Health Division Panipat(2010) 5SSF497) the Hon’ble Apex Court have further held that
when the termination of service happens without complying the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act the
action of termination becomes nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in the employment as if his
service was never terminated. The Hon’ble Apex Court in other cases have also stated that factors which are to
be considered while deciding the claim of the claimant for full back wages. The factors are the length of service,
the nature of the work, whether regular or perennial, temporary or seasonal nature etc. In this case the claimant
had worked for the mgt from 2003 to 2011 i.e. for a period of 8 years. The claim of the claimant that he was
discharging function of perennial nature has remained unrebutted. Hence, the Tribunal from the evidence
adduced on record is of the opinion that the claimant should be reinstated into service with full back wages for
the illegal termination of the service. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. Hence
ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is allowed in favor of the claimant. It is held that the service of the claimant
was illegally terminated by the mgt in complete violation of the provisions of 25 F and 25N of the ID Act and
for his unemployment he is required to be reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service.
The mgt is directed to reinstate the claimant into service within a period of one month from the date of
publication of the award and release him the back wages within a further period of one month from the date of
reinstatement without interest failing which the amount accrued shall carry interest @of 6% from the date of
accrual and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 761.— औ᳒ोिगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj यूनाइटेड बᱹक ऑफ इंिडया izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औ᳒ोिगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औ᳒ोिगक vf/kdj.k dkuiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ
la[;k (98/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12012/25/2018 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 98/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
1468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of United Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/25/2018- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 98 of 2018
L-12012/25/2018-IR(B-II) dated 02.11.2018
BETWEEN
Member, Working Committee,
UP Bank Workers Organisation,
3/13 Mathura Nagar, ALIGARH(U.P)-
AND
1. The General Manager,
United Bank of India, Head Office,
Personal Adm(Award Staff.11,
Hemanta Basu Sarani,
Kolkata-700001
2. The Chief Regional Manager,
United Bank of India,
80/1, Commercial Complex,
Mangal Pandey Nagar,
Meerut(U.P)-
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the
Government of India in letter no. L-12012/25/2018-IR(B-II) dated 02.11.2018
SCHEDULE
1. “Whether the action of the Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Meerut over
the issue of non promoting Shri Brij Mohan S/o Late Shri Ram Swaroop from part
time Sweeper to the post of House Keeper-cum-Sub Staff as per Circular
No. PA(AS)/ELEVATION4/OM-715/15-16 dated 2.2.2016 is just, fair and legal? If
not, what relief of the workman concerned is entitled to” ?
On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 18th December 2018 fixing
25.01.2019 for filing of claim statement. But none appeared on behalf of interested parties on the fixed date. On
12.04.2019 Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the management and filed an authority letter. After
that several dates were fixed for filing the claim statement but none appeared on behalf of the claimant before
the Tribunal. Despite giving ample opportunities to the claimant union for submitting statement of claim ;
claimant failed to present his case before the Tribunal. On 30.06.2022 the case was reserved for final award for
non-appearance of the worker’s union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant is not interested in prosecuting the
case further before the Tribunal.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 13.07.2022
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1469
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 762.— औ᳒ोिगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj बᱹक ऑफ बड़ौदा izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औ᳒ोिगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औ᳒ोिगक vf/kdj.k dkuiqj ds iapkV
lanHkZ la[;k (87/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल- 12012/46/2014-आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.87/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and
their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/46/2014- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 87 of 2014
L-12012/46/2014-IR(B-II) dated 21.07.2014
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
National Union of Bank Employees,
C/o Indian Overseas Bank, Hazratganj Branch,
Lucknow:-
AND
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,
Gumti No. 5,
Kanpur (U.P)-208012
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No. L-12012/46/2014-IR(B-II) dated 21.07.2014
SCHEDULE
1. “Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Kanpur in not
regularizing the services of Shri Manish Kumar w.e.f 20.05.2005 and his
subsequent termination is just fair & legal? What relief the workman concerned is
entitled to?”
The averments of the claimant workman may be concisely stated as follows:-
Claimant workman performed the different kinds of tasks like cleaning, taking the dak, tasks related to
peon and other assignments which were directed by the Branch Manager and the staff. The claimant workman
was paid only Rs 100/- while the work was taken from him took 10 to12 hours. It is vehemently stated by
claimant workman that he had demanded for permanency from the date of appointment i.e 20.05.2005 as the
work performed by him was of permanent nature and he was the only person in the bank who was doing that
1470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
work. When management showed reluctance towards repeated demands of claimant workman for permanency,
claimant workman approached the Regional Office. Claimant workman demanded for permanency through
letters repeatedly and even several times prayed by meeting the Regional office authorities personally but it was
completely fruitless, even he was threatened with dismissal from the work.
It is claimed that the claimant workman had worked for more than 240 days in every year prior to his
retrenchment without compliance of mandatory section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is prayed by the
claimant workman that the order of his termination should be held illegal and be quashed and he prays for pass
an order to direct the management to reinstate him in the service permanently. Compensation must be provided
for the period of unemployment along with other benefits and all the incurred expenditure to fight this case.
In the written statement on behalf of O.P Bank it has been averred that claimant Manish Kumar was
never employed by the O.P Bank after selection in mandatory recruitment process. It has been averred by O.P
Bank that no letter of appointment was issued in favour of Manish Kumar. It has been pleaded that Manish
Kumar was providing snacks and tea at Sarai Maswanpur Branch and he was paid on need based basis. No
salary was ever paid to Manish Kumar. In substance, it is pleaded by O.P Bank that Manish Kumar was legally
not entitled for any relief as prayer by him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the rejoinder it has been
averred that only employees of four categories such as permanent employee, probationers, temporary employees
and part time employees could be employed by the bank. In the rejoinder it has been further stated that O.P bank
has submitted false averments and wages of Manish Kumar were paid through vouchers. In the rejoinder the
claimant side reiterated its claim advanced in the statement of claim.
On dates 06.01.2022, 17.02.2022, 28.04.2022, 01.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 13.09.2022, 15.11.2022,
29.11.2022, 08.12.2022, 19.01.2023 and 20.01.2023 the claimant workman did not appear to participate in the
proceeding of the case.
Pleadings cannot be read as evidence. A casual worker cannot legally claim absorption in the post of
permanent employees of the bank in which recruitment is made under rigid rules.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 06.02.2023
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 763.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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 -सह - Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/32/2019 -आई आर (
.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.45/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/32/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1471
ID No. 45/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Smt. Savitri Devi Wd/o Late Narainoo & Others,
Village Nehar, PO Haronda, Tehsil Sadar,
Distt. Bilaspur(HP)-174001.
….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/32/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019,
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Smt. Savitri Devi & others, LH/LR of late Narainoo, for declaring his retrenchment
/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid?
If not, to what relief the legal heirs/ legal representatives of late workman are entitled to
and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman as well as to the respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, referred above, is duly served upon the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman but none is appeared on behalf of the legal heirs/legal representatives
of the deceased-workman, which shows that the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased-workman is
not interested in adjudication of the case on merit nor they have filed any statement of claim to prove their cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 764.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 43/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/31/2019 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/31/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
1472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.43/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Shri Mast Ram S/o Shri Jindu Ram,
R/o Village Masyani, PO Dhalwan,
Tehsil Baldwara, Mandi(HP)-175001.
….Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/31/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Mast
Ram S/o Sh. Jindu Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and
valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 765.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1, चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 46/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/35/2019 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1473
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.46/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/35/2019– IR (CM-II)
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 46/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Smt. Krishni Devi Wd/o Late Ganga Ram & Others,
Village Pantehra, Sub-Tehsil Bharari, Distt. Bilaspur(HP)-174001. …. Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. …Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/35/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Smt. Krishani Devi & Others, LH/LR of late Ganga Ram, for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age
of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and
valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/ legal representatives of late workman are
entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman as well as to the respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, referred above, is duly served upon the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman but none is appeared on behalf of the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, which shows that the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merit nor they have filed any statement of
claim to prove their cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice,
except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2. 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
1474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 766.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 99/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/159/2018 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/159/2018 - IR(CM -II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 99/2018
Registered on:-12.12.2018
Smt. Balesaru Devi & Others Wd/o Late Damodar Dass,
Villager Tandi Boh, PO Saroa, Via Pandoh,
Tehsil Chachyot, Distt. Mandi(HP)-175001. ….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. …..Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-29.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/159/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 22.11.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of
Smt. Balesaru Devi & Others Wd/o Late Damodar Dass for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto
age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just
and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late workman
are entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the LRs of the late workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the LRs of the late workman, referred above, is duly
delivered to the LRs of the late workman. The LRs of the late workman is given sufficient opportunities to file
claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that
the LRs of the late workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1475
2. Since the LRs of the late workman has neither put their appearance nor they have filed any statement
of claim to prove their cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice,
except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 767.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 40/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/28/2019 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/28/2019– IR (CM-II)
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 40/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Shri Sawanu Ram S/o Shri Gulaba Ram,
R/o Village Chambi, PO Shouladhha,
Tehsil Sadar, Mandi(HP)-175001. ….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. …Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/28/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
1476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Sh. Sawanu Ram S/o Sh. Gulaba Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service
upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just
and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which
date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 768.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 41/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल- 23012/29/2019-आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.41/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/29/2019- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.41/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Shri Devi Ram S/o Shri Sainoo Ram,
R/o Village & PO Khudl, Tehsil Baladwara, Mandi(HP)-175001. ….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. ….Respondents/Managements
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1477
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/29/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Devi
Ram S/o Sh. Sainoo Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid?
If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication
of the matter on merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No
Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 769.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 47/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/36/2019 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.47/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L-23012/36/2019 - IR(CM -II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 47/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Smt. Gangi Devi Wd/o Late Durga Ram & Others,
Village Nehar, PO Haronda, Tehsil Sadar,
Distt. Bilaspur(HP)-174001.
….Workman
Versus
1478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/36/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019,
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter
called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Smt. Gangi Devi & Others, LH/LR of late Durga Ram, for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age
of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and
valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/ legal representatives of late workman are
entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman as well as to the respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, referred above, is duly served upon the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman but none is appeared on behalf of the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, which shows that the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merit nor they have filed any statement of
claim to prove their cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice,
except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 770.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/38/2019 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/38/2019- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1479
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.49/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Smt. Dromti Devi & Others Wd/o Late Nikka Ram,
Village Sayohli, PO Ratti, Tehsil Mandi (HP)-175001.
….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/38/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019,
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Smt. Dromti Devi & Others, LH/LR of late Nikka Ram for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age
of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and
valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/ legal representatives of late workman are
entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman as well as to the respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, referred above, is duly served upon the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman but none is appeared on behalf of the legal heirs/legal representatives
of the deceased-workman, which shows that the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased-workman is
not interested in adjudication of the case on merit nor they have filed any statement of claim to prove their cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 771.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सह-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1, चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-05-2023 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/39/2019 -आई आर (lh.एम -II)]
मिणकंदन. एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.50/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
1480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cum-Labour Court NO 1,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/05/2023
[No. L- 23012/39/2019- IR(CM -II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 50/2019
Registered on:-20.06.2019
Smt. Ram Dei & Others Wd/o Late Hari Man,
Village Sangrana, PO Ranikotla, Tehsil Sadar,
Distt. Bilaspur(HP)-174001.
….Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. …Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-11.04.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/39/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 31.05.2019, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of
Smt. Ram Dei & Others, LH/LR of late Hari Man for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto
age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just
and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/ legal representatives of late workman
are entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the legal heirs/legal representatives of the
deceased-workman as well as to the respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman, referred above, is duly served upon the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased-workman but none is appeared on behalf of the legal heirs/legal representatives
of the deceased-workman, which shows that the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased-workman is
not interested in adjudication of the case on merit nor they have filed any statement of claim to prove their cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2. 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 ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 772.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj बᱹक ऑफ बड़ौदा izca/kraᮢ ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1481
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dkuiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
(135/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12011/05/2019 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 772.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.135/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and
their workmen.
[No. L- 12011/05/2019- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 135 of 2019
L-12011/05/2019-IR(B-II) dated 01.04.2019
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Bank of Baroda Staff Association,
897, Civil Lines, Sitakund,
SULTANPUR-228001
AND
The Deputy General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, 60/4, 3rd Floor,
FCI Building, Sanjay Place,
AGRA(U.P)-282002
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No. L-12011/05/2019-IR(B-II) dated 01.04.2019
SCHEDULE
1. ‘Whether the action taken by management of Bank of Baroda, Agra over the issue of
alleged non-confirmation of services of Shri Sailendra Kumar beyond six months is just,
fair and legal? if not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’
On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 23th April 2019 fixing 12.05.2019
for filing of statement of claim. Union and claimant workman filed statement of claim on 28.06.2019 while O.P
management filed written statement on 27.11.2019. Afterwards several dates were fixed for filing of rejoinder
and documents by the union and claimant workman.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder and
documents none appeared on behalf of the claimant workman before the Tribunal. Despite ample opportunities
to the union and claimant workman for submitting rejoinder and documents; the claimant workman failed to
present the case before the Tribunal. On 19.10.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-appearance of
the union and claimant workman. Pleadings are not to be read as evidence.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the union and claimant workman are not
interested in prosecuting the case further before the Tribunal.
1482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Date: 11.11.2022 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 773.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad izca/kraᮢ ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 2 fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
(233/2021) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023 -आई आर (बी-II) -09]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 233/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –
II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023 - IR(B-II) -09]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 233/2021
Date of Passing Award- 10th Feb.,2023
Between:
Shri Zakir Hussain, S/o sh. Iqramul Haq,
R/o House No. RZ-52, Sayed Nangloi, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110087 Through Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union,
D-2/24 Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086.
….Workman
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank,
53,West Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.
2. Sood Enterprises,
Plot No. 39, Block -10 Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
….Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Kailash Kumar,(AR)
For the claimant .
None for the management
For the Managements
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the management No.1 and 2
praying a direction to the management to reinstate the workman to service with full back wages and all other
consequential benefits.
As per the claim statement the claimant was working as a housekeeping staff in the branch of Indian
bank at 53, West Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on monthly salary 14000 since 01.5.2014. Though he
was a direct employee of the management bank, the later in order to deprive him of his lawful rights, had
shown him employed through a contractor having name M/s Sood enterprises, C.P, New Delhi. The claimant
was working under the direct supervision and control of the mgt bank and getting salary from it. The mgt bank
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1483
was never granting him the appropriate wage nor extending other statutory benefits for which he was often
raising objection and demand. In a bid of revenge, on 2.09.2019 his service was terminated by the mgt bank
illegally. At the time of termination, neither any notice, notice pay or termination compensation was paid to him.
The said act of termination was in gross violation of provision of section 25-F, H and G of the Id. Act. The
claimant, through the union gave a demand notice to the mgt which was not considered. He then raised a dispute
before the Conciliation Officer where steps were taken for conciliation. But for the adamant attitude of the
management the conciliation failed and he filed this case before this Tribunal invoking the provision of Section
2A of the Act.
Though notice was sent and served, none of the management appeared and by order dated 1st June,
2022 they were proceeded ex-parte.
The claimant examined himself as WW1 and filed a series of document which have been marked as
WW1/1 to WW1/9. These documents include the appointment letter, the demand notice, the claim filed before
the conciliation Officer, the reply filed by the mgt no. 2 before the conciliation officer etc.
The claimant in his affidavit evidence has stated that he was working as an employee of mgt no. 1 bank
and the introduction of the agency of mgt 2 is sham and designed to defeat his right and the mgt no. 1 be
directed to reinstate him to service with all back wages and continuity of service.
Perusal of the documents filed by the claimant it appears that the appointment letter marked as WW1/9
was issued by the mgt no. 2 ie. M/s Sood Enterprises. The said Sood Enterprises while filing reply before the
conciliation officer has admitted to have appointed the claimant w.e.f 01.11.2015. The said management
admitted to have enrolled the claimant under the ESIC scheme. The claimant has also filed the documents
relating to his ESIC membership wherein mgt no. 2 has been described as his employer. Thus, it is held that the
mgt no. 2 M/s Sood Enterprises is the employer of the claimant. Now, it is to be seen what benefit the claimant
is entitled to. The claimant has stated that his service was illegally terminated without assigning any reason. He
was not served with a notice nor the notice pay or termination compensation was paid to him. This evidence of
the claimant stands unrebutted and unchallenged. For non compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F and 25
G of the ID act, the order of the termination is held to be illegal and the claimant is held entitled to the reliefs
sought for. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is allowed against the mgt no. 2 and dismissed against the mgt no. 1 bank.
The mgt no. 2 is directed to re-instate the claimant in service forthwith and pay him Rs. 2,00,000/- ( 2 lac) as a
lump sum towards back wages and maintain continuity of his service. The mgt no. 2 is further directed to
reinstate him in service and pay the compensation within 1 months from the date of the publication of award
failing which the lump-sum amount payable towards back wages shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of
this order and till the final payment is made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 774.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k pSUUbZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
(17/2022) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12011/24/2022 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
1484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen
[No. L- 12011/24/2022- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 17/2022
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 01.03.2023
Smt T. Shakila
Rep by The Head Legal and Advisory Forum,
Canara Bank Staff Federation, Tamilnadu State Committee,
No.21/8, Kuppam Beach Road,
Raja Srinivasa Nagar, Chennai,
Tamilnadu 600041.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Asst. General Manager
Canara Bank, HRM section
Circle Office, No.563/1, Anna Salai
Teynampet
Chennai 600006
: First Respondent
2. The Branch Manager
Canara Bank, No.19
North Agraharam Street, Tirupathur Branch,
Tirupathur, Chennai, Tamilnadu 635601
: Second Respondent
3. The General Manager
Canara Bank, Personnel Wing
Head Office, No. 112, JC Road
Bengalure
: Third Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondents 1 to 3
:
None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011
/24/2022(IR(B-II)) dated 18.02.22022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Managementof Canara Bank in not regularizing the
services of Smt. T. Shakilla, Daily Wager is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dtd. 18.02.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 17/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case
to 27.04.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up. On the other hand,
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1485
the notice sent to the Petitioner returned un-served with a postal endorsement as ‘Not Known’. Thus the office
was directed to issue the fresh notice fixing the case to 03.10.2022. Pursuant to the order, fresh notice was
issued to the Petitioner, but again returned un-served. It reveals from the body of reference that while the
appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 18.02.2022 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference
were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have
received the reference. Therefore, even if the notices returned un-served in two occasions, this Tribunal without
resorting any coercive step, but listed to 3 more adjournments i.e 13.10.2022, 02.11.2022 and 15.12..2022,
directing the Petitioner to file claim statement and documents. The Petitioner did not turn up nor furnished
Claim Statement in any manner available to him. The case was reserved for Final Order.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which
would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed
with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate
Government as there exist no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 775.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad =koudksj izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k pSUUbZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (77/2017)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12012/51/2016 -आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 77/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
Travancore and their workmen
[No. L-12012/51/2016 - IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 77/2017
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 06.02.2023
Sri S. Rajesh
S/o Shanmugam
4/168, Sasthan Kovil Street
Muthulkurichi
Thuckalay Post
Kanyakumari
:
1st Party/Petitioner
1486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
The Assistant General Manager
State Bank of Travancore
Region-I, Regional Office
C.K.N. Buildings, 24 North Car Street
Nagercoil-629001
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Advocates, M/s A. Russel Raj
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Advocates, M/s S. Makesh
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/51/2016–
(IR(B.I) dtd. 28.07.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of Management of State Bank of Travancore, Regional Office
Nagercoil in terminating Sh. S. Rajesh, an Ex-Peon cum Clerk from service w.e.f
13.04.2013 is legal and justified?. If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to ?
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered as ID No. 77/2017 and due notices were issued to both sides for their appearance on 04.09.2017 and
to many more subsequent dates till the end of year 2017 and some more date in the year 2018 i.e. from
08.01.2018 till 31.10.2018 intervening almost 7 adjournments. No progress was noticed till then as the post of
Presiding Officer was lying vacant. Even after the post was filled up, the case was listed to 28.01.2019, the
Petitioner did not turn up. resulting further two adjournments i.e. 14.02.2019 and 26.03.2019. The Petitioner
filed Claim Statement without any documents resulting some more adjournments till13.08.2019 intervening 3
adjournments. On that day the Respondent filed Counter Statement thus the case was posted to
16.09.2019 directing the Petitioner to file Affidavit Evidence fixing the case to 25.10.2019. The Petitioner did
not turn up but the Respondent represented through the Counsel. The case was re-listed to 03.12.2019. On that
date, on repeated calls the Petitioner did not appear nor the Affidavit-Evidence was filed. No petition for time
was also filed. However in the interest of justice, the case is again re-scheduled to 28.01.2020 and to subsequent
three more dates till 12.05.2020. Thereafter due to the outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19 the case was so-moto
listed and relisted to several dates in the whole of the year 2020 and also till 30.08.2021 intervening several
dates of adjournment. The Petitioner did not appear nor any Proof of Affidavit was filed. The case was again re-
scheduled to further dates for the same purpose till 17.03.2022 intervening 4 adjournments. On 17.03.2022, the
Petitioner filed Proof of affidavit. As such the case was listed for his Examination-in-Chief and Cross on
03.08.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up to adduce evidence. Even then, the case was so-moto adjourned to
further dates i.e. to 17.10.2022 and 01.12.2022. The Petitioner did not appear nor filed the Proof of Affidavit.
No Time Petition was also filed for the purpose. It reveals that despite of several adjournments, due to non-
participation of the Petitioner in the proceeding there was no progress in the case. The case is simply dragged
for five years.
3.
It appears the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case even if sufficient opportunities were
afforded to him for appearance and to represent his case. Accordingly it is felt not to list the case to any other
date for the same purpose. The Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand humbly submits not to repost the
case to any other date but to dispose the same in accordance to Law.
4. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the
Appropriate Government vide dtd. 28.07.2017. The case is liable for dismissal due to non-cooperation and
default in appearance of the Petitioner. In the circumstance, it is held proper to dispose of the case without
wasting the valuable time of the Tribunal.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication as
referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the ID case stands dismissed. An Award is passed accordingly.
Record be sent to appropriate Government under Sec-17 for further follow up action.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1487
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 776.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad izca/krarz 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 pSUUbZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (35/2020) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल- 39025/01/2023-आई आर (बी-II)-08]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 35/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen
[No. L- 39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-08]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 35/2020
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer
Date: 22.02.2023
Sri P. Narayanan
No. 81-A, Thirumaraiyur
Nazareth
Tuticorin District
Tamil Nadu
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
Canara Bank, IR Section
Personal Management Wing
112, JC Road
Bangalore-2
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Advocates, M/s TR Sathiyamohan &
R. Narmadha
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its M.No. 7/6/2020-A1 dtd.
17.12.2020 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the workman Sri P. Narayanan, Staff No. 62451 against the
Management of Canara Bank, Circle Office, Madurai for reinstatement with all consequential
benefits is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
1488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. On receipt of the above reference, it was registered as ID No. 35/2020 and due notices were issued to
both sides for their appearance on 05.03.2021. Due to outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19, the case was simply
scheduled and re-scheduled for about 4 dates till 16.11.2021. On that day, the Representing Counsel for the
Respondent, though was present, the Petitioner did not turn up resulting adjournment to 13.01.2022. The
Petitioner was directed for appearance and for filing of Claim Statement and Documents. On that day, the
Petitioner did not turn up nor any Time Petition was filed. Even then, the Tribunal suo-moto adjourned the case
to several dates i.e. 01.03.2022, 13.04.2022 and 01.06.2022 directing the Petitioner to file Claim Statement and
Documents. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Counsel for the Respondent was present on all the dates
and raises strenuous objection to re-schedule the case to any more dates. However, for the interest of justice, the
Tribunal afforded further chance to the Petitioner for his appearance and filing of Claim Statement. The case
was accordingly listed to 28.07.2022. The Petitioner did not appear on repeated calls. The case was again
adjourned to 01.08.2022 as last chance. The Respondent though represented through its Counsel, the Petitioner
did not turn up nor any Time Petition was filed. In the fact and circumstance, it is felt not to re-schedule the case
to any more date but reserve for final order. It is pertinent to mention that since the date of order i.e. 01.08.2022
till the date of final order, neither the Petitioner appeared in person nor represented through any Authorized
Representative / Counsel. Not a single Petition has been moved for extension of time. It would not be out of
place to state that from the very date of registration, the Petitioner did not appear either in person or through
Authorized Representative / Counsel. Besides, it further reveals that despite of several opportunities, though
were made available to the Petitioner to appear and to file claim statement, he chose not to appear and file the
Claim Statement or else he could have been directed to file Affidavit-Evidence and for his examination in
support of his case. It is crystal clear that the Petitioner deliberately failed to appear and file Claim Statement
and in fact withheld himself to come to the Witness Box to prove his case. On the other hand, due to non-
participation / cooperation of the Petitioner/Applicant, the case is simply dragged for more than 2 years from the
date of registration. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, the case is liable for dismissal.
In the result the ID case stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 777.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz 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 pSUUbZ ds iapkV lanHkZ
la[;k (47/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12012/43/2018 -आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.47/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen
[No. L- 12012/43/2018- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 47/2019
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 22.02.2023
Sri G. Prakash
No. 4/15, Thirupur Kumaran Street
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1489
Radha Nagar
Chromepet
Chennai-600044
….1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India
Local Head Office, Chennai Circle
No. 21, Anna Salai
Chennai-600006
….2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
Advocates, M/s V. Govardhanan
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Advocate, Sri S. Makesh
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/43/2018
(IR(B-I) dtd. 19.02.2019 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the claim of Sri G. Prakash, Daftry in the CAC Chennai Branch of erstwhile State
Bank of Hyderabad, now State Bank of India against the management for his wrong dismissal
from service w.e.f. 15.06.2011 on account of unauthorized absence from duty is fair, legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered in ID No. 47/2019 and notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
30.04.2019. The Appellant did not turn up. The case is adjourned to 11.06.2019 and further adjourned to
01.07.2019. On that day, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner files Claim Statement and the case was listed
for Counter Statement. On 17.12 2019, the Counsel for the Respondent files Counter. Accordingly the case is
listed to 30.01.2020 directing the Petitioner to file Affidavit-Evidence. The Petitioner did not turn up resulting
further adjournment to 17.02.2020 and 19.03.2020. The Petitioner failed to comply the direction. Due to
outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19, the case was scheduled and re-scheduled to several dates till 02.09.2021
entervening 5 adjournments till 03.02.2022 The Petitioner failed to file Affidavit-Evidence resulting further 4
adjournments as last chance till 27.07.2022. Since then, the case is dragged for such a long period, the
Counsel for the Respondent raises objection to re-schedule the case to any other date. However, for the interest
of justice, the case was fixed to 18.11.2022 as last chance. On that day, neither the Petitioner nor the
Authorized Representative were present. No Time Petition was filed. The case was reserved for final order. It
appears that even if for the interest of justice the Tribunal suo-moto afforded sufficient opportunities to the
Petitioner, there was no progress in the proceeding due to the non-cooperation of the Petitioner. The non-
participation in the proceeding by the Petitioner nor any Authorized Representative on his behalf, constrained
the Tribunal not to repost the proceeding to any other date for the same purpose as much as it deems the
petitioner has no interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the case is liable for dismissal in accordance to Law.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 778.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
1490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k हैदराबाद ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 117/2018) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/59/2018 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.117/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/59/2018 - IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of April, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 117/2018
Between:
The Honorary President,
Indian Bank Contract, Casual &
Temporary workers Union,
Care-401, MVV Gardens,
L.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam -530017..
..….Petitioner
AND
The Zonal Manager,
Indian Bank,
Zonal Office,
Seshaperan Street,
Chittor – A.P.-517001.
… Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/s. R. Yogender Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: M/s. S. Vikramaditya Babu, S. Mujib Kumar & K. Narasimhulu, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12011/ 59/2018-IR(B.II) dated
20.11.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of Indian Bank and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the transfer order issued to Shri G. Venkataswami, Clerk, Tirumala Branch
to Avilala(Tirupathi) is in violation of the pderiodical transfer policy? If so, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 117/2018 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned and the Petitioner entered appearance. Petitioner filed claim statement and Respondent filed counter
statement.
2.
On the date fixed for hearing Petitioner remained absent. After filing the vakalath, Petitioner did not
file any claim statement
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1491
3.
Respondent bank has filed letters dated 12.11.2019,17.12.2019, 18.12.2019 and 11.3.2020, therein the
Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner Mr. G. Venkataswami, SR No.25099, Clerk/Shroff retired last
year from Tirupathi branch of Respondent on 31.5.2019 with retirement benefits. A copy of the retired
employee’s ID is enclosed with the letter. As regards, the issue of transfer of employee from Tirumala branch to
Avilala Branch, Tirupathi, the Respondent has submitted that the branches of Tirumala and Avilalal, Tirupathi
Branch are in the same Tirupathi centre and there is no violation of periodical transfer policy.
4.
After filing vakalath Petitioner did not file any claim statement despite sufficient number of
opportunities have been provided to him. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not
interested in pursuing his case and as such a no claim award is given against the workman/petitioner. As such,
a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this
the 12th day of April, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 779.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vksojlht cSad izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k हैदराबाद ds iapkV lanHkZ
la[;k (4/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/95/2017 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 4/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/95/2017 - IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2019
1492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN:
Sri J. Ramesh,
S/o J. Chandraiah,
D. No. 5/487, Chitvel Road,
Railway Kodur,
Y.S.R. District.
….Petitioner
AND
1. The Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office, No.40-9-27, 1st floor,
Near Benz Circle, Ringh Road,
Vijayawada – 520 008.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Railway Station Road, Beside
Bramarmba Theatre,
Venkatagiri – 524132.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri B .Kiran Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent :
M/s. Alluri Krishnam Raju, S. Ramesh & V. Nagarjuna, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/ 95/2017-IR (B.II) dated
9.3.2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada in
termination of Sri J. Ramesh on 15.1.2017 alleged to be working form 23.3.2013 is legal
and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 4/2019 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
Petitioner is absent on the date of hearing. Respondent is present. Petitioner is absent since long time.
Sufficient number of opportunities have been provided to the Petitioner but he did not file claim statement. It
seems that he do not want to prosecute his case. Therefore, a no claim award is given against the
workman/petitioner. As such, a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 14th day
of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1493
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 780.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय महाᮧबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, एिब᭙स, हैदराबाद; सहायक महाᮧबंधक (ᮧशासन), ओ/ओ
सीजीएमटी, ए.पी. स᳸कᭅल, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी कोला वᱶकटे᳡रलू, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं.15/2017)
को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2023-86 -आई आर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad ;The Assistant
General Manager (Admn.),O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, and Shri Kola Venkateswarlu, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-86-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th day of April, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 15/2017
Between:
Sri Kola Venkateswarlu,
S/o Somaiah,
R/o Bonakal Station, Bonakal(M),
Khammam District. – 507204
…. Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunications, BSNL,
Abids, Hyderabad.
2.
The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle,
Hyderabad – 1.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
1494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Sri Kola Venkateswarlu, who worked as Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed
this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents, Railway
Electrification Project (REF), BSNL, Secunderabad seeking for declaring the proceeding No. TA/STB/20-
2/REP/06-10/25 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of
principles of natural justice and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to regularize or re-
engage the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits and such other reliefs as this court
may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner has worked as Mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project(REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner submitted
that thereafter he along with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract
basis. Petitioner along with others has been requesting for regularization or to provide regular work still no
action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable period. Further, petitioner
came to know that by proceedings dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by
giving them "temporary status" by the respondent, in fact those persons are juniors to the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons. Petitioner hails from poor family and have been pursuing the authorities since long
time with a hope that the department would consider her claim in a positive manner. Petitioner submits that, as
there was no action taken by the respondents he along with others approached Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad by filing OA. Nos. 100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon'ble Tribunal after
hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific directions "since the applicants in the
OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP.No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this
Original Application by giving a direction to the applicants to file individual representations to the respondents
giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they were engaged, the period for which they were
engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such representations, the respondents shall examine
their applications with reference to the records and the scheme that was in force and pass orders within a period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.” It is submitted that, as per the orders of the
Hon'ble Tribunal the petitioner and others have submitted elaborate representations to the Respondent No.1
along with order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal and also attendance book etc. on 3.3.2010 the Respondent No.1
instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing
opportunity of being heard, Respondent has issued the impugned letter dt.8.6.2010 stating,
“i) With reference to the representation, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated
10.2.2010 in OA. No.100/10 it is informed that the same has been duly considered having regard to
the policy and availability of records and it is regretted that it is not open to re-engage you as casual
labours or grant of temporary status under the scheme dt.7.10.1989 which has exclusive application
to casual labour who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 and continued as such. The
following have duly taken into consideration for the aforesaid decision. All the casual labors who
were eligible as per letter dt.29.9.2000 of DOT were regularized as one time measure.
(ii) Records pertaining to Railway electrification Project are not available for due verification of
information furnished by you as they were weeded out as per the retention schedule. The letter of
appointment and payment thereof is requisite record to verify your engagement from 1.1.1994 to
30.9.1996 and the basis for the same while DOT, New Delhi letter No.270-6/84-STN dt.22.6.1988
imposed ban on engagement of casual labours including project circle.
(iii) The certification by the Divisional Engineer about such engagement is not acceptable in the absence
of records as indicated above.
(iv) It is stated that you have been disengaged as casual labour and also thereafter continued with
contractor and thus there is no employer-employee relationship at any point of time thereafter and as
such there is no scope to re-engage you as casual labour and also in view of the complete ban as per
DOT, New Delhi letter no.269-4/93 STN-II dt. 12.2.1999 and further affirmed vide letter no.269-
4/93/STN Il dt.15.6.1999 and the said policy is continuing.
v) The violation of provisions of Sec.25F of ID Act, 1947 having questioned in the appropriate forum
at any time and as such disengagement has become final for all purposes.
vi) This disposes of your representation and it is hereby clarified that no further correspondence will be
entertained on this subject.”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1495
Petitioner submitted that the proceedings dated 27.4.2010 are ex.facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory
and contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of
Constitution of India. It is submitted when similarly situated persons were regularized the respondent ought to
have extended the same benefit to the petitioner also. Further, the reasoning recorded by the respondent as
mentioned in the clause-(i) of the impugned order stating that benefit of extension of temporary status under
scheme dated 7.10.1989 is only for casual labours who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 is not
tenable and when the department had extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons and having extracted
work from the petitioner during subsequent period, denial of said benefit amounts discrimination. The
contention of the respondents as mentioned in clause-(ii), records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project
are not available as have weeded out as per the retention schedule is also not tenable. It is submitted non-
availability of the records in the department cannot be attributed to the petitioner and respondent ought to have
accepted the records produced by the petitioner. It is submitted regarding para no (4) of the impugned order that
when similarly situated persons were engaged and records shows the services rendered by the petitioner the
contention that there is no relationship as employer and employee is also not tenable. Clause (5) of the order is
not maintainable in respect of the claims of petitioner as he has been pursuing with the department to re-engage
him in the respondent department in view of their past experience. The petitioner is having record and also the
department had considered similarly situated persons as such the petitioner is entitled for relief. It is submitted
that the impugned order is not only illegal but also contrary to earlier directions issued by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal as such as a last resort the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble court. The petitioner,
along with others approached Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and
filed OA. No. 1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the applicants
therein to approach concerned Labour court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and hence, this petition. It is
submitted the petitioner and others have filed their concerned days book duly signed by the employer on every
month ending, identity card, etc., the days book clearly postulates all the relevant information of the petitioner
with regard to work i.e. MRPTS work, cable work, or alignment, store work, etc., and Petitioner was paid
Rs.60/- per day. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to i) Declare the impugned
letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/25 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the respondent as illegal arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said letter.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
The Respondent submitted that the claim petition is misconceived and is barred by limitation. There is
no engagement of casual labour in BSNL, after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such
before the imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-
STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have
been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in the project after the
imposition of ban vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the
Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. The claimant is confusing the
Hon'ble Tribunal with regard to the letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010, in OA No.100/2010 filed in
continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the High Court seeking for the identical relief and the communication
dated 27.4.2010 based on the directions dt.10.2.2010 in O.A.No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order
notwithstanding the fact that the said O.A.No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to
the definition of employee in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006 implemented as such from 10.1.2006
thereby leaving no scope to exercise any jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Tribunal and on 28.2.2011 in
O.A.No.1229/2010. It is not open for the claimant to assail the same before this Hon'ble Court in any manner for
any purpose. The Railway Electrification project for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said
project is out side jurisdiction of the respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged
by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of
the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law.
The Petitioner is relying on the documents which do not form part of the record of the respondent without any
letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of the records in not the administrative
concern of the answering respondent and no records as such are maintained after the expiry of three years
relating to muster roll as per the retention schedule. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to dismiss the claim petition.
4.
Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and examined himself as WW1 reiterating the facts stated in
claim petition stated that, he has worked as Mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project (REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.19996 for 1004 days along with others. Thereafter, he, along
with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis requesting for
1496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
regularization and no action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable
period. Petitioner marked Photostat copies of documents which were marked as Ex.W1 to W13. During the
cross examination Petitioner stated that he worked from 1994 to 1996 in the Railway Electrification Project and
again he worked in the office of Divisional engineer, Secunderabad for two years. He do not know whether
that project exists or not.
5.
Respondent did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Both parties filed written arguments as well
as submitted oral arguments.
6.
Heard. Perused the record.
7.
The following points arise for consideration:-
I.
Whether the Petitioner is eligible to be regularized as temporary status with Respondent employment
under the scheme Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1989?
II.
Whether order dated 27.4.2010 passed by Respondent on Petitioner’s representation is just?
III.
To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled?
Findings:
8.
Points No.I & II:
Before proceeding to determination on points, it would be relevant to
narrate the facts in the back drop of the matter. As pleaded by Petitioner workman Sri Kola Venkateswarlu, he
has worked as mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur from
1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner along with others continued on voucher
payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis. He along with others have been requesting for
regularization and to provide the regular work. Still no action has been taken by the Department, though they
have worked for a considerable period. It is also pleaded that Petitioner came to know that by proceedings
dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by giving them temporary status by the
Respondents. Since no action was taken by the Respondents he along with others approached Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA No.100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon’ble
Tribunal after hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific direction which reads
as follows: “since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP
No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA by giving a direction to the applicants to file
individual representations to the respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they
were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such
representations, the respondents shall examine their applications with reference to the records and the scheme
that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.”
The Petitioner in compliance of the above order moved representation dated 3.3.2010 to the Respondent
authority and Respondent rejected the representation by passing impugned order dated 27.4.2010. Against this
impugned order present industrial dispute petition has been filed by the workman before the Tribunal. It is also
submitted that the Petitioner along with others have challenged impugned order dated 27.4.2010 rejecting the
representation of Petitioner and filed OA No.1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides Hon’ble Tribunal has
directed the applicant to approach the labour court under I.D. Act, 1947. The copy of the order dated 28.2.2011
passed in OA No.1229/2010, G. Pentaiah and others Vs. Union of India has been filed wherein Hon’ble
Tribunal has observed as below:
“8. Admittedly, the applicants were engaged between 1.1.1994 and 30.9.1996 and they do not come
under the scope of the scheme. However, a direction was given by this Tribunal earlier to examine
their cases since the applicants claimed that some juniors who were appointed subsequently had been
regularized. I now find that the Respondents have rejected the claim on the ground that relevant
records have been weeded out. the matter raised disputed questions of fact viz., whether the applicants
were employed as casual labourers for more than 1000 days and whether they are eligible for
temporary status, etc. In the absence of records, it is not possible for this Tribunal to adjudicate this
matter.
9.
I, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the applicants to approach the
labour authorities under the Industrial Disputes’ Act, 1947, if they are so advised, with all the relevant
material so that a decision on their eligibility for temporary status or otherwise can be taken by the
Respondent authorities. The Learned Counsel for the applicants has no objection to such a direction
being given.”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1497
Therefore, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, we proceed to
decide to determine the question whether the applicant was engaged as casual mazdoor for more than 1000 days
and they are eligible for temporary status.
9.
In this regard, the Petitioner has pleaded that he has got engaged as mazdoor(casual labour) in
Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur form 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with
others. It is also submitted that he along with others continued as such on voucher payment basis and later on
contract basis.
10.
On the other hand the Respondent has filed counter stating therein that there is no engagement of
casual labour in BSNL after 10.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before the
imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have been
continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in Railway Electrification
Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy
thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. It
is submitted that the Petitioner is not covered under the definition of employee with Rule 3 sub clause 8 of
BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006. Therefore, it is not open for the claimant to assail the same in any manner for any
purpose. It is also submitted that Railway Electrification Project for line dismantling is distinct and different
and the said projects is out side jurisdiction of the answering Respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage
any casual labour engaged by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging
thereafter and entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and
regularization as per the settled law. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that the Petitioner had worked as a
mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project of the Respondent on contract basis. The Petitioner has submitted
the documents in support of his allegation which are: Ex.W1 is photocopy of orders dated 27.4.2010. Ex.W2 is
a copy of representation dated 3.3.2010. The last para of the representation reveals that Petitioner has prayed
for relief from Respondent to provide him employment, whereas in petition he has sought relief of
regularization in the Respondent employment. Document Ex.W3 and W4 are photocopies of the orders of
Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal passed in OA 1229/2010 and 100/2010. Other document Ex.W5 is
photocopy of order passed in OA No.101/2010 dated 10.2.2010. The documents Ex.W6 to W9 are photocopies
of the proceedings which were supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner which contains list of casual labour.
Ex.W10 is photocopy of letter regarding temporary status and Ex.W11 is the attendance sheets of the workman
Petitioner which has been signed by Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Secunderabad which reveals that the
Petitioner has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in Railway Electrification Project.
11.
It would be relevant to reproduce the provision of Sec.2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act, 1947 which
provide that,
“ (oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not
include:-
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-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; “
12.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager
has held: “ the termination of the service of workman engaged in a scheme or project amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following provision being satisfied:
i)
That the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
ii)
The employment was on contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that
the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii)
The employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract.
iv)
The workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at
the commencement of employment.
13.
Since the Petitioner has alleged that he has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in the
Railway Electrification Project as contract labour. It goes to show that Petitioner has worked in the
1498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Respondent employment on a project which is open for a limited time and after completion of the project the
Petitioner cannot claim any employment or regularization in the service of the Respondent. As far as the
contention of the Petitioner is concerned that he should be regularized as other casual workers regularized under
the scheme, it is settled law that any contract workman has no right to seek regularization of employment from
employer, since it is a matter of discretion of the employer. Even otherwise, if a fresh contract contemplated to
secure employee appointment with higher qualification or seek a fresh job on contractual employment having
more skills, the employer will always have an authority to decide what is best for improving its functioning and
which can be depend on work requirements.
14.
Petitioner contended that Respondent has mentioned that in the impugned order the record pertaining
to Railway Electrification Project are not available for due verification of the information furnished by the
Petitioner. As they have weeded out as per retention schedule. The letter of appointment and payment thereof
is requisite record to verify the engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996. It is the duty of the authority to protect
official files and record, it would be worthy to mention here that Petitioner had worked as Mazdoor in
Respondent project for the period 1994-1996 as contract labour and he raised present industrial dispute by
filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in July, 2012. Long span of time more than 15 years have
elapsed. Respondent in his counter has stated that no record as such are maintained after the expiry of three
years relating to the muster roll as per the retention schedule. Since there was gross latches of inordinate
delay on the part of Petitioner in raising present industrial dispute. Respondent is not supposed to maintain
record of contractual labour beyond retention schedule. Therefore, in the case of non-production of the record
by the Respondent, no adverse inference can be drawn against him in this case.
15.
Respondent submitted that there is no engagement of casual labour in BSNL after 1.10.2000 and the
casual labour who have been engaged before the imposition of the ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN dated
30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the
Electrification project circles have been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having
been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated
22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement
or for regularization under the said policy. The Respondent has submitted the copy of letter No.270/6/84-STN
dated 30.3.1985 wherein it is mentioned that the Telecom Department has directed to stop the recruitment or
employment of casual labour of any kind, any type of work. Further, copy of letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 which is regarding casual labour recruitment wherein it is mentioned (para 2) that, there shall be no
recruitment of casual labour even for specific period and it was directed to Respondent Department to engage
from neighbouring divisions, employed for the project or electrification work. Further, the copy of the letter of
DG Telecom, New Delhi dated 7.11.1989 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the casual labourers
could be engaged after 30.3.1985 in projects and Electrification Circles only for specific works and on
completion of the work the casual labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. It is also mentioned
that as per the direction in letter dated 22.6.1988 fresh recruitment of casual labourers even for specific works
for specific periods in Projects and Electrification Circles also should not be resorted to. Therefore, in view of
the ban on engagement of casual labourers the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Since the Petitioner
was engaged through contractor in the Railway Electrification Project which was meant for a specific period
and after completion of the project work his employment is terminated and he is not eligible to claim for
regularization in view of above letters and his status as contract labour.
16.
Now the question arises whether there existed employee and employer relationship between the
claimant and Respondent. Petitioner has admitted the fact that he was doing the work as a contract labourer in
the Respondent Department. Further, to prove the employment there has to be a strict evidence to show some
nexus between the claimant and the Respondent. This can be any kind such as appointment letter, monthly
payment slip, deduction of Provident Fund, payment of any dues, which can show that he was in the
employment of the Respondent. In the case of Automobile Association of Upper India vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court-II, 2006 LLR page 851 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held, “ Engagement
and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of appointment letter, a
written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the
nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave records, deposit of Provident Fund contribution and
employees state insurance contribution etc.. The same can be produced and proved by the workers or he can
call upon and caused the same to be produced and proved by calling for witnesses who are required to produce
and prove these records.”
17.
But in the present case the claimant Petitioner has not produced any single piece of evidence showing
that he was issued appointment letter by the Respondent. In fact, he has not disclosed date of actual joining of
the employment as casual labour of the Respondent. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he was
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1499
casual labourer is not found to be proved by his evidence. Hence, he was not covered under Regularization
Scheme rather he was contract labour as he has admitted in petition.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
18.
Point No.III: In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Petitioner was not a casual
labourer, rather had worked as contract labour for the period from 1994 to 1996. Therefore, Petitioner is not
eligible to be regularized as a casual labour in the Respondent employment. The impugned order dated
8.6.2010 passed by Respondent needs no interference and petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the
finding given in Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for regularization or
reengagement. However, the Respondent has submitted that this Tribunal has disposed of LC No.8/2012 vide
its order dated 29.2.2020 and granted relief of compensation to the Petitioner. In view of the foregone
discussion, it is clear that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour for the period from 1994 to 1996 and
number of days he worked has been verified by the Divisional Engineer as the Petitioner has filed the
documentary evidence in support of his claim.
19.
In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs Employer I/R to
management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of 2014 dated 17.02.2014 held and laid down that :-
“in the case of BSNL VS. Bhurumal 2013 (15) SCALE 131 which has taken note of the earlier case law relevant
to the issue. Following passage from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the
question of reinstatement: "The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court
granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In the case of BSNL Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558, this
Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right.
However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has
consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be
wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of
the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.”
Therefore, in view of the above, Petitioner is liable for getting the compensation of Rs.50,000/.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the findings given above, it is hereby ordered: The petition of the Petitioner is allowed in
part. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to the Petitioner towards
compensation within four months from the receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate steps according to Law.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the
26th day of April, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Venkateswarlu
MW1: Nil
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of orders dated 27.4.2010
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of the Representation of WW1 dt.3.3.2010
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 1229/2011
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 100/2010
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order passed in CA. No. 101/2010
1500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of proceeding of respondent dt 9-5-2007
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of proceeding of Director, BSNL Railway Electrification Project
Secunderabad dt. 12 9-2002
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of list of candidates issued by Div. Engineer, Secunderabad dt. 11-9-2002
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of proceeding Dt. 13-11-2007 providing information under RTI Act
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of letter dt.21-11-2000 with regard to temporary status
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of Days Book signed by authority
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of Identity card of petitioner certificate issued by the conciliation officer
Ex.W13: Photo copy of certificate dt.9.6.2014
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 781.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय महाᮧबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, एिब᭙स, हैदराबाद; सहायक महाᮧबंधक (ᮧशासन), ओ/ओ
सीजीएमटी, ए.पी. स᳸कᭅल, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी वेपचेदु रामे᳡र राव, कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण-सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया
14/2012) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के
साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-88-आईआर(डीयू)
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad ;The Assistant
General Manager (Admn.),O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, and Shri Vepachedu Rameswara Rao, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-88-IR (DU)
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 14/2012
Between:
Sri Vepachedu Rameswara Rao
S/o Anjaneyulu,
R/o H.No.3-5-303/1/A,
Pillichinnakrishna Thota,
Khammam
….. Petitioner
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1501
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunications, BSNL,
Abids, Hyderabad.
2.
The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle,
Hyderabad – 1.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Vepachedu Rameswara Rao, who worked as Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has
filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents, Railway
Electrification Project (REF), BSNL, Secunderabad seeking for declaring the proceeding No. TA/STB/20-
2/REP/06-10/42 dated 8.6.2010 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of
principles of natural justice and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to regularize or re-
engage the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits and such other reliefs as this court
may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner has worked as Mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project(REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner submitted
that thereafter he along with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract
basis. Petitioner along with others have been requesting for regularization or to provide regular work still no
action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable period. Further, petitioner
came to know that by proceedings dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by
giving them "temporary status" by the respondent, in fact those persons are juniors to the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons. Petitioner hails from poor family and have been pursuing the authorities since long
time with a hope that the department would consider her claim in a positive manner. Petitioner submits that, as
there was no action taken by the respondents he along with others approached Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad by filing OA. Nos. 100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon'ble Tribunal after
hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific directions "since the applicants in the
OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP.No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this
Original Application by giving a direction to the applicants to file individual representations to the respondents
giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they were engaged, the period for which they were
engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such representations, the respondents shall examine
their applications with reference to the records and the scheme that was in force and pass orders within a period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.” It is submitted that, as per the orders of the
Hon'ble Tribunal the petitioner and others have submitted elaborate representations to the Respondent No.1
along with order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal and also attendance book etc. on 3.3.2010 the Respondent No.1
instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing
opportunity of being heard, Respondent has issued the impugned letter dt.8.6.2010 stating,
“ i) With reference to the representation, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10.2.2010
in OA. No.100/10 it is informed that the same has been duly considered having regard to the policy and
availability of records and it is regretted that it is not open to re-engage you as casual labours or grant of
temporary status under the scheme dt.7.10.1989 which has exclusive application to casual labour who have
engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 and continued as such. The following have duly taken into
consideration for the aforesaid decision. All the casual labors who were eligible as per letter dt.29.9.2000
of DOT were regularized as one time measure.
(ii) Records pertaining to Railway electrification Project are not available for due verification of
information furnished by you as they were weeded out as per the retention schedule. The letter of
appointment and payment thereof is requisite record to verify your engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996
1502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and the basis for the same while DOT, New Delhi letter No.270-6/84-STN dt.22.6.1988 imposed ban on
engagement of casual labours including project circle.
(iii) The certification by the Divisional Engineer about such engagement is not acceptable in the absence of
records as indicated above.
(iv) It is stated that you have been disengaged as casual labour and also thereafter continued with
contractor and thus there is no employer-employee relationship at any point of time thereafter and as such
there is no scope to re-engage you as casual labour and also in view of the complete ban as per DOT, New
Delhi letter no.269-4/93 STN-II dt. 12.2.1999 and further affirmed vide letter no.269-4/93/STN Il
dt.15.6.1999 and the said policy is continuing.
v) The violation of provisions of Sec.25F of ID Act, 1947 having questioned in the appropriate forum at
any time and as such disengagement has become final for all purposes.
vi) This disposes of your representation and it is hereby clarified that no further correspondence will be
entertained on this subject.”
Petitioner submitted that the proceedings dated 8.6.2010 are ex.facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and
contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of Constitution of
India. It is submitted when similarly situated persons were regularized the respondent ought to have extended
the same benefit to the petitioner also. Further, the reasoning recorded by the respondent as mentioned in the
clause-(i) of the impugned order stating that benefit of extension of temporary status under scheme dated
7.10.1989 is only for casual labours who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 is not tenable and
when the department had extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons and having extracted work from
the petitioner during subsequent period, denial of said benefit amounts discrimination. The contention of the
respondents as mentioned in clause-(ii), records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project are not available
as have weeded out as per the retention schedule is also not tenable. It is submitted non-availability of the
records in the department cannot be attributed to the petitioner and respondent ought to have accepted the
records produced by the petitioner. It is submitted regarding para no (4) of the impugned order that when
similarly situated persons were engaged and records shows the services rendered by the petitioner the contention
that there is no relationship as employer and employee is also not tenable. Clause (5) of the order is not
maintainable in respect of the claims of petitioner as he has been pursuing with the department to re-engage him
in the respondent department in view of their past experience. The petitioner is having record and also the
department had considered similarly situated persons as such the petitioner is entitled for relief. It is submitted
that the impugned order is not only illegal but also contrary to earlier directions issued by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal as such as a last resort the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble court. The petitioner,
along with others approached Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and
filed OA. No. 1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the applicants
therein to approach concerned Labour court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and hence, this petition. It is
submitted the petitioner and others have filed their concerned days book duly signed by the employer on every
month ending, identity card, etc., the days book clearly postulates all the relevant information of the petitioner
with regard to work i.e. MRPTS work, cable work, or alignment, store work, etc., and Petitioner was paid
Rs.60/- per day. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to i) Declare the impugned
letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/42 dated 8.6.2010 issued by the respondent as illegal arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said letter.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
The Respondent submitted that the claim petition is misconceived and is barred by limitation. There is no
engagement of casual labour in BSNL, after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such
before the imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-
STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have
been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in the project after the
imposition of ban vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the
Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. The claimant is confusing the
Hon'ble Tribunal with regard to the letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010, in OA No.100/2010 filed in
continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the High Court seeking for the identical relief and the communication
dated 27.4.2010 based on the directions dt.10.2.2010 in O.A.No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order
notwithstanding the fact that the said O.A.No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1503
the definition of employee in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006 implemented as such from 10.1.2006
thereby leaving no scope to exercise any jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Tribunal and on 28.2.2011 in
O.A.No.1229/2010. It is not open for the claimant to assail the same before this Hon'ble Court in any manner for
any purpose. The Railway Electrification project for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said
project is out side jurisdiction of the respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged
by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of
the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law.
The Petitioner is relying on the documents which do not form part of the record of the respondent without any
letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of the records in not the administrative
concern of the answering respondent and no records as such are maintained after the expiry of three years
relating to muster roll as per the retention schedule. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to dismiss the claim petition.
4.
Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and examined himself as WW1 reiterating the facts stated in
claim petition stated that, he has worked as Mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project (REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.19996 for 1004 days along with others. Thereafter, he, along
with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis requesting for
regularization and no action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable
period.
5.
Respondent did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Both parties filed written arguments as well
as submitted oral arguments.
6.
Heard. Perused the pleadings of both the parties.
7.
The following points arise for consideration:-
I.
Whether the Petitioner is eligible to be regularized as temporary status with Respondent
employment under the scheme Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularization) Scheme 1989?
II.
Whether order dated 8.6.2010 passed by Respondent on Petitioner’s representation is just?
III.
To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled?
Finding:
8.
Points No.I & II: Before proceeding to determination on points, it would be relevant to narrate the
facts in the back drop of the matter. As pleaded by Petitioner workman Sri V. Rammeshwara Rao, he has
worked as mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994
to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner along with others continued on voucher payment
basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis. He along with others have been requesting for
regularization and to provide the regular work. Still no action has been taken by the Department, though they
have worked for a considerable period. It is also pleaded that Petitioner came to know that by proceedings
dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by giving them temporary status by the
Respondents. Since no action was taken by the Respondents he along with others approached Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA No.100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon’ble
Tribunal after hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific direction which reads
as follows: “since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP
No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA by giving a direction to the applicants to file
individual representations to the respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they
were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such
representations, the respondents shall examine their applications with reference to the records and the scheme
that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.”
The Petitioner in compliance of the above order moved representation dated 3.3.2010 to the Respondent
authority and Respondent rejected the representation by passing impugned order dated 8.6.2010. Against this
impugned order present industrial dispute petition has been filed by the workman before the Tribunal. It is also
submitted that the Petitioner along with others have challenged impugned order dated 8.6.2010 rejecting the
representation of Petitioner and filed OA No.1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides Hon’ble Tribunal has
directed the applicant to approach the labour court under I.D. Act, 1947. The copy of the order dated 28.2.2011
passed in OA No.1229/2010, G. Pentaiah and others Vs. Union of India has been filed wherein Hon’ble
Tribunal has observed as below:
1504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“8. Admittedly, the applicants were engaged between 1.1.1994 and 30.9.1996 and they do not come
under the scope of the scheme. However, a direction was given by this Tribunal earlier to examine
their cases since the applicants claimed that some juniors who were appointed subsequently had been
regularized. I now find that the Respondents have rejected the claim on the ground that relevant
records have been weeded out. the matter raised disputed questions of fact viz., whether the applicants
were employed as casual labourers for more than 1000 days and whether they are eligible for
temporary status, etc. In the absence of records, it is not possible for this Tribunal to adjudicate this
matter.
9.
I, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the applicants to approach the
labour authorities under the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947, if they are so advised, with all the relevant
material so that a decision on their eligibility for temporary status or otherwise can be taken by the
Respondent authorities. The Learned Counsel for the applicants has no objection to such a direction
being given.”
Therefore, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, we proceed to
decide to determine the question whether the applicant was engaged as casual mazdoor for more than 1000 days
and they are eligible for temporary status.
9.
In this regard, the Petitioner has pleaded that he has got engaged as mazdoor(casual labour) in
Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur form 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with
others. It is also submitted that he along with others continued as such on voucher payment basis and later on
contract basis.
10.
On the other hand the Respondent has filed counter stating therein that there is no engagement of
casual labour in BSNL after 10.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before the
imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have been
continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in Railway Electrification
Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy
thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. It
is submitted that the Petitioner is not covered under the definition of employee with Rule 3 sub clause 8 of
BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006. Therefore, it is not open for the claimant to assail the same in any manner for any
purpose. It is also submitted that Railway Electrification Project for line dismantling is distinct and different
and the said projects is out side jurisdiction of the answering Respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage
any casual labour engaged by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging
thereafter and entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and
regularization as per the settled law. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that the Petitioner had worked as a
mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project of the Respondent on contract basis. The Petitioner has submitted
the documents in support of his allegation which are: Ex.W1 is photocopy of order dated 8.6.2010 which the
Respondent authority has rejected the representation of the Petitioner by assigning reasons therein. Ex.W2 is a
copy of representation dated 3.3.2010. The last para of the representation reveals that Petitioner has prayed for
relief from Respondent to provide him employment, whereas in petition he has sought relief of regularization in
the Respondent employment. Document Ex.W3 and W4 are photocopies of the orders of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal passed in OA 1229/2010 and 100/2010. Other document Ex.W5 is photocopy of order
passed in OA No.101/2010 dated 10.2.2010. The documents Ex.W6 to W9 are photocopies of the proceedings
which were supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner which contains list of casual labour. Ex.W10 is
photocopy of letter regarding temporary status and Ex.W11 is the attendance sheets of the workman Petitioner
which has been signed by Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Secunderabad which reveals that the Petitioner has
worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in Railway Electrification Project.
11.
It would be relevant to reproduce the provision of Sec.2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act, 1947 which
provide that,
“ (oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include:-
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-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; “
12.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager
has held: “ the termination of the service of workman engaged in a scheme or project amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following provision being satisfied:
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1505
i)
That the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
ii)
The employment was on contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that
the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii)
The employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract.
iv)
The workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at
the commencement of employment.
13.
Since the Petitioner has alleged that he has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in the
Railway Electrification Project as contract labour. It goes to show that Petitioner has worked in the
Respondent employment on a project which is open for a limited time and after completion of the project the
Petitioner cannot claim any employment or regularization in the service of the Respondent. As far as the
contention of the Petitioner is concerned that he should be regularized as other casual workers regularized under
the scheme, it is settled law that any contract workman has no right to seek regularization of employment from
employer, since it is a matter of discretion of the employer. Even otherwise, if a fresh contract contemplated to
secure employee appointment with higher qualification or seek a fresh job on contractual employment having
more skills, the employer will always have an authority to decide what is best for improving its functioning and
which can be depend on work requirements.
14.
Petitioner contended that Respondent has mentioned that in the impugned order the record pertaining
to Railway Electrification Project are not available for due verification of the information furnished by the
Petitioner. As they have weeded out as per retention schedule. The letter of appointment and payment thereof
is requisite record to verify the engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996. It is the duty of the authority to protect
official files and record, it would be worthy to mention here that Petitioner had worked as Mazdoor in
Respondent project for the period 1994-1996 as contract labour and he raised present industrial dispute by
filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in July, 2012. Long span of time more than 15 years have
elapsed. Respondent in his counter has stated that no record as such are maintained after the expiry of three
years relating to the muster roll as per the retention schedule. Since there was gross latches of inordinate
delay on the part of Petitioner in raising present industrial dispute. Respondent is not supposed to maintain
record of contractual labour beyond retention schedule. Therefore, in the case of non-production of the record
by the Respondent, no adverse inference can be drawn against him in this case.
15.
Respondent submitted that there is no engagement of casual labour in BSNL after 1.10.2000 and the
casual labour who have been engaged before the imposition of the ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN dated
30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the
Electrification project circles have been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having
been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated
22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement
or for regularization under the said policy. The Respondent has submitted the copy of letter No.270/6/84-STN
dated 30.3.1985 wherein it is mentioned that the Telecom Department has directed to stop the recruitment or
employment of casual labour of any kind, any type of work. Further, copy of letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 which is regarding casual labour recruitment wherein it is mentioned (para 2) that, there shall be no
recruitment of casual labour even for specific period and it was directed to Respondent Department to engage
from neighbouring divisions, employed for the project or electrification work. Further, the copy of the letter of
DG Telecom, New Delhi dated 7.11.1989 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the casual labourers
could be engaged after 30.3.1985 in projects and Electrification Circles only for specific works and on
completion of the work the casual labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. It is also mentioned
that as per the direction in letter dated 22.6.1988 fresh recruitment of casual labourers even for specific works
for specific periods in Projects and Electrification Circles also should not be resorted to. Therefore, in view of
the ban on engagement of casual labourers the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Since the Petitioner
was engaged through contractor in the Railway Electrification Project which was meant for a specific period
and after completion of the project work his employment is terminated and he is not eligible to claim for
regularization in view of above letters and his status as contract labour.
16.
Now the question arises whether there existed employee and employer relationship between the
claimant and Respondent. Petitioner has admitted the fact that he was doing the work as a contract labourer in
the Respondent Department. Further, to prove the employment there has to be a strict evidence to show some
nexus between the claimant and the Respondent. This can be any kind such as appointment letter, monthly
payment slip, deduction of Provident Fund, payment of any dues, which can show that he was in the
employment of the Respondent. In the case of Automobile Association of Upper India vs. Presiding
1506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Officer Labour Court-II, 2006 LLR page 851 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held, “ Engagement
and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of appointment letter, a
written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the
nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave records, deposit of Provident Fund contribution and
employees state insurance contribution etc.. The same can be produced and proved by the workers or he can
call upon and caused the same to be produced and proved by calling for witnesses who are required to produce
and prove these records.”
17.
But in the present case the claimant Petitioner has not produced any single piece of evidence showing
that he was issued appointment letter by the Respondent. In fact, he has not disclosed date of actual joining of
the employment as casual labour of the Respondent. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he was
casual labourer is not found to be proved by his evidence. Hence, he was not covered under Regularization
Scheme rather he was contract labour as he has admitted in petition.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
18.
Point No.III: In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Petitioner was not a casual labourer,
rather had worked as contract labour for the period from 1994 to 1996. Therefore, Petitioner is not eligible to
be regularized as a casual labour in the Respondent employment. The impugned order dated 8.6.2010 passed
by Respondent needs no interference and petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the finding given in
Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for regularization or reengagement.
However, the Respondent has submitted that this Tribunal has disposed of LC No. 8/2012 vide its order dated
29.2.2020 and granted relief of compensation to the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above, Petitioner is
liable for getting the compensation of Rs.50,000/.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the findings given above, it is hereby ordered: The petition of the Petitioner is allowed in
part. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to the Petitioner towards
compensation within four months from the receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate steps according to Law.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 3rd
day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Vepachedu Rameshwar Rao
MW1: Nil
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of the Order dt 27-4-2010
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of the Representation of WW1 dt.3.3.2010
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 1229/2011
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 100/2010
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order passed in CA. No. 101/2010
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of proceeding of respondent dt 9-5-2007
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of proceeding of Director, BSNL Railway Electrification
Project Secunderabad dt. 12-9-2002
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of list of candidates issued by Div. Engineer, Secunderabad dt. 11-9-2002
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of proceeding Dt. 13-11-2007 providing information under RTI Act
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of letter dt.21-11-2000 with regard to temporary status
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1507
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of Days Book signed by authority
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of Identity card of petitioner
Ex.W13: Copy of order passed in WP No.12872/08
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 782.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मैससᭅ परमाणु धन पᳯरसर, ईसीआईएल पो᭭ट, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ीमती के.
लिलता, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के
पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 61/2008) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को
सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-91-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु,अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s. Nuclear Fuel Complex, ECIL Post, Hyderabad, and Smt. K. Lalitha, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-91-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 7th day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 61/2008
Between:
Smt. K. Lalitha,
W/o Sri K. Ashok Raj,
R/o 11-3-1136, Gokul Nagar,
Vinay Colony (Post),
Hyderabad. ...
.….Petitioner
AND
M/s. Nuclear Fuel Complex,
ECIL Post,
Hyderabad.
….Respondent
1508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A.K.Jayaprkash Rao, P.Sudha, M. Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri Ravinder Viswanath, Advocate
AWARD
Smt K. Lalitha, who worked as Helper (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent Nuclear Fuel Complex seeking for
reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages
and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made by the Petitioner in the claim petition are as follows:
The Petitioner Smt. K. Lalitha has joined the service of the Respondent on 17.12.1999 as a helper and
continuously worked unblemishedly till she was illegally removed by the Respondent vide order dated 2.4.2008.
She preferred an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer (Adm.) on 18.4.2008 and subsequently she gave the
reminder on 17.6.2008, but in vain. While she is in service, Respondent issued a memorandum dated
25.10.2007 with a set of charges alleging therein that she has committed misconduct. Petitioner submitted her
explanation to the charges as per the advise given by the Respondent that if she accept the charges a minor
punishment will be imposed, but after receipt of her explanation as per their advise, Respondent ordered for
enquiry. Even in the enquiry also she was assured by Respondent that if she accepts the charges in the enquiry
she will be given minor punishment. Then, she accepted the charges in the enquiry. It is submitted that before
the Enquiry Officer the Petitioner gave a statement that, she is accepting the charges because the Respondent
advised and assured that they will if she accept the charges they will give minor punishment, but the Enquiry
Officer failed to record the statement. It is further submitted that a stage managed enquiry was conducted,
wherein no document was placed before the Enquiry Officer by the Respondent and Enquiry Officer also has
not marked any document during enquiry. It is submitted that on the basis of acceptance by the Petitioner only
the Enquiry Officer held charges proved against the Petitioner. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer
are perverse, one sided without any supporting documents and against the principles of natural justice. It is
submitted that the Petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged by the Respondent. Capital
punishment of removal inflicted by the Respondent is shockingly disproportionate and does not commensurate
with the gravity of misconduct alleged to have been proved against the Petitioner. Petitioner is the only earning
member of her family having large number of members depending on the income of the Petitioner and there is
no other source of income. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the order of removal dated 2.4.2008 passed by the
Respondent by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits with back wages
etc..
3.
The Respondent filed counter denying all the allegations averred in the claim petition as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner joined Respondent organization as Helper/A(Cos.) on 17.12.1999.
She was issued with a charge memo dated 25.10.20017 for submission of false Transfer Certificate and
suppressing the factual information. It is submitted that she has admitted the charges vide her letter dated
22.11.2007 brining out her domestic problems for consideration of the Disciplinary Authority. Though she
accepted the charges, Disciplinary Authority felt that she should be given an opportunity to heard in person to
appraise the charges. Accordingly, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Petitioner was
removed from service vide order dated 02.04.2008 by following the prescribed procedure and giving her
reasonable opportunity to defend her case. Her appeal dated 22.04.2008 against the penalty order dated
02.04.2008 has been disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order No.NFC/Vig./1(01/5794/2008/1413
dated 19.08.2008. It is further submitted that during the inquiry proceedings, the charges leveled against her
have been read and translated in Telugu to appraise her about the charges. Thereafter, she has submitted a letter
dated 08.01.2008 admitting the charges to the Inquiry Officer. Her allegation that an advice was given to her to
accept the charges assuring a minor penalty to be imposed on her is not sustainable. It is submitted that the
certificate submitted by the Petitioner has been verified by Dy Educational Officer and confirmed that SPVM
School, Chandanwadi is a defunct school from the year 1994. The certificate dated 24.04.99 submitted by the
Petitioner is not genuine. Moreover, she has altered the date of births of her children to suit her date of birth,
which has been established from the documents submitted by her. The Petitioner has submitted false documents
with ulterior motive to secure employment in the respondents organization. She has committed grave
misconduct as the certificates submitted by her are not genuine as clarified by the Educational Authorities of
State Government and established by the inquiry documents on record by the Inquiry Officer during the
proceedings. In accordance with Govt. of India Decision No.2 under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if any
Government Servant at the time of initial recruitment in service had furnished false information or produced
false certificate in order to secure appointment, he/she should not be retained in service, if the charges are
proved, the Government Servant should be removed/ dismissed from service. In no circumstances, should any
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1509
other penalty be imposed. On establishing the facts that the Petitioner submitted false educational qualifications
with an ulterior motive to secure employment in the respondents' organization, penalty of removal from service
was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner. Therefore,
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
4.
As enquiry was not challenged by Petitioner, domestic enquiry is hled to be legal and valid vide order
dated 21.9.2011.
5.
Petitioner did not turn up for arguments. Respondent filed written arguments and submitted oral
arguments as well.
6.
It is submitted by the counsel for the Respondent that the petitioner was removed from service vide
order dated 2.4.2008 by following the prescribed procedure and giving her opportunity to defend her case. The
Petitioner submitted her representation dated nil, received in administration on 22.4.2008 against the penalty
order which has been disposed of by Appellate Authority by order No.NFC/Vig./1(01)/56794/2008/1413 dated
19.8.2008. The order of the Appellate Authority was acknowledged by her. It is submitted that during inquiry
proceedings, the charges levelled against her about the charges were explained to her. Thereafter, she has
submitted a letter dated 08-01-2O06 admitting the charges to the Inquiry Officer. Her allegation that an advice
was given to her to accept the charges assuring a minor penalty to be imposed on her, is not true and is not
sustainable in law and liable to be quashed as the prime duty of Inquiry Officer is to conduct the inquiry
proceedings impartially and submit his report to Disciplinary Authority for taking a decision. Under any
circumstances Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority will not assure about the penalty to be imposed on the
Charged Official. It is submitted that the certificate submitted by the petitioner has been verified by Dy.
Educational Officer and confirmed that SPVM School, Chandanwadi is a defunct school from the year 1994.
The certificate dated 24-04-1999 submitted by the petitioner is not genuine. Moreover, she has altered the date
of births of her children, which has been established from the documents submitted by her. The petitioner has
submitted false documents with ulterior motive to secure employment in the Respondent's organization. She
committed a grave misconduct. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner that she has not
committed any misconduct or suppressed the facts willfully and the certificates submitted by her is borne by the
record, is not correct as the certificates submitted by her are not genuine as clarified by the Educational
Authorities of State Government and established by the documents on record by the Inquiry Officer during the
Inquiry proceedings. It is submitted that in accordance with Govt. of India Decision No.2 under Rule 11 of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if any Government Servant at time of initial recruitment in service had furnished false
information or produced false certificate in order to secure appointment, he/she should not be retained in
service, if the be charges are proved, the Government Servant should be removed/dismissed from service. In no
circumstances, should any other penalty be imposed. On establishing the facts that the petitioner submitted
false educational qualifications with an ulterior motive to secure employment in the Respondent's organization,
penalty of removal from service was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after giving reasonable opportunity
to the petitioner. It is submitted that Petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and she has is
not entitled to any relief and the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7.
On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties following points emerges for determination:
I.
Whether action of Respondent in terminating the services of Petitioner Smt. K. Lalitha vide order dated
2.4.2008 is justified?
II.
Whether the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the Petitioner is disproportionate and not
commensurate to the charge levelled against her?
III.
To what relief is any Petitioner is entitled?
Finding:
8.
Points No.I & II: Petitioner claims that she joined the services of Respondent on 17.12.1999 as a
helper and continuously worked unblemishly till she was illegally removed by the Respondent by order dated
2.4.2008. Respondent issued memorandum with a set of charges alleging therein she has committed
misconduct. On the advice and assurance of Respondent that she will be awarded minor punishment, she has
admitted charge but the Respondent inflicted punishment of removal from service to her. Petitioner pleaded in
her claim statement that the Respondent has conducted a stage managed enquiry against the Petitioner and no
evidence either documentary or oral to substantiate the charge levelled against her was placed before the
Enquiry Officer. It is also pleaded that Enquiry Officer failed to consider the reasons behind accepting the
charge by Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer without any documents on record gave the finding as charge proved
on the basis of admission made by the Petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, one sided
without any document and against the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted by the Petitioner
1510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
counsel that during the enquiry it was assured by the Respondent that if she has accepted the charge in the
enquiry she will be given minor punishment and the Petitioner as per advice and assurance, accepted the charge
in the enquiry.
9.
On the other hand, Respondent has denied the allegation made by the Petitioner and submitted that her
allegation that advice was given to her assuring minor penalty to be imposed on her is not true and is not
sustainable in law. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry impartially and submitted reasoned report to
the Disciplinary Authority. Under any circumstances, Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority will not assure
about the penalty to be imposed on the charged official.
10.
Perused the record. The Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to fortify her claim as alleged in the
petition that any kind of assurance of minor punishment was given to her or by whom it was given to her.
Whereas the Respondent has submitted the documentary evidence along with the counter, i.e., annexure-I, it is
attested copy of the order dated 19.8.2008, which goes to show that the Appellate Authority has confirmed the
penalty of removal of service of Smt. K. Lalitha as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated
2.4.2008. Appellate Authority has discussed in detail of the enquiry proceeding and the reasons thereof and
also decision of her removal from service. Keeping in view gross misconduct by producing forged educational
document i.e., T.C. by Appellant and facts, circumstances of case dismissed her appeal. Annexure-2 is
acknowledgement which goes to show that the Petitioner received copy of charge and document during
enquiry. Annexure-3 is the report of District Educational Officer, Hyderabad dated 25.5.2005 which was
addressed to the Respondent office in reply for the verification of the Transfer Certificate submitted by Smt K.
Lalitha. It is mentioned therein that as per report of Dy. Educational Officer, Hyderabad, the Transfer
Certificate by H.M., S P V M Chandanwadi School in which the Petitioner said to have studied no records are
available in this regard. The report of Dy. Educational Officer is also attached and it is mentioned therein
“case verified, the education documents submitted by Petitioner and no record was available regarding her
Transfer Certificate as the school was found to be defunct. Another report dated 4.6.2007 is also available
which was submitted by Dy. Educational Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad, Assistant Personal officer, NFC to
District Education Officer, regarding verification of TC in respect of Smt. K. Lalitha wherein it is clearly
mentioned which reads as follows:
“1.
In the page at Sl.No.9, the name Lalitha is clearly an entry made at a later date and also in place of
some other entry, which is not clear. Against the entry, the Date of Birth, Marks of identification, Date
of leaving and date of TC Etc are changed and over written with the present entries.
2.
As per the copy of the admission register a candidate with Date of Birth 9.10.1975 at (Sl.No.11) is
admitted into LKG on 26.6.1976 i.e., at an age of ‘8’ months.
3.
In the admission register at Col.No.24, some students’ were issued with TC’s bearing a six digit
number with date, but this candidate is not given any TC consisting of six digit code, but used some
proforma available in the open market.
4.
On comparing the TC with the admission register, it creates doubt about the candidate’s mother tongue.
As per admission register it is Hindi but as per TC it is Telugu.
5.
As per the admission register, the candidate’s mother tongue is Hindi and her I language is also Hindi
and she has studied through English medium upto III class. But in her reply she has stated “Since
these certificates and letters are in English, I could not understand them.(originally written in
Telugu…..translated to English)” But how could she represent the same in Telugu, while she has not
studied in her mother tongue.”
11.
The contents of said report reflects that, Transfer Certificate was submitted by the Petitioner to the
Respondent at the time of appointment was found to be forged, since the record of school could not verify the
entries entered in her Transfer Certificate. Annexures 5,6 and 7 are birth certificates of her children alleged to
be issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Annexure 5 is the birth certificate of K. Shashi Rekha and
date of birth entered as 6.11.1989. Another birth certificate of K. Satish Raj, Petitioner’s son and his date of
birth is entered as 15.8.1990 and annexure 7 is the birth certificate of K. Sravanthi and date of birth entered is
20.6.1991. The date of birth of all three children of Petitioner are contradictory and make it doubtful. The
enquiry report dated 9.6.2008 reflects that at every stage of the enquiry proceeding, Petitioner workman was
provided hearing opportunity. She attended the enquiry on 8.1.2008 and during the enquiry she has admitted
all charges levelled against her and further she has stated that she will not commit such mistake in future, and
also requested to pardon her. From the Documents filed by Respondent it appears that Presenting Officer
read out the statement of Article of charge to the delinquent Smt. K. Lalitha and explained the same in Telugu
in detail. Smt. K. Lalitha confirmed the receipt of the charge memo and accept the charge levelled against her.
Therefore, she was given full opportunity to defend but She admitted the charge levelled against her during the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1511
enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after going through the relevant documents i.e., Transfer Certificate verification
reports received from Educational Officer, Nampally regarding Transfer Certificate and birth certificate of her
children submitted by her and admission of guilt by her, he came to a conclusion that the Petitioner has
committed the misconduct under Rule 3(j)(i)(iii) of CS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, punishment or
removal from service was inflicted upon her.
12.
In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar in Civil Appeal No. 2911/2022 the
Hon’ble Apex Court held: “In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the
Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a
grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged
mark sheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a
certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is
not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forge certificate. Therefore, in our
view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. It was a
case on behalf of the Petitioner – original writ Petitioner before the High Court that he pleaded guilty and
admitted that he had submitted a forged and fake certificate on the assurance that lesser punishment will be
imposed. However, except the bald statement, there is no further evidence on the same..
Even from the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court it does not appear that any
specific reasoning was given by the High Court on how the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
could be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. As per the settled position of law,
unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly
disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry the High Court would not be
justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which as such is a
prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority as observed herein above.
In any case in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above and considering
the charge and misconduct of producing the fake and false SSLC certificate proved, when a conscious decision
was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service, the same could not have been interfered
with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
13.
Petitioner contended that Enquiry Officer without any document on record gave the finding of charge
proved on the basis of admission made by the Petitioner. Perusal of the enquiry report reveals that Enquiry
Officer while giving finding on charge has relied upon the verification report of Dy. Educational Officer,
Nampally regarding the Transfer Certificate submitted by Petitioner to obtain the employment and the report
contain that the content of said T.C., could not be verified from the record of school. Therefore, Enquiry
Officer came to conclusion that T.C. is forged and fake. The contention of the Petitioner is not tenable.
14.
It is also submitted that it was assured by the Respondent to her that if she will accept the charge in
inquiry she will be given minor punishment and the Petitioner as per advice and assurance, accepted the charge
during enquiry. But the Petitioner did not disclose the name of the person in her claim statement or evidence
that who was the person that gave her such advice or assurance to admit the guilt in enquiry. No evidence
given by the Petitioner to this effect. It appears that when she felt apprehension about the consequences of
filing fake/forged certificate, she voluntarily admitted her guilt in relation to charge and also tried to seek lenient
view from Respondent or pardon in order to save her employment. There is no such allegation that she was
misrepresented or intimidated by Respondent to accept the guilt of charge. Then her allegation that her
admission was not voluntary and was under assurance is untenable.
15.
Petitioner submitted T.C. dated 24.4.1999 whereas the report of D.E.O., Nampally states that the
said school is defunct since the year 1994. Therefore, the said T.C. submitted by Petitioner in any
circumstances cannot be said to have been issued by the said school. Further, enquiry report reveals that
Transfer Certificate submitted by Petitioner is fake/forged. Another allegation raised by Petitioner is that no
oral evidence has been collected by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry. Since the enquiry pertains to
documentary evidence i.e., Transfer Certificate which can be verified only by documentary evidence. The
verification report has been collected from competent authority during the enquiry and relied upon by the
Enquiry Officer. Moreover, Petitioner did not disclosed in her petition that how she obtained Transfer
Certificate and by whom she got it issued. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said
document Transfer Certificate is found to be fabricated/forged and fake.
16.
The Respondent authority keeping in view of seriousness of misconduct committed by Petitioner has
inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service upon her. It is a case of Trust and when the Disciplinary
Authority/ employer looses confidence and trust in such an employee who submitted forged/fake certificate,
there is no need to interfere in the order of punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority. In Coal India Ltd.,
1512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
& Anr., Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors in Civil Appeal Nos.5762-5763 of 2009, wherein the Apex
Court held: “One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be
: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances: Obviously, a reasonable
employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other
relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.” In such circumstances,
the infliction of punishment by Disciplinary Authority of the removal of the Petitioner Smt. K. Lalitha from
services cannot be said to be disproportionate and not commensurate to her misconduct.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
18.
Point No.III: In view of the findings given in Points No.I & II and Law laid down by the Apex Court,
the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the Petitioner’s claim is liable to be dismissed hence
stands dismissed.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In these circumstances, this tribunal comes to the conclusion that the order of removal of the Petitioner
is legal and justified, she is not entitled for any relief. And also claim petition is unfounded and deserves to
be dismissed and stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this
the 7th day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 783.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय आयुᲦ, सीमा शु᭨क और कᱶᮤीय उ᭜पाद शु᭨क, िवजाग ᭃेᮢ, िवशाखापᱫनम; आयुᲦ, सीमा शु᭨क और
कᱶᮤीय उ᭜पाद शु᭨क, ितᱧपित आयुᲦालय, ितᱧपित; सहायक आयुᲦ, सीमा शु᭨क और कᱶᮤीय उ᭜पाद शु᭨क, मंडल
कायाᭅलय, कुरनूल मंडल, कुरनूल; मािलक, मैससᭅ ᮰ीकृ᭬ण रोजगार सूचना और सेवाएं, एन कुरनूल, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के
संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी बी वनम᳖ा, ᮰ी पी नागराजू, और ᮰ी पी ᮰ीिनवासुलु, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥
के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ सं. 80/2007, 81/2007 &
82/2007) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के
साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-82-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 783.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2007, 81/2007 & 82/2007) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1513
the employers in relation to The Chief Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise, Vizag Zone, Visakhapatnam
; The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Tirupathi Commissionerate, Tirupathi ;The Assistant
Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Divisional Office, Kurnool Division, Kurnool ; proprietor,
M/s Sri Krishna Employment Information and services, NKurnool, and Shri B. Vanamanna, Shri P Nagaraju,
and Shri P Srinivasulu, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-82-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
HYDERABAD
Present: - Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day of April, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES LC No. 80/2007, 81/2007 & 82/2007
Between:
1. LCID 80/2007
B Vanamanna S/o Layanna
Pasupalla Village & Post
Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool – 518004 (A.P)
2. LCID 81/2007
P Nagaraju, S/o P Devanna
H No 40/706, Dharmapeta
Kurnool – 518004 (A.P)
3. LCID 82/2007
P Srinivasulu, S/o P Basavaiah,
C/o Sri Pulla Rao garu, Principal, Ravindra Junior College, Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool.
…Petitioners
AND
1. The Chief Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise, Vizag Zone, Visakhapatnam
2. The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Tirupathi Commissionerate, 9-86-A, West Church
Compound, MR Palle Road, Tirupathi – 517502
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Divisional Office, Kurnool Division, Near
Children’s park, NR Peta, Kurnool – 518004
4. M/s Sri Krishna Employment Information and services, No 40-790-2, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool, Rep by
its proprietor, Sri BV Ramana.
….Respondents
Appearance in all 3 cases:
For the Petitioners
:
Shri William Burra, Advocate
For the Respondents No.1 to 3
:
Shri K Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate
For the RespondentNo. 4
:
Shri MVL Narsaiah, Advocate
1514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
COMMON AWARD
Petitioner Sri B Vanamanna has filed petition under section 2(A)(2) of the ID Act against the
Respondent with a prayer to set aside the oral termination order 31.1.2007 and direct the respondent to reinstate
the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of services and all other attendant benefits which has been
registered as LCID No.80 of 2007.
2.
Petitioner Sri P Nagaraju has filed petition under section 2(A)(2) of the ID Act against the Respondent
with a prayer to set aside the oral termination order 31.1.2007 and direct the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with full back wages, continuity of services and all other attendant benefits which has been registered
as LCID No.81 of 2007.
3.
Petitioner Sri P Srinivasulu has filed petition under section 2(A)(2) of the ID Act against the
Respondent with a prayer to set aside the oral termination order 31.1.2007 and direct the respondent to reinstate
the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of services and all other attendant benefits which has been
registered as LCID No.82 of 2007.
4.
In all the above mentioned LCIDs, the petitioners have raised similar Industrial Disputes, therefore all
these cases are being heard simultaneously and decided by Common Judgement.
5.
In LCID 80/2007, the brief facts given raise to ID are that applicant Sri B Vanamanna was working as
casual labour in the office of The Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Divisional Office,
Kurnool i.e R3 and he was terminated from service by employer on 01.02.2007. The applicant was drawing a
wage of Rs.124/- per day at the time of termination. Further it is submitted that he was engaged as casual labour
on 11.11.1998 in the office of Respondent No.3 and nature of duty performed was cleaning, sweeping,
gardening and certain errand works to the officers. The petitioner worked as casual labour from 11.11.1998 to
31.1.2007 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were orally terminated. It is submitted that said oral
termination is illegal, unjust, against the provisions of ID Act 1947 and also against the principles of natural
justice. The Petitioner further submits that the 3rd Respondent has not given any notice of termination as
required U/Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Petitioner was not paid one month wages in lieu of notice. He
was also not paid any retrenchment compensation as required under Sec.25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and he has
also not been paid gratuity as required under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1947. It is further
submitted that ever since he was pointed as Casual Labour on 11-11-1998 he worked continuously with the 3rd
Respondent and thus he worked more than 240 days in each calendar The year. Hence the Petitioner is entitled
to be continued in service and termination of petitioner is therefore illegal, unjust, improper and against the
Provision of the I.D.Act, 1947 and also against the principles of natural justice.
6.
The Petitioner further submits that the Respondents have now engaged the Contract Labour through an
Agency i.e. M/s. Sree Krishna Employment Information and Services, Kurnool w.e.f. 01-12-2004. Though the
3rd Respondent engaged the Contract Labour through the above Agency, the Petitioner and others have also
rendered their services simultaneously till 31-01-2007. When the Petitioner approached for his salary every
month, the stock reply of the Management was that they will pay the salary regularly provided the Petitioner
Registers his name with Labour Supply Agency i.e. M/s. Sree Krishna Employment, Information and Services,
Kurnool. The Petitioner submits that he being the Casual Labour working with the Department directly, he
declined to come through the above contractor. The 3rd Respondent therefore refused to pay the Petitioner's
wages from 01.12.2004 to 31.01.2007. The management also failed to pay difference in wages from 01-04-2004
to 30-11-2004. The Petitioner submits that there is enough proof to show that he worked directly with the
Department during the above period. The Respondents have categorically admitted that the Petitioner has
worked as Casual Labour with the Respondents. Inspite of the clear admission the management failed to pay the
wages for the period from 01-12-2O04 to 31-01-2007 and difference of wages from 01.04.2004 to 30.11.2004.
The Petitioner has filed an application U/Sec. 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act, l947 separately, demanding payment of
salary from 01.12.2004 to 31.01.2007 and difference in wages from 01-04-2004 to 30-11-2004.
7.
The Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner and other affected Casual Labour have filed O.A. No.
1303/2004 before the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad for redressal of grievances including oral termination of the
services by the 3rd Respondent w.e.f. 01-12-2004. The Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad was pleased to grant interim
stay directing the Respondents to maintain Status-quo and thus Petitioner continued, as Casual Labour. The
CAT, Hyderabad had passed final order on 31.03.2005 vacating the interim order etc. The Petitioner submits
that as the Judgement dated 31-03-2005 of the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad is against the Petitioner and others, the
Petitioner and others approached the Hon'ble High Court of AP. Hyderabad under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, by way of Writ Petition. The Writ Petition being numbered as 16637 of 2005 in which the
Hon'ble High Court has passed an interim order dt. 01-08-2005 stating “Status quo obtained as on today shall be
maintained pending further orders". In pursuance of the above orders the Petitioner and others continued as
Casual Labour directly with the department till the WP No. 16637 of 2005 was finally disposed on 03-08-2006,
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1515
with certain directions which were received by the 3rd Respondent on 23-10-2006. The Petitioner continued as
Casual Labour till 31-01-2007.
Therefore, the petitioner prayed to set aside the oral termination dated
31.1.2007 as illegal and sought direction to respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages,
continuity of services and all other attendant benefits.
8.
In LCID 81 of 2007, the petitioner Sri P Nanaraju submitted that he was appointed as Casual Labour
Orally on 15-7-1998 in the office of Asst. Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Kurnool Division,
Kurnool. The nature of duties performed by the Petitioner are Cleaning, Sweeping, Gardening and certain errand
works to the officers. The Petitioner worked as Casual Labour from 15-07-1998 to 31-01-2007 on which date
the services of the Petitioner were orally terminated. The said oral termination is illegal, unjust, against the
provisions of I.D.Act 1947 and also against the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the 3rd
Respondent has not given any notice of termination as required U/Sec. 25-F of the I.D.Act, 1947. The Petitioner
was not paid one month wages in lieu of notice. The Petitioner submits that he was also not paid any
retrenchment compensation as required under Sec.25-F of the I.D.Act, 1947. The Petitioner has also not been
paid gratuity as required under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1947. It is further submitted that ever
since he was pointed as Casual Labour on 15-07-1998 he worked continuously with the 3rd Respondent and
thus he worked more than 240 days in each calendar year. Hence the Petitioner is entitled to be continued in
service. The Termination is therefore illegal, unjust, improper and against the Provision of the ID.Act, 1947 and
also against the principles of natural justice.
Facts of payment of salary from 1-12-2004 to 31-1-2007 and arrears
9.
In LCID 82 of 2007, the petitioner Sri P Srinivasulu submitted that he was appointed as Casual Labour
orally on 01-11-1999 in the office of Asst. Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Kurnool Division,
Kurnool. The nature of duties performed by the Petitioner is Cleaning, Sweeping, Gardening and certain errand
works to the officers. The Petitioner worked as Casual Labour from 01.11.1999 to 31.01.2007 on which date the
services of the Petitioner were orally terminated. The said oral termination is illegal, unjust, against the
provisions of I.D. Act 1947 and also against the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the 3rd
Respondent has not given any notice of termination as required U/Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Petitioner
was not paid one month wages in lieu of notice. The Petitioner submits that he was also not paid any
retrenchment compensation as required under Sec.25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Petitioner has also not been
paid gratuity as required under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1947. It is further submitted that ever
since he was pointed as Casual Labour on 01-11-1999 he worked continuously with the 3rd Respondent and
thus he worked more than 240 days in each calendar year. Hence the Petitioner is entitled to be continued in
service. The Termination is therefore illegal, unjust, improper and against the Provision of the I.D. Act, 1947
and also against the principles of natural justice.
Facts about salary from 1-12-2004 to 31-1-2007
10.
In LCID 80/2007, Respondent No.3 has submitted his counter wherein he has submitted that the
petitioner affidavit is not correct. All Paras of the petition affidavit is not correct i.e., M/s. Sri Krishna
Employment Information and Services Agency were appointed as Casual Labour in the R3 office. The
Respondent No.3 was paid the Petitioner total salary to Agency. All Casual workers were received their salaries
to the Agencies except the Petitioner. The Petitioner was demanded salary amount of Rs.87,960/-, it is not
correct. The Petitioner has not worked 30 days in every month. He has worked different days excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays declared by Government.
11.
During the hearing of the case Respondent 4 was impleaded as party and he has submitted his counter
wherein he contested that the respondent no,4 engaged 7 employees with respondent no.2 on contract base from
1-12-2004 to 1-02-2007. The contract was closed on 1-02-2007. It is submitted that the respondent No.4
organization was closed in the month of February 2007. Since that day no person was with respondent No.4.
The respondent no.4 paid entire wages to workers as per their worked period. The respondent no. 4 denies the
allegation of the petitioner that he was not paid his wages from 1-12-2004 to 31-01-2007. The respondent no.4
paid entire wages to the petitioner in the month of February, 2007 itself, i.e., at the time of closer of
respondent no.4. It is submitted that the entire wages were paid in the month of February, 2007 itself. It is
pertinent to note that there was not even any single allegation or any compliant against respondent No.4 during
the employment of the present petitioner. The petitioner never made any complaint against respondent No.4,
either to any labour authority or to respondents No.1 to 3 who are his immediate employer, now he cannot take
such false and untenable plea that his wages were not paid from 01.12.2004 to 31.01.2007. The Payment of
Gratuity doesn't arise as the petitioners were not worked with respondent no.4 for five years.
1516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is submitted that respondent No.4 organization was closed in the month of February 2007. Since that
day no person was with respondent No.4 The question of reinstatement of services of the petitioner doesn't
arises and that to with respondents 1 to 3 is not in the control of respondent No.4 and Respondent No.4 is not at
all concerned in this matter and he is nothing to do with the present case.
12.
In LCID 81 of 2007 and LCID 82/2007, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 have submitted their
counter with almost similar contentions and grounds as has been filed by them in LCID 80 of 2007. Therefore
at the cost of repetition the grounds and contention of counter filed by Respondents No.3 and 4 in LCID 80 of
2007 these are being read as such in these LCIDs also.
13.
In LCID 80 of 2007, in support of the plea taken in petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu
of chief examination but even after being provided sufficient opportunity, Respondent, he did not cross
examination the witness WW1. Apart from oral testimony of WW1, the petitioner has filed documentary
evidence which have been marked as Ex. W1 to W10. Respondent has not filed any documentary or oral
evidence to rebut the plea of petitioner and his evidence. Similarly, in LCID No.81 of 2007 and 82/2007
petitioners have filed chief affidavit in oral evidence and filed documentary evidence Ex. W1 to W10 and
proved the plea taken in petition. Respondent in these LCID also did not produce any oral and documentary
evidence to rebut or counter the evidence of the petitioner.
14.
Heard the arguments. Both the parties have filed their written arguments in all three LCIDs and more
are less similar ground have been raised by the petitioner in all three cases.
15.
On the basis of pleadings of claim statement of the petitioner and argument advanced by both the
parties, following common points emerging for determination in these matters:-
(a) Whether the action of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Kurnool Division
in terminating /retrenching services of the petitioners namely, 1) B Vanamanna, 2) P Nagaraju and
3) P Srinivasulu with effect from 31.01.2007 in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F of ID
Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with back wages is legal and justified ?
(b) If not, to what relief of concerned workmen are entitled to ?
(c) Whether petitioners are entitled for arrear of wages for the period from 1-12-2004 to 31-1-2007 ?
FINDING:-
16.
Point No.(a): In LCID 80 of 2007, petitioner Shri B Vanamanna, in his petition has submitted that he
was appointed as casual labour orally on 11.11.1998 in the office of Respondent No.3 and the nature of duties to
be performed were cleaning, sweeping, gardening and certain errand works to the officers. The petitioner
worked as casual labour from 11.11.1998 to 31.1.2007 on which dated he was orally terminated. He further
submitted that Respondent has not given any notice of termination as required under section 25-F of ID
Act 1947 and petitioner was not given any wages in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation. As per
section 25-F he was not paid any gratuity. It is further submitted that ever since he was appointed in the office
of Respondent No.3, he worked continuously and he worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and
hence, petitioner is entitled for continuous service.
17.
Respondent No.3 has filed the counter although he refuted the claim of petitioner in his counter in
general statement but there is no specific denial by the respondent that petitioner was not engaged as casual
labour by the Respondent from 11.11.1998 to 31..1.2007. Further, Respondent has admitted that the petitioner
has worked for 30 days in every month. It is also submitted that he has worked different days excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays declared by Government. In fact there is no specific denial by respondent in
his counter that petitioner did not work from 11.11.1998 to 31.1.2007 as daily wage workman in his office.
Similarly in LCID 81 of 2007 & LCID 82 of 2007, Respondent in his counter has not specifically denied the
claim of petitioners that they have worked in Respondent No.3 office as casual labour from 15.7.1998 and 1-11-
1999 respectively upto 31.1.2007.
18.
Therefore, in the absence of specific denial by Respondent and on the basis of the plea and evidence of
petitioner, the fact that petitioner has worked as casual labour from 11.11.1998 upto 31.1.2007 stands proved.
Further, petitioner in support of his plea has also submitted documentary evidence. Ex. W1 is the copy of letter
dated 23.8.2006 which was addressed to the Administrative officer (Hqrs), Tirupathi Commissionerate,
Tirupathi by Administrative officer of Respondent No.3, Kurnool Division therein it is mentioned in reply to the
letter the list of casual labour who worked before introduction of outsourcing was sent to the office of
concerned. The list annexed with this Ex. W1, at Sl No.5 the name of petitioner Sri B Vanamanna (petitioner
in LCID 80 of 2007) is mentioned. At Sl No. 4 the name of Shri P Nagaraju (Petitioner in LCID 81 of 2007)
and at Sl No.6 the name of Shri P Srinivasulu (Petitioner in LCID 82 of 2007) are mentioned and in the column
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1517
titled as Date of Äppt./working” against their names date is mentioned as 11.11.1998 for Sri B Vanamanna,
15.7.1998 for Sri P Nagaraju and 01.11.1999 for Sri P Sreenivasulu. These documents support the plea taken by
the petitioners that they were engaged by respondent as casual labour on 11.11.1998, 15.7.1998 and 1.11.1999
respectively. Further Ex. W2 is a copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which reveals that
the petitioner along with other casual labours had filed WP No. 16637 of 2005 and in that WP they filed WPMP
No 21154 of 2005 for direction to the Respondent to continue the petitioners without converting them to
contract system. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.08.2005 was pleased to pass the order: “Status-
quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained, pending further orders.” Thus it goes to show that the petitioner
has worked continuously in Respondent employment as casual labour. Ex. W3 is a correspondence dated
30.11.2005 which is addressed to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tirupathi. It is also
mentioned therein that petitioners were working on their own and no connection whatsoever with R4 (M/s Sri
Krishna Employment & Information Services) or its proprietor. Further, Ex.W4 is a copy of order dated
16.12.2004 passed by Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad which reveals that petitioner along with other petitioners filed
OA No 1303 of 2004. Tribunal has passed interim order of status-quo regarding engagement of petitioners in
the employment of respondent employer.
19.
Further Ex. W5 is an application filed by petitioner addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Customs
and Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Zone for compliance of order passed by Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad. Ex. W6
is a copy of communication dated 23.11.2006 which was sent by Assistant Commissioner (Legal), Tirupathi to
Kurnool Division wherein it was requested for implementation of order of High Court. Ex. W7 is
correspondence by Assistant Solicitor General of India dated 2.11.2005 to the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs and Central Excise wherein it is requested that in view of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court in WP No.16637 of 2005 to pay the wage as per impugned order of Hon'ble High Court to whoever
performed the work on 1.8.2005. Ex. W8 is representation dated 23.11.2005 which was addressed to Assistant
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise i.e Respondent No.3 by the petitioner with the prayer that they
are working as a casual labour on their own and have no connection with any contractor/ agency. Ex. W9 is also
a correspondence dated 24.11.2005 which was communicated by Assistant Commissioner of Customs and
Central Excise addressed to Respondent No.4 regarding the payment of bills/ wages to the casual labour.
Document Ex. W10 is a photo copy of correspondence by Shri BV Ramana, Proprietor of R4 addressed to the
Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Kurnool Division wherein he states that he has no
objection if the salaries of the casual labour are paid by the department directly as they are working on their own
and not through contractor/agency during the period from 1.12.2004 to 30.11.2005. Therefore, in view of the
documents Ex.W1 to W10 discussed above, it goes to show that petitioners had been working in the office of
Respondent No.3 as a casual labour from 11.11.1998 to 31.01.2007. In view of ban imposed by head office
regarding employment of daily wager, Respondent No.3 has to engage the casual labour through contractor
agency i.e. M/s Krishna Employment information & Services i.e Respondent No.4 and payment of wages of
casual labour engaged by them have been paid to the agency as alleged by Respondent. The petitioner has
taken the plea that he was not engaged through R4 in Respondent No.3 office, and he was working in the office
of R3 since 1998 upto the date of termination 31.1.2007. Similar document Ex.W1 to W10 as discussed above
has been filed and proved by the petitioners in LCID 81 of 2007 and LCID 82 of 2007 and Respondent has not
filed any document in rebuttal of its.
In the light of evidence discussed as above, the facts stand proved that all the petitioners above had
worked in the office of Respondent No.3 from 1998 to 2007, 1998 to 2007 and 1999 to 2007 respectively. The
oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in support of their plea remained uncontroverted and
unrebutted. Moreover, the Respondent has not specifically denied the fact in their counter that the petitioners
were not engaged as a casual labour for the said period in the office of Respondent.
20.
Now, we should examine whether disengagement of petitioners, S/Sri 1) B Vanamanna, 2) P
Nagaraju and 3) P Srinivasulu by Respondent No.3 w.e.f 31.1.2007 was done in contravention of provisions of
section 25-F of ID Act. Petitioner has specifically pleaded that they had worked in Respondent No.3 office
since they were appointed and in each calendar year had worked for more than 240 days. Respondent No.3
submitted in his counter that the petitioner had not worked 30 days in every month and he worked different days
excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays declared by government.
21. The relevant provision of section 25-F provides as below:-
25-F. 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 –
1518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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.
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent
to fifteen days' average pay 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 or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
The provision of section 25-B which define term continuous service reads as below:
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, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness for
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or 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 mine ; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in the other case;
22.
Thus it is clear from definition as above that for continuous service u/s section 25-B, the workman is
said to be in continuous service for a period in uninterrupted service including interrupted service on account of
sickness / accident /strike or cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of workman and he has
completed 240 days in one calendar year just preceding from date of termination.
The perusal of pleading goes to reveal that there is no such allegation against the petitioner by the
Respondent in the counter that there was any interruption in 240 days service due to any fault on part of
workman. The Respondent only says that the petitioner has worked on different days excluding Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays declared by government. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to petitioner for required
uninterrupted continuous service for 240 days. Therefore it can safely be concluded that petitioners had worked
for 240 days in the calendar year just preceding from the date of termination i.e. 31.1.2007.
23.
In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan & Another (2004) 8
SCC 161, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195, Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the principal that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240
days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce an
evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the employer.
Thus, in the present matter the petitioner, by oral as well as documentary evidence has discharged his
burden of proof to prove that he had worked for 240 days prior to his alleged retrenchment and the same has not
rebutted by Respondent by any evidence.
24.
Admittedly, petitioner Sri B Vanamanna was engaged on 11.11.1998 and disengagement done on
31.1.2007 and before disengagement, no notice was given by Respondent to the petitioner nor paid one month
wage in lieu of notice. Further no retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioner by Respondent. This
fact has been proved by the petitioner in his evidence. Since no cross examination of the WW1 done by
Respondent despite providing sufficient opportunity, thus the statement of witness WW1 remained unrebutted
and stands proved. Further no documentary evidence produced by Respondent to contravent the plea of
petitioner that they have paid compensation and gave notice to petitioner before retrenchment. Therefore, in
view of the above discussions, it can safely concluded that the retrenchment of petitioner was done by
Respondent by disengaging him from 31.1.2007 was in violation of provision of section 25-F of ID Act.
Whereas it is settled law that compliance of section 25-F of ID Act before retrenchment, on whatsoever ground,
of any workman is mandatory and in contravention of provisions of section 25-F the retrenchment would be
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1519
illegal. Thus in the present matter the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days continuously in one year
preceding their disengagement and they were not given any notice or pay in lieu of notice as well as
retrenchment compensation. Thus, in the present matter, pre-condition of retrenchment was not complied with
by Respondent and it can be concluded that the disengagement of petitioner from services was illegal as being in
contravention of provision of section 25-F of ID Act.
25.
Similarly in LCID 81 of 2007, petitioner Shri P Nagaraju and in LCID 82/2007, Petitioner Shri P
Srinivasulu had worked continuously for 240 days and their plea has been proved by their oral and documentary
evidence which remains unrebutted in the absence of evidence of the respondent. Further, these petitioners has
not been issued with any notice of retrenchment and nor paid any wages in lieu of notice. Further, they were not
paid any compensation u/s 25-F of ID Act, 1947. Therefore the disengagement of petitioners namely 1) B
Vanamanna, 2) P Nagaraju and 3) P Srinivasulu has been done in violation of provisions for pre-condition of
retrenchment as provided u/s 25-F of ID Act, 1947.
This point is answered accordingly.
26.
Point No.(b): Now, question arises that in case of termination of daily wage workmen in contravention
of provision of section 25-F of ID Act, what relief should be granted to them. It is settled law that in case of
disengagement of services of daily wages workmen in contravention of section 25-F, it is not necessary that in
every case the relief of reinstatement should be given as a matter of right and the compensation in lieu of
reinstatement should be granted to the disengaged daily wage worker.
In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs Employer I/R to
management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of 2014 dated 17.02.2014 held and laid down that :-
“in the case of BSNL VS. Bhurumal 2013 (15) SCALE 131 which has taken note of the earlier case law relevant
to the issue. Following passage from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the
question of reinstatement: "The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court
granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In the case of BSNL Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558, this
Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In the case of
Incharge officer & Anr. vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was held that those cases where the workman
had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the
termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of
reinstatement. In this judgment of Shankar Shetty, this trend was reiterated by referring to various judgments,
as is clear from the following discussion. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where
the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act")? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on
the above question. In Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktd. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 delivering
the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M.Lodha,J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely,
U.P.State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479, Uttaranchal Forest Department
Corpn. Vs. M.C.Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353, State of M.P. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, M.P.Admn.
vs. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748, Sita Ram vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (2008) 5 SCC 75,
Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai (2006) 11 SCC 684, GDA vs. Ashok Kumar (2008) 4 SCC 261 and
Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case,
SCC pp.33o & 335 paras 7 & 14). It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decision
reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in
the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even
though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of
reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.”
27.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Nandan Prasad Vs FCI, in the
present matter petitioner 1) Mr B Vanamanna, 2) Mr P Naga Raju and 3) P Srinivasulu were engaged as daily
wage workers and they have put in service as a daily wager for 240 days or more and they have been terminated
without following condition precedent as per provision of section 25-F of ID Act. In the fact and circumstances
of the case all the three petitioners are liable for payment of lumpsum compensation, because they were engaged
as daily wage workmen and were not appointed against any permanent post in the office of respondent
management. The Respondent No. 3 in the office of Government statutory body and condition of services
Conduct and recruitments are regulated by rules and regulations and no person can be appointed without
following the procedure for recruitment as per rules. Further, they have been terminated long back in the year
2007 i.e. more than 16 year has been elapsed since then. It is not the case of petitioner that in their place any
1520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
other person has been engaged by the Respondent nor it has been proved. Therefore, in such circumstances as
discussed above and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hari Nandan Prasad Vs FCI, instead of
relief of reinstatement of petitioner, the grant of compensation would be appropriate relief in the present matter
and it would meet end of justice.
28.
Now, question arises what quantum of amount of compensation would be appropriate that should be
granted to serve ends of justice. It is undisputed fact that all petitioners has served the Respondent office as
daily wage worker for the period about 8 years. Petitioners has pleaded that they worked directly in the
department during that period which goes unrebutted. Therefore, keeping in view of circumstances of case and
plight of petitioner, Tribunal is of the opinion that payment of lumpum compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) to each petitioner would meet the end of justice.
29.
Point No.(c): As per contention of the petitioner is concerned that Respondent has not paid their wages
from 2004 till date of termination i.e. 31.1.2007. Respondent has submitted in this regard that they have paid
total salary to agency and all casual workers have received the salary from agency except the petitioner. It is
further contended that petitioner has demanded salary amount of Rs.87,960/- and it is not correct. Thus, it is
admitted by Respondent that salary for the period for 2004 to 2007 was not paid to these petitioner. Contractor
agency i.e Respondent No.4 has also not paid to them. On the other hand, Respondent No.4, the contract labour
agency, has admitted that petitioner was not engaged by them and they were working independently in the
department hence wages were not paid to the petitioners by Respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 did not
produce any document to the effect that petitioners namely 1) B Vanamanna, 2) P Nagaraju and 3) P Srinivasulu
have been paid wages for said period from 2004 to 2007 as they claimed. Therefore, petitioners are also liable
for wages amount to be paid for the period from 2004 to 2007 i.e till the date of termination from service by
Respondent No.3.
AWARD
1. In LCID 80 of 2007, the claim petition of Shri B Vanamanna is partly allowed and in view of the
finding given in the point No (a), (b) and (c), petitioner is not liable for reinstatement in the employment and
he is liable for payment of lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty
thousand only). He is also liable of payment of arrear of wages for the period from 1.12.2004 to 31.1.2007.
Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount as well as arrear of wages to petitioner within four
months from the date of order.
2. In LCID 81 of 2007, the claim petition of Shri P Nagaraju is partly allowed and in view of the finding
given in the point No (a), (b) and (c), petitioner is not liable for reinstatement in the employment and he is
liable for payment of lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand
only). He is also liable of payment of arrear of wages for the period from 1.12.2004 to 31.1.2007.
Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount as well as arrear of wages to petitioner within four
months from the date of order.
3. In LCID 82 of 2007, the claim petition of Shri P Srinivasulu is partly allowed and in view of the
finding given in the point No (a), (b) and (c), petitioner is not liable for reinstatement in the employment and
he is liable for payment of lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty
thousand only). He is also liable of payment of arrear of wages for the period from 1.12.2004 to 31.1.2007.
Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount as well as arrear of wages to petitioner within four
months from the date of order.
Copy of this award be kept in LCID 81 of 2007 and in LCID 82 of 2007 for record purpose.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dictated to Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, transcribed by him and corrected by me on
this the 3rd day of April, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
(in LCID 80/2007)
WW1: Sri B Vanamanna
NIL
(in LCID 81/2007)
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1521
WW1: Sri P Naga Raju
NIL
(in LCID 82/2007)
WW1: Sri P Srinivasulu
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Copy of letter dated 23.8.2006
Ex.W2: Copy of order in WPMP No. 21154 of 2005 dated 1.8.2005.
Ex.W3: Copy of correspondence dated 30.11.2005
Ex.W4: Copy of order in OA No 1303 of 2004 dated 16.12.2004.
Ex.W5: Copy of application of petitioner dated 10.10.2006.
Ex.W6: Copy of correspondence dated 23.11.2006
Ex.W7: Copy of correspondence dated 2.11.2005
Ex.W8: Copy of representation dated 23.11.2005
Ex.W9: Copy of correspondence dated 24.11.2005
Ex.W10: Copy of correspondence dated 2.12.2005
Documents marked for the Respondent
Nil
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 784.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय महाᮧबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, एिब᭙स, हैदराबाद ; सहायक महाᮧबंधक (ᮧशासन), ओ/ओ
सीजीएमटी, ए.पी. स᳸कᭅल, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी अमुदाला ल᭯मण, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ
संया.17/2017) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट
कॉपी के साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-83-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad ; The Assistant
General Manager (Admn.), O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, and Shri Amudala Lakshmana,Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-83-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of April, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 17/2017
1522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Between:
Sri Amudala Lakshmana,
S/o Kotaiah,
R/o H.No.4-7-346/4/1/A,
Khammam District. – 507204.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunications, BSNL,
Abids, Hyderabad.
2.
The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle,
Hyderabad – 1.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Amudala Lakshmana, who worked as Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed
this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents, Railway
Electrification Project (REF), BSNL, Secunderabad seeking for declaring the proceeding No. TA/STB/20-
2/REP/06-10/20 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of
principles of natural justice and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to regularize or re-
engage the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits and such other reliefs as this court
may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner has worked as Mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project(REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner submitted
that thereafter he along with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract
basis. Petitioner along with others has been requesting for regularization or to provide regular work still no
action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable period. Further, petitioner
came to know that by proceedings dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by
giving them "temporary status" by the respondent, in fact those persons are juniors to the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons. Petitioner hails from poor family and have been pursuing the authorities since long
time with a hope that the department would consider her claim in a positive manner. Petitioner submits that, as
there was no action taken by the respondents he along with others approached Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad by filing OA. Nos. 100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon'ble Tribunal after
hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific directions "since the applicants in the
OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP.No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this
Original Application by giving a direction to the applicants to file individual representations to the respondents
giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they were engaged, the period for which they were
engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such representations, the respondents shall examine
their applications with reference to the records and the scheme that was in force and pass orders within a period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.” It is submitted that, as per the orders of the
Hon'ble Tribunal the petitioner and others have submitted elaborate representations to the Respondent No.1
along with order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal and also attendance book etc. on 3.3.2010 the Respondent No.1
instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing
opportunity of being heard, Respondent has issued the impugned letter dt.8.6.2010 stating,
“ i) With reference to the representation, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10.2.2010
in OA. No. 100/10 it is informed that the same has been duly considered having regard to the policy and
availability of records and it is regretted that it is not open to re-engage you as casual labours or grant of
temporary status under the scheme dt.7.10.1989 which has exclusive application to casual labour who have
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1523
engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 and continued as such. The following have duly taken into
consideration for the aforesaid decision. All the casual labors who were eligible as per letter dt.29.9.2000
of DOT were regularized as one time measure.
(ii) Records pertaining to Railway electrification Project are not available for due verification of
information furnished by you as they were weeded out as per the retention schedule. The letter of
appointment and payment thereof is requisite record to verify your engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996
and the basis for the same while DOT, New Delhi letter No.270-6/84-STN dt.22.6.1988 imposed ban on
engagement of casual labours including project circle.
(iii) The certification by the Divisional Engineer about such engagement is not acceptable in the absence of
records as indicated above.
(iv) It is stated that you have been disengaged as casual labour and also thereafter continued with
contractor and thus there is no employer-employee relationship at any point of time thereafter and as such
there is no scope to re-engage you as casual labour and also in view of the complete ban as per DOT, New
Delhi letter no. 269-4/93 STN-II dt. 12.2.1999 and further affirmed vide letter no.269-4/93/STN Il
dt.15.6.1999 and the said policy is continuing.
v) The violation of provisions of Sec.25F of ID Act, 1947 having questioned in the appropriate forum at
any time and as such disengagement has become final for all purposes.
vi) This disposes of your representation and it is hereby clarified that no further correspondence will be
entertained on this subject.”
Petitioner submitted that the proceedings dated 27.4.2010 are ex.facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and
contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of Constitution of
India. It is submitted when similarly situated persons were regularized the respondent ought to have extended
the same benefit to the petitioner also. Further, the reasoning recorded by the respondent as mentioned in the
clause-(i) of the impugned order stating that benefit of extension of temporary status under scheme dated
7.10.1989 is only for casual labours who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 is not tenable and
when the department had extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons and having extracted work from
the petitioner during subsequent period, denial of said benefit amounts discrimination. The contention of the
respondents as mentioned in clause-(ii), records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project are not available
as have weeded out as per the retention schedule is also not tenable. It is submitted non-availability of the
records in the department cannot be attributed to the petitioner and respondent ought to have accepted the
records produced by the petitioner. It is submitted regarding para no (4) of the impugned order that when
similarly situated persons were engaged and records shows the services rendered by the petitioner the contention
that there is no relationship as employer and employee is also not tenable. Clause (5) of the order is not
maintainable in respect of the claims of petitioner as he has been pursuing with the department to re-engage him
in the respondent department in view of their past experience. The petitioner is having record and also the
department had considered similarly situated persons as such the petitioner is entitled for relief. It is submitted
that the impugned order is not only illegal but also contrary to earlier directions issued by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal as such as a last resort the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble court. The petitioner,
along with others approached Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and
filed OA. No. 1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the applicants
therein to approach concerned Labour court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and hence, this petition. It is
submitted the petitioner and others have filed their concerned days book duly signed by the employer on every
month ending, identity card, etc., the days book clearly postulates all the relevant information of the petitioner
with regard to work i.e. MRPTS work, cable work, or alignment, store work, etc., and Petitioner was paid
Rs.60/- per day. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to i) Declare the impugned
letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/20 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the respondent as illegal arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said letter.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
The Respondent submitted that the claim petition is misconceived and is barred by limitation. There is no
engagement of casual labour in BSNL, after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such
before the imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-
STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have
been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in the project after the
imposition of ban vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the
Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. The claimant is confusing the
1524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hon'ble Tribunal with regard to the letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010, in OA No.100/2010 filed in
continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the High Court seeking for the identical relief and the communication
dated 27.4.2010 based on the directions dt.10.2.2010 in O.A.No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order
notwithstanding the fact that the said O.A.No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to
the definition of employee in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006 implemented as such from 10.1.2006
thereby leaving no scope to exercise any jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Tribunal and on 28.2.2011 in
O.A.No.1229/2010. It is not open for the claimant to assail the same before this Hon'ble Court in any manner for
any purpose. The Railway Electrification project for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said
project is out side jurisdiction of the respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged
by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of
the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law.
The Petitioner is relying on the documents which do not form part of the record of the respondent without any
letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of the records in not the administrative
concern of the answering respondent and no records as such are maintained after the expiry of three years
relating to muster roll as per the retention schedule. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to dismiss the claim petition.
4.
Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and examined himself as WW1 reiterating the facts stated in
claim petition stated that, he has worked as Mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project (REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.19996 for 1004 days along with others. Thereafter, he, along
with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis requesting for
regularization and no action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable
period. Petitioner marked Photostat copies of documents which were marked as Ex.W1 to W13. During the
cross examination Petitioner stated that he worked from 1994 to 1996 in the Railway Electrification Project and
again he worked in the office of Divisional engineer, Secunderabad for two years. He do not know whether
that project exists or not.
5.
Respondent did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Both parties filed written arguments as well
as submitted oral arguments.
6.
Heard. Perused the record.
7.
The following points arise for consideration:-
I.
Whether the Petitioner is eligible to be regularized as temporary status with Respondent employment
under the scheme Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1989?
II.
Whether order dated 27.4.2010 passed by Respondent on Petitioner’s representation is just?
III.
To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled?
Finding:
8.
Points No.I & II:
Before proceeding to determination on points, it would be relevant to
narrate the facts in the back drop of the matter. As pleaded by Petitioner workman Sri Amudala Lakshmana, he
has worked as mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur from
1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner along with others continued on voucher
payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis. He along with others have been requesting for
regularization and to provide the regular work. Still no action has been taken by the Department, though they
have worked for a considerable period. It is also pleaded that Petitioner came to know that by proceedings
dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by giving them temporary status by the
Respondents. Since no action was taken by the Respondents he along with others approached Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA No.100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon’ble
Tribunal after hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific direction which reads
as follows: “since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP
No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA by giving a direction to the applicants to file
individual representations to the respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they
were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such
representations, the respondents shall examine their applications with reference to the records and the scheme
that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.”
The Petitioner in compliance of the above order moved representation dated 3.3.2010 to the Respondent
authority and Respondent rejected the representation by passing impugned order dated 27.4.2010. Against this
impugned order present industrial dispute petition has been filed by the workman before the Tribunal. It is also
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1525
submitted that the Petitioner along with others have challenged impugned order dated 27.4..2010 rejecting the
representation of Petitioner and filed OA No.1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides Hon’ble Tribunal has
directed the applicant to approach the labour court under I.D. Act, 1947. The copy of the order dated 28.2.2011
passed in OA No.1229/2010, G. Pentaiah and others Vs. Union of India has been filed wherein Hon’ble
Tribunal has observed as below:
“8. Admittedly, the applicants were engaged between 1.1.1994 and 30.9.1996 and they do not come
under the scope of the scheme. However, a direction was given by this Tribunal earlier to examine
their cases since the applicants claimed that some juniors who were appointed subsequently had been
regularized. I now find that the Respondents have rejected the claim on the ground that relevant
records have been weeded out. the matter raised disputed questions of fact viz., whether the applicants
were employed as casual labourers for more than 1000 days and whether they are eligible for
temporary status, etc. In the absence of records, it is not possible for this Tribunal to adjudicate this
matter.
9.
I, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the applicants to approach the
labour authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if they are so advised, with all the relevant
material so that a decision on their eligibility for temporary status or otherwise can be taken by the
Respondent authorities. The Learned Counsel for the applicants has no objection to such a direction
being given.”
Therefore, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, we proceed to
decide to determine the question whether the applicant was engaged as casual mazdoor for more than 1000 days
and they are eligible for temporary status.
9.
In this regard, the Petitioner has pleaded that he has got engaged as mazdoor(casual labour) in
Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur form 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with
others. It is also submitted that he along with others continued as such on voucher payment basis and later on
contract basis.
10.
On the other hand the Respondent has filed counter stating therein that there is no engagement of
casual labour in BSNL after 10.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before the
imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have been
continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in Railway Electrification
Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy
thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. It
is submitted that the Petitioner is not covered under the definition of employee with Rule 3 sub clause 8 of
BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006. Therefore, it is not open for the claimant to assail the same in any manner for any
purpose. It is also submitted that Railway Electrification Project for line dismantling is distinct and different
and the said projects is out side jurisdiction of the answering Respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage
any casual labour engaged by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging
thereafter and entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and
regularization as per the settled law. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that the Petitioner had worked as a
mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project of the Respondent on contract basis. The Petitioner has submitted
the documents in support of his allegation which are: Ex.W1 is photocopy of order dated 27.4.2010 which the
Respondent authority has rejected the representation of the Petitioner by assigning reasons therein. Ex.W2 is a
copy of representation dated 3.3.2010. The last para of the representation reveals that Petitioner has prayed for
relief from Respondent to provide him employment, whereas in petition he has sought relief of regularization in
the Respondent employment. Document Ex.W3 and W4 are photocopies of the orders of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal passed in OA 1229/2010 and 100/2010. Other document Ex.W5 is photocopy of order
passed in OA No.101/2010 dated 10.2.2010. The documents Ex.W6 to W9 are photocopies of the proceedings
which were supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner which contains list of casual labour. Ex.W10 is
photocopy of letter regarding temporary status and Ex.W11 is the attendance sheets of the workman Petitioner
which has been signed by Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Secunderabad which reveals that the Petitioner has
worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in Railway Electrification Project.
11.
It would be relevant to reproduce the provision of Sec.2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act, 1947 which
provide that,
“ (oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include:-
1526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-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; “
12.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager
has held: “the termination of the service of workman engaged in a scheme or project amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following provision being satisfied:
i)
That the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
ii)
The employment was on contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that
the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii)
The employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract.
iv)
The workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at
the commencement of employment.”
13.
Since the Petitioner has alleged that he has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in the
Railway Electrification Project as contract labour. It goes to show that Petitioner has worked in the
Respondent employment on a project which is open for a limited time and after completion of the project the
Petitioner cannot claim any employment or regularization in the service of the Respondent. As far as the
contention of the Petitioner is concerned that he should be regularized as other casual workers regularized under
the scheme, it is settled law that any contract workman has no right to seek regularization of employment from
employer, since it is a matter of discretion of the employer. Even otherwise, if a fresh contract contemplated to
secure employee appointment with higher qualification or seek a fresh job on contractual employment having
more skills, the employer will always have an authority to decide what is best for improving its functioning and
which can be depend on work requirements.
14.
Petitioner contended that Respondent has mentioned that in the impugned order the record pertaining
to Railway Electrification Project are not available for due verification of the information furnished by the
Petitioner. As they have weeded out as per retention schedule. The letter of appointment and payment thereof
is requisite record to verify the engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996. It is the duty of the authority to protect
official files and record, it would be worthy to mention here that Petitioner had worked as Mazdoor in
Respondent project for the period 1994-1996 as contract labour and he raised present industrial dispute by
filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in July, 2012. Long span of time more than 15 years have
elapsed. Respondent in his counter has stated that no record as such are maintained after the expiry of three
years relating to the muster roll as per the retention schedule. Since there was gross latches of inordinate
delay on the part of Petitioner in raising present industrial dispute. Respondent is not supposed to maintain
record of contractual labour beyond retention schedule. Therefore, in the case of non-production of the record
by the Respondent, no adverse inference can be drawn against him in this case.
15.
Respondent submitted that there is no engagement of casual labour in BSNL after 1.10.2000 and the
casual labour who have been engaged before the imposition of the ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN dated
30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the
Electrification project circles have been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having
been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated
22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement
or for regularization under the said policy. The Respondent has submitted the copy of letter No.270/6/84-STN
dated 30.3.1985 wherein it is mentioned that the Telecom Department has directed to stop the recruitment or
employment of casual labour of any kind, any type of work. Further, copy of letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 which is regarding casual labour recruitment wherein it is mentioned (para 2) that, there shall be no
recruitment of casual labour even for specific period and it was directed to Respondent Department to engage
from neighbouring divisions, employed for the project or electrification work. Further, the copy of the letter of
DG Telecom, New Delhi dated 7.11.1989 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the casual labourers
could be engaged after 30.3.1985 in projects and Electrification Circles only for specific works and on
completion of the work the casual labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. It is also mentioned
that as per the direction in letter dated 22.6.1988 fresh recruitment of casual labourers even for specific works
for specific periods in Projects and Electrification Circles also should not be resorted to. Therefore, in view of
the ban on engagement of casual labourers the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Since the Petitioner
was engaged through contractor in the Railway Electrification Project which was meant for a specific period
and after completion of the project work his employment is terminated and he is not eligible to claim for
regularization in view of above letters and his status as contract labour.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1527
16.
Now the question arises whether there existed employee and employer relationship between the
claimant and Respondent. Petitioner has admitted the fact that he was doing the work as a contract labourer in
the Respondent Department. Further, to prove the employment there has to be a strict evidence to show some
nexus between the claimant and the Respondent. This can be any kind such as appointment letter, monthly
payment slip, deduction of Provident Fund, payment of any dues, which can show that he was in the
employment of the Respondent. In the case of Automobile Association of Upper India vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court-II, 2006 LLR page 851 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held, “ Engagement
and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of appointment letter, a
written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the
nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave records, deposit of Provident Fund contribution and
employees state insurance contribution etc.. The same can be produced and proved by the workers or he can
call upon and caused the same to be produced and proved by calling for witnesses who are required to produce
and prove these records.”
17.
But in the present case the claimant Petitioner has not produced any single piece of evidence showing
that he was issued appointment letter by the Respondent. In fact, he has not disclosed date of actual joining of
the employment as casual labour of the Respondent. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he was
casual labourer is not found to be proved by his evidence. Hence, he was not covered under Regularization
Scheme rather he was contract labour as he has admitted in petition.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
18.
Point No.III: In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Petitioner was not a casual labourer,
rather had worked as contract labour for the period from 1994 to 1996. Therefore, Petitioner is not eligible to
be regularized as a casual labour in the Respondent employment. The impugned order dated 8.6.2010 passed
by Respondent needs no interference and petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the finding given in
Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for regularization or reengagement.
However, the Respondent has submitted that this Tribunal has disposed of LC No.8/2012 vide its order dated
29.2.2020 and granted relief of compensation to the Petitioner. In view of the foregone discussion, it is clear
that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour for the period from 1994 to 1996 and number of days he
worked has been verified by the Divisional Engineer as the Petitioner has filed the documentary evidence in
support of his claim.
19.
In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs Employer I/R to
management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of 2014 dated 17.02.2014 held and laid down that :-
“in the case of BSNL VS. Bhurumal 2013 (15) SCALE 131 which has taken note of the earlier case law
relevant to the issue. Following passage from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court
on the question of reinstatement: "The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this
Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In the case of BSNL Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558,
this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right.
However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this
Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in
contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the
ends of justice.”
Therefore, in view of the above, Petitioner is liable for getting the compensation of Rs.50,000/.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the findings given above, it is hereby ordered: The petition of the Petitioner is allowed in
part. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to the Petitioner towards
compensation within four months from the receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate steps according to Law.
1528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the
27th day of April, 2023.
.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Amudala Lakshmana
MW1: Nil
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of the Order dt 27-4-2010
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of the Representation of WW1 dt.3.3.2010
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 1229/2011
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 100/2010
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order passed in CA. No. 101/2010
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of proceeding of respondent dt 9-5-2007
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of proceeding of Director, BSNL Railway Electrification Project
Secunderabad dt. 12-9-2002
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of list of candidates issued by Div. Engineer, Secunderabad dt. 11-9-2002
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of proceeding Dt. 13-11-2007 providing information under RTI Act
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of letter dt.21-11-2000 with regard to temporary status
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of Days Book signed by authority
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of Identity card of petitioner
Ex.W13: Certificate from ALC(C), Hyderabad dated 9.6.2014
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 785.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय महाᮧबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, एिब᭙स, हैदराबाद; सहायक महाᮧबंधक (ᮧशासन), ओ/ओ
सीजीएमटी, ए.पी. स᳸कᭅल, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी मनेप᭨ली कृ᭬णैया, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया
16/2017) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के
साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-84-आईआर(डीयू)
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad ;The Assistant
General Manager (Admn.),O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, and Shri Manepalli Krishnaiah, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-84-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1529
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of April, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 16/2017
Between:
Sri Manepalli Krishnaiah,
S/o Ramulu,
R/o Mannegudem(V), Jayyaram(Post)
Maripeda(M), Warangal District.
…. Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunications, BSNL,
Abids, Hyderabad.
2.
The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle,
Hyderabad – 1.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Manepalli Krishnaiah, who worked as Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed
this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents, Railway
Electrification Project (REF), BSNL, Secunderabad seeking for declaring the proceeding No. TA/STB/20-
2/REP/06-10/19 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of
principles of natural justice and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to regularize or re-
engage the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits and such other reliefs as this court
may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner has worked as Mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project(REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner submitted
that thereafter he along with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract
basis. Petitioner along with others has been requesting for regularization or to provide regular work still no
action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable period. Further, petitioner
came to know that by proceedings dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by
giving them "temporary status" by the respondent, in fact those persons are juniors to the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons. Petitioner hails from poor family and have been pursuing the authorities since long
time with a hope that the department would consider her claim in a positive manner. Petitioner submits that, as
there was no action taken by the respondents he along with others approached Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad by filing OA. Nos. 100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon'ble Tribunal after
hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific directions "since the applicants in the
OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP.No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this
Original Application by giving a direction to the applicants to file individual representations to the respondents
giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they were engaged, the period for which they were
engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such representations, the respondents shall examine
their applications with reference to the records and the scheme that was in force and pass orders within a period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.” It is submitted that, as per the orders of the
1530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hon'ble Tribunal the petitioner and others have submitted elaborate representations to the Respondent No.1
along with order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal and also attendance book etc. on 3.3.2010 the Respondent No.1
instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing
opportunity of being heard, Respondent has issued the impugned letter dt.8.6.2010 stating,
“ i) With reference to the representation, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated
10.2.2010 in OA. No.100/10 it is informed that the same has been duly considered having regard to the
policy and availability of records and it is regretted that it is not open to re-engage you as casual labours or
grant of temporary status under the scheme dt.7.10.1989 which has exclusive application to casual labour
who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 and continued as such. The following have duly
taken into consideration for the aforesaid decision. All the casual labors who were eligible as per letter
dt.29.9.2000 of DOT were regularized as one time measure.
(ii) Records pertaining to Railway electrification Project are not available for due verification of
information furnished by you as they were weeded out as per the retention schedule. The letter of
appointment and payment thereof is requisite record to verify your engagement from 1.1.1994 to
30.9.1996 and the basis for the same while DOT, New Delhi letter No.270-6/84-STN dt.22.6.1988
imposed ban on engagement of casual labours including project circle.
(iii) The certification by the Divisional Engineer about such engagement is not acceptable in the absence
of records as indicated above.
(iv) It is stated that you have been disengaged as casual labour and also thereafter continued with
contractor and thus there is no employer-employee relationship at any point of time thereafter and as such
there is no scope to re-engage you as casual labour and also in view of the complete ban as per DOT,
New Delhi letter no.269-4/93 STN-II dt. 12.2.1999 and further affirmed vide letter no.269-4/93/STN Il
dt.15.6.1999 and the said policy is continuing.
v) The violation of provisions of Sec.25F of ID Act, 1947 having questioned in the appropriate forum at
any time and as such disengagement has become final for all purposes.
vi) This disposes of your representation and it is hereby clarified that no further correspondence will be
entertained on this subject.”
Petitioner submitted that the proceedings dated 27.4.2010 are ex.facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and
contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of Constitution of
India. It is submitted when similarly situated persons were regularized the respondent ought to have extended
the same benefit to the petitioner also. Further, the reasoning recorded by the respondent as mentioned in the
clause-(i) of the impugned order stating that benefit of extension of temporary status under scheme dated
7.10.1989 is only for casual labours who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 is not tenable and
when the department had extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons and having extracted work from
the petitioner during subsequent period, denial of said benefit amounts discrimination. The contention of the
respondents as mentioned in clause-(ii), records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project are not available
as have weeded out as per the retention schedule is also not tenable. It is submitted non-availability of the
records in the department cannot be attributed to the petitioner and respondent ought to have accepted the
records produced by the petitioner. It is submitted regarding para no (4) of the impugned order that when
similarly situated persons were engaged and records shows the services rendered by the petitioner the contention
that there is no relationship as employer and employee is also not tenable. Clause (5) of the order is not
maintainable in respect of the claims of petitioner as he has been pursuing with the department to re-engage him
in the respondent department in view of their past experience. The petitioner is having record and also the
department had considered similarly situated persons as such the petitioner is entitled for relief. It is submitted
that the impugned order is not only illegal but also contrary to earlier directions issued by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal as such as a last resort the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble court. The petitioner,
along with others approached Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and
filed OA. No. 1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the applicants
therein to approach concerned Labour court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and hence, this petition. It is
submitted the petitioner and others have filed their concerned days book duly signed by the employer on every
month ending, identity card, etc., the days book clearly postulates all the relevant information of the petitioner
with regard to work i.e. MRPTS work, cable work, or alignment, store work, etc., and Petitioner was paid
Rs.60/- per day. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to i) Declare the impugned
letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/19 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the respondent as illegal arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said letter.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1531
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
The Respondent submitted that the claim petition is misconceived and is barred by limitation. There is no
engagement of casual labour in BSNL, after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such
before the imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-
STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have
been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in the project after the
imposition of ban vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the
Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. The claimant is confusing the
Hon'ble Tribunal with regard to the letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010, in OA No.100/2010 filed in
continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the High Court seeking for the identical relief and the communication
dated 27.4.2010 based on the directions dt.10.2.2010 in O.A.No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order
notwithstanding the fact that the said O.A.No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to
the definition of employee in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006 implemented as such from 10.1.2006
thereby leaving no scope to exercise any jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Tribunal and on 28.2.2011 in
O.A.No.1229/2010. It is not open for the claimant to assail the same before this Hon'ble Court in any manner for
any purpose. The Railway Electrification project for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said
project is out side jurisdiction of the respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged
by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of
the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law.
The Petitioner is relying on the documents which do not form part of the record of the respondent without any
letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of the records in not the administrative
concern of the answering respondent and no records as such are maintained after the expiry of three years
relating to muster roll as per the retention schedule. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to dismiss the claim petition.
4.
Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and examined himself as WW1 reiterating the facts stated in
claim petition stated that, he has worked as Mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project (REF)
Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. Thereafter, he, along with
others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis requesting for
regularization and no action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a considerable
period. Petitioner marked Photostat copies of documents which were marked as Ex.W1 to W13. During the
cross examination Petitioner stated that he worked from 1994 to 1996 in the Railway Electrification Project and
again he worked in the office of Divisional engineer, Secunderabad for two years. He do not know whether
that project exists or not.
5.
Respondent did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Both parties filed written arguments as well
as submitted oral arguments.
6.
Heard. Perused the record.
7.
The following points arise for consideration:-
I. Whether the Petitioner is eligible to be regularized as temporary status with Respondent employment
under the scheme Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1989?
II. Whether order dated 8.6.2010 passed by Respondent on Petitioner’s representation is just?
III. To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled?
Finding:
8.
Points No.I & II:
Before proceeding to determination on points, it would be relevant to
narrate the facts in the back drop of the matter. As pleaded by Petitioner workman Sri M. Krishnaiah, he has
worked as mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994
to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner along with others continued on voucher payment
basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis. He along with others have been requesting for
regularization and to provide the regular work. Still no action has been taken by the Department, though they
have worked for a considerable period. It is also pleaded that Petitioner came to know that by proceedings
dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by giving them temporary status by the
Respondents. Since no action was taken by the Respondents he along with others approached Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA No.100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon’ble
1532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Tribunal after hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific direction which reads
as follows: “since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP
No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA by giving a direction to the applicants to file
individual representations to the respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they
were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such
representations, the respondents shall examine their applications with reference to the records and the scheme
that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.”
The Petitioner in compliance of the above order moved representation dated 3.3.2010 to the Respondent
authority and Respondent rejected the representation by passing impugned order dated 27.4.2010. Against this
impugned order present industrial dispute petition has been filed by the workman before the Tribunal. It is also
submitted that the Petitioner along with others have challenged impugned order dated 27.4.2010 rejecting the
representation of Petitioner and filed OA No.1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides Hon’ble Tribunal has
directed the applicant to approach the labour court under I.D. Act, 1947. The copy of the order dated 28.2.2011
passed in OA No.1229/2010, G. Pentaiah and others Vs. Union of India has been filed wherein Hon’ble
Tribunal has observed as below:
“8.Admittedly, the applicants were engaged between 1.1.1994 and 30.9.1996 and they do not come
under the scope of the scheme. However, a direction was given by this Tribunal earlier to examine
their cases since the applicants claimed that some juniors who were appointed subsequently had been
regularized. I now find that the Respondents have rejected the claim on the ground that relevant
records have been weeded out. the matter raised disputed questions of fact viz., whether the applicants
were employed as casual labourers for more than 1000 days and whether they are eligible for
temporary status, etc. In the absence of records, it is not possible for this Tribunal to adjudicate this
matter.
9. I, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the applicants to approach the labour
authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if they are so advised, with all the relevant
material so that a decision on their eligibility for temporary status or otherwise can be taken by the
Respondent authorities. The Learned Counsel for the applicants has no objection to such a direction
being given.”
Therefore, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, we proceed to
decide to determine the question whether the applicant was engaged as casual mazdoor for more than 1000 days
and they are eligible for temporary status.
9.
In this regard, the Petitioner has pleaded that he has got engaged as mazdoor(casual labour) in
Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur form 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with
others. It is also submitted that he along with others continued as such on voucher payment basis and later on
contract basis.
10.
On the other hand the Respondent has filed counter stating therein that there is no engagement of
casual labour in BSNL after 10.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before the
imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have been
continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in Railway Electrification
Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy
thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. It
is submitted that the Petitioner is not covered under the definition of employee with Rule 3 sub clause 8 of
BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006. Therefore, it is not open for the claimant to assail the same in any manner for any
purpose. It is also submitted that Railway Electrification Project for line dismantling is distinct and different
and the said projects is out side jurisdiction of the answering Respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage
any casual labour engaged by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging
thereafter and entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and
regularization as per the settled law. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that the Petitioner had worked as a
mazdoor in Railway Electrification Project of the Respondent on contract basis. The Petitioner has submitted
the documents in support of his allegation which are: Ex.W1 is photocopy of order dated 27.4.2010 which the
Respondent authority has rejected the representation of the Petitioner by assigning reasons therein. Ex.W2 is a
copy of representation dated 3.3.2010. The last para of the representation reveals that Petitioner has prayed for
relief from Respondent to provide him employment, whereas in petition he has sought relief of regularization in
the Respondent employment. Document Ex.W3 and W4 are photocopies of the orders of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal passed in OA 1229/2010 and 100/2010. Other document Ex.W5 is photocopy of order
passed in OA No.101/2010 dated 10.2.2010. The documents Ex.W6 to W9 are photocopies of the proceedings
which were supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner which contains list of casual labour. Ex.W10 is
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1533
photocopy of letter regarding temporary status and Ex.W11 is the attendance sheets of the workman Petitioner
which has been signed by Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Secunderabad which reveals that the Petitioner has
worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in Railway Electrification Project.
11.
It would be relevant to reproduce the provision of Sec.2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act, 1947 which
provide that,
“ (oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include:-
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-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; “
12.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager
has held: “ the termination of the service of workman engaged in a scheme or project amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following provision being satisfied:
i)
That the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
ii)
The employment was on contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that
the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii)
The employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract.
iv)
The workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at
the commencement of employment.
13.
Since the Petitioner has alleged that he has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in the
Railway Electrification Project as contract labour. It goes to show that Petitioner has worked in the
Respondent employment on a project which is open for a limited time and after completion of the project the
Petitioner cannot claim any employment or regularization in the service of the Respondent. As far as the
contention of the Petitioner is concerned that he should be regularized as other casual workers regularized under
the scheme, it is settled law that any contract workman has no right to seek regularization of employment from
employer, since it is a matter of discretion of the employer. Even otherwise, if a fresh contract contemplated to
secure employee appointment with higher qualification or seek a fresh job on contractual employment having
more skills, the employer will always have an authority to decide what is best for improving its functioning and
which can be depend on work requirements.
14.
Petitioner contended that Respondent has mentioned that in the impugned order the record pertaining
to Railway Electrification Project are not available for due verification of the information furnished by the
Petitioner. As they have weeded out as per retention schedule. The letter of appointment and payment thereof
is requisite record to verify the engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996. It is the duty of the authority to protect
official files and record, it would be worthy to mention here that Petitioner had worked as Mazdoor in
Respondent project for the period 1994-1996 as contract labour and he raised present industrial dispute by
filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in July, 2012. Long span of time more than 15 years have
elapsed. Respondent in his counter has stated that no record as such are maintained after the expiry of three
years relating to the muster roll as per the retention schedule. Since there was gross latches of inordinate
delay on the part of Petitioner in raising present industrial dispute. Respondent is not supposed to maintain
record of contractual labour beyond retention schedule. Therefore, in the case of non-production of the record
by the Respondent, no adverse inference can be drawn against him in this case.
15.
Respondent submitted that there is no engagement of casual labour in BSNL after 1.10.2000 and the
casual labour who have been engaged before the imposition of the ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN dated
30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the
Electrification project circles have been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having
been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated
22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or
for regularization under the said policy. The Respondent has submitted the copy of letter No.270/6/84-STN
dated 30.3.1985 wherein it is mentioned that the Telecom Department has directed to stop the recruitment or
employment of casual labour of any kind, any type of work. Further, copy of letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 which is regarding casual labour recruitment wherein it is mentioned (para 2) that, there shall be no
1534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
recruitment of casual labour even for specific period and it was directed to Respondent Department to engage
from neighbouring divisions, employed for the project or electrification work. Further, the copy of the letter of
DG Telecom, New Delhi dated 7.11.1989 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the casual labourers
could be engaged after 30.3.1985 in projects and Electrification Circles only for specific works and on
completion of the work the casual labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. It is also mentioned
that as per the direction in letter dated 22.6.1988 fresh recruitment of casual labourers even for specific works
for specific periods in Projects and Electrification Circles also should not be resorted to. Therefore, in view of
the ban on engagement of casual labourers the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Since the Petitioner
was engaged through contractor in the Railway Electrification Project which was meant for a specific period
and after completion of the project work his employment is terminated and he is not eligible to claim for
regularization in view of above letters and his status as contract labour.
16.
Now the question arises whether there existed employee and employer relationship between the
claimant and Respondent. Petitioner has admitted the fact that he was doing the work as a contract labourer in
the Respondent Department. Further, to prove the employment there has to be a strict evidence to show some
nexus between the claimant and the Respondent. This can be any kind such as appointment letter, monthly
payment slip, deduction of Provident Fund, payment of any dues, which can show that he was in the
employment of the Respondent. In the case of Automobile Association of Upper India vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court-II, 2006 LLR page 851 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held, “ Engagement
and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of appointment letter, a
written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the
nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave records, deposit of Provident Fund contribution and
employees state insurance contribution etc.. The same can be produced and proved by the workers or he can
call upon and caused the same to be produced and proved by calling for witnesses who are required to produce
and prove these records.”
17.
But in the present case the claimant Petitioner has not produced any single piece of evidence showing
that he was issued appointment letter by the Respondent. In fact, he has not disclosed date of actual joining of
the employment as casual labour of the Respondent. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he was
casual labourer is not found to be proved by his evidence. Hence, he was not covered under Regularization
Scheme rather he was contract labour as he has admitted in petition.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
18.
Point No.III: In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Petitioner was not a casual labourer,
rather had worked as contract labour for the period from 1994 to 1996. Therefore, Petitioner is not eligible to
be regularized as a casual labour in the Respondent employment. The impugned order dated 8.6.2010 passed
by Respondent needs no interference and petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the finding given in
Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for regularization or reengagement.
However, the Respondent has submitted that this Tribunal has disposed of LC No.8/2012 vide its order dated
29.2.2020 and granted relief of compensation to the Petitioner. In view of the foregone discussion, it is clear
that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour for the period from 1994 to 1996 and number of days he
worked has been verified by the Divisional Engineer as the Petitioner has filed the documentary evidence in
support of his claim.
19.
In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs Employer I/R to
management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of 2014 dated 17.02.2014 held and laid down that :-
“in the case of BSNL VS. Bhurumal 2013 (15) SCALE 131 which has taken note of the earlier case law
relevant to the issue. Following passage from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court
on the question of reinstatement: "The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this
Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In the case of BSNL Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558,
this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right.
However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this
Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in
contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the
ends of justice.”
Therefore, in view of the above, Petitioner is liable for getting the compensation of Rs.50,000/.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1535
ORDER
In view of the findings given above, it is hereby ordered: The petition of the Petitioner is allowed in
part. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to the Petitioner towards
compensation within four months from the receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate steps according to Law.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 27th
day of April, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Manepalli Krishnaiah
MW1: Nil
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of the Order dt 27-4-2010
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of the Representation of WW1 dt.3.3.2010
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 1229/2011
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 100/2010
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of order passed in CA. No. 101/2010
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of proceeding of respondent dt 9-5-2007
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of proceeding of Director, BSNL Railway Electrification Project Secunderabad
dt. 12-9-2002
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of list of candidates issued by Div. Engineer, Secunderabad dt. 11-9-2002
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of proceeding Dt. 13-11-2007 providing information under RTI Act
Ex.W10:
Photostat copy of letter dt.21-11-2000 with regard to temporary status
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of Days Book signed by authority
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of Identity card of petitioner
Ex.W13:
Certificate from ALC(C), Hyderabad dated 9.6.2014
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 786.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय महाᮧबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, एिब᭙स, हैदराबाद; सहायक महाᮧबंधक (ᮧशासन), ओ/ओ
सीजीएमटी, ए.पी. स᳸कᭅल, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी पी. ल᭯मीनारायण, कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया
13/2017) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के
साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-87-आईआर(डीयू)
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
1536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th May 2023
S.O. 786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad ;The Assistant
General Manager (Admn.),O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, and Shri P. Lakshminarayana, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-87-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer
Dated the day of 14th March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13/2017
Between:
Sri P. Lakshminarayana,
S/o Sri P. Narsaiah,
Nandanam – 506313
Warangal District.
….. Petitioner
AND
The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Telecom,
Mahaboobabad,
Warangal District-506
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A. Raghu Kumar & B. Pavan Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
This is a reference from Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-40012/204/95-
IR(DU) dated 10.7.1997 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for
adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, Mahaboobabad
and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of Sub-divisional officer, Telecom, Mahaboobabad, Warangal Distt.
In terminating the services of Shri P. Lakshminarayana Ex.Casual mazdoor, w.e.f.1.10.88
is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled for?”
In the back drop of the matter the facts are being enumerated that the reference was sent by
Government of India vide letter dated 10.7.1997 and initially it was received in the Industrial Tribunal –I,
Hyderabad. After receipt of the reference, Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad registered the reference as ID
38/1997. Notices were issued, claim statement was filed and there after Respondent filed his counter. Industrial
Tribunal passed award dated 25.4.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, at
Hyderabad Respondent filed OA No.128/98 in ID 38/1997 on 2.12.1998 to review the same. But the said
review petition was not entertained by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.4.1998 by holding that Tribunal has
become functus officio on publication of award dated 13.6.1998 and the review application was rejected.
Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 25.4.98, in ID 38/1997, and further order dated 2.12.98 in IA 128/98,
Respondent approached the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.5215/99 explaining the factual position and details
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1537
of engagement of the workman. But Hon’ble High Court dismissed the WP 5215/99 vide order dated 26.7.2005
on the ground that Hon’ble High Court cannot go into the factual aspect of engagement of 240 days. Further
Hon’ble High Court modified the award by granting back wags from 25.4.98 and denied the back wages and
attendant benefits from 1.10.88 to 24.4.98. Against the said order dated 26.7.2005 passed in WP 5215/2005
Respondent filed Writ Appeal No.2211/2005 and Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 28.8.2014 remanded the
matter for fresh adjudication after due notification of the industrial dispute and pass order on merits. While the
present industrial dispute case was proceeding before Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad and later on vide letter
No.68/2017 dated 12.4.2017 transferred to this Tribunal on the point of jurisdiction and after receiving the
industrial dispute it was numbered as ID 13/2017(Old ID No.38/1997).
2.
On being issued notices, Petitioner filed statement of claim wherein he has submitted the
following brief facts:
It is submitted that the Petitioner belongs to a Schedule Caste. The respondent-SDOT, Mahabubabad initially
employed him as Casual Mazdoor w.e.f. 1.3.1986 to work in the working party of Shri M. Anantharamulu,
Sub-Inspector Telegraphs, Mahabubabad. But when he found that the Petitioner was not registered in the
Employment Exchange, the respondent (who was then incharge of the Sub-Division) advised the Petitioner to
register his name in the Employment Exchange which he did on 23.3.86. It is further submitted that from the
date of his initial employment on 1.3.86, the Petitioner was continuously employed for 552 days till the end of
September, 1988, but thereafter he was retrenched from service w.e.f. l.10.88 on the plea of ban imposed by the
former Director General, P&T, New Delhi on 30.3.85 prohibiting fresh recruitment and employment of Casual
Mazdoors, but the order dated 4.5.88 in O.A. No. 529 in Sri Sunderlal Vs. Union of India the Principal Bench of
the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal declared the said DG's order dated 4.5.88 as no more valid in view
of the judgement in Daily-Rated Casual Labour in P&T. Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1987 SC 2342).
It is submitted that the Petitioner's retrenchment on that ground is invalid and untenable. Moreover, since the
Petitioner was employed for more than 240 days in each year during his employment, more particularly in .the
year preceding the date of his termination, termination of his services is void ab initio besides violation of the
legislative policy inbuilt in the ID Act. Further, the Petitioner submits that before his termination from service
he was not given notice nor he was paid the notice period wages and he was also not paid any compensation as
per the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the Petitioner's termination is ab
initio void and he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity service, back wages and all other benefits which
are incidental consequential to his reinstatement. It is further submitted that being a SC candidate, the Petitioner
is also entitled to be absorbed against a reserved post or point in the Telecom Department (Warangal Telecom
District), vide letter No. 269-27/92-STN, dt. 3.6.92. It is submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages and for all other consequential and
incidental1 benefits such as regularization according to Petitioner's seniority among the Casual Mazdoors of
Warangal Telecom District and pending regularization for grant of temporary status as per the DoT's order dt.
7.11.89 mentioned above, besides granting exemplary costs. Otherwise, the Petitioner will suffer irretrievable
loss and injury.
3.
The Respondent filed counter affidavit denying averments of the claim statement of the
Petitioner, which is as under:
It is submitted that the averments and contentions raised by the Petitioner in the claim statement are denied as a
whole and they are misconceived, baseless and incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached the
Regional Labour Commissioner on 03.12.1993 by raising an industrial dispute alleging termination from
01.10.1988 and the said termination without notice is in violation of Sec 25 (F) of ID Act and claimed
reinstatement with back wages. On the basis of the report of failure of the conciliation proceedings by the
RLC(C), Hyderabad, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has referred the following dispute vide
Order No. L-40012/204/95- IR(DU) dated 10.7.1997 for adjudication by the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is further
submitted that the Petitioner filed a claim statement on 26.12.1997 by asserting that he worked for 240 days
from 01.03.1986 to worked 30.09.1988 and as a whole for a total period of 552 days and the retrenchment from
01.10.1988 is without notice and as such is in violation of Sec.25 of ID Act 1947 and therefore entitled for
reinstatement with back wages. The claimant has filed a notebook maintained by him without any letter of
engagement and payment details. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal passed an award on 25.04.1998
directing reinstatement into service of the petitioner Sri. P. Laksminarayana with back wages and other benefits
a casual labour without specifying any date while in the schedule of the reference dated 10.07.1997, mentioned
01.10.1995 as the date of retrenchment while the Petitioner mentioned the same as 01.10.1988. It is submitted
that the respondents have filed IA No. 128 of 1998 in ID 38 of 97 on 02.12.1998 to review the same. The said
review petition was not entertained by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.1998 by holding that the
Hon'ble Tribunal has become functus officio on publication of the award on 13.06.1998 and the review
application is misconceived and also on the ground of delay and as such the award has become final. It is
1538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitted that aggrieved with the said award dated 25.04.1998 in ID No. 38/1997 and the further order dated
02.12.1998 in IA No. 128/1998 in ID No. 38/1997 the respondents have approached the Hon'ble High Court in
WP No. 5215 of 1999 explaining the factual position and the details of engagement as detailed below.
Months
Days
Months
Days
Months
Days
3/86
24
1/87
25
1/88
31
4/86
16
2/87
22
2/88
29
6/86
14
3/87
27
3/88
31
8/86
7
5/87
15
4/88
20
9/86
29
6/87
3
6/88
13
10/86
26
8/87
3
7/88
24
11/86
25
9/87
22
8/88
9
12/86
19
10/87
22
9/88
14
--
--
11/87
28
--
--
--
--
12/87
30
--
--
Total:
160
194
199
It is submitted that it was explained before the Hon'ble High Court that at all times the Petitioner was
engaged in contingency for works of urgent nature and the same was intermittent and the same was permitted
vide D.G. P&T, New Delhi Lr. No. 270-6/84-STN dated 22.06.1988 notwithstanding the ban of engagement of
casual labour vide D.G. P&T, New Delhi, letter dated 30.03.1985. It was specifically brought out that the
engagement is intermittent for 160 days in 1986, 194 days in 1987, and 199 days in 1988 and there is no
engagement for 240 days in any year and engagement was on intermittent periods for specified works of urgent
nature. It was asserted that the Petitioner is not a workman for the purpose of ID Act and he is not entitled for
reinstatement and there is no question of termination and discharge of the workman as contemplated in Sec.25
(F) of the I.D.Act. It was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the awards dated 02.05.1994 in IDs
No. 54 of 199l and 55 of 1991 to the effect that the casual labour were engaged on intermittent works and they
are not entitled for regularization and Sec.25(F) of the I.D. Act need not be complied with after disengagement
and after completion of the intermittent works. It was also brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employment Union Vs. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1992 SC 7890) to the effect that casual labour employed on temporary works are not
entitled to claim regular absorption on the ground that such casual labour have put in works for 240 days. It is
further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the WP 5215 of 1999 vide Order dated 26.07.2005 on
the ground that the Hon'ble High Court cannot go into the factual aspect of engagement for 240 days and taken
note of the submission of the Petitioner that he worked for 279 days during October, 1987 and September, 1988
preceding the date of termination i.e., 01.10.1988 and no useful purpose would be served in remanding the
matter and concluded that the Petitioner had put in 240 days of service and the oral termination is violation of
Sec.25(F) of the I.D. Act and cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Further the Hon'ble High Court held that
the mention of 01.10.1995 while the termination was from 01.10.1988 is a clerical mistake and cannot be taken
serious note while the same is a substantial question of law since the award and the reference are inconsistent.
The Hon'ble High Court has modified the award by granting back wages from 25.04.1998 and denied the back
wages and attendant benefits from 01.10.1988 to 24.04.1998. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of
the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.08.2014 remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after due notice
and renumber the ID and pass orders on merits. It is submitted that the claim is untenable having regard to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 02.07.1996 in WP No. 12885 of 1996 wherein the Hon'ble Court
categorically mentioned that relief under Sec 25(F) of the I.D. Act is not available for intermittent engagement
which worked out for 227 days and that the provisions of Sec. 2(O)(o) of I.D.Act are applicable and the case of
the Petitioner therein falls under excluded category. The Hon'ble High Court agreed with the findings of the
Hon'ble Tribunal dated 13.05.1994 in ID No. 69 of 1991. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide award dated 10.06.2013 in
ID No. 69 of 1991 on remand, dismissed the claim petition and passed a nil award. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble High Court has considered the question in WP No. 14858 & 14861 of 1994 that engagement in short
spells whenever the availability of such works is of temporary nature, the non-issuing of notice under Sec. 25(
F) of the I.D. Act or wages in view of such notice does not make the discharge of the workman from service for
want of work as illegal. The Industrial Tribunal did not consider the distinction between the engagement of
casual mazdoors for a regular work and engagement of casual mazdoors for a particular work of temporary
nature and ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits and held there is no illegality in the order of
discharge passed there off by the respondent. Accordingly the awards of the Industrial Tribunal dated
27.09.1993 cannot be sustained. The same has application to the acts of the present case. In the light of the
above, the claim of the Petitioner for reinstatement from 1.10.1998 with back wages is misconceived and
deserves to be dismissed.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1539
4.
Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit in support of his claim reiterating the averments made in the
claim petition. He marked photocopies of six documents i.e., Ex.W1 to W6 in support of his claim. During
cross examination Petitioner admitted that the entries of Ex.W2 were made by him and paying officer has
signed and also the number of days mentioned in Ex.W2 are not correct.
5.
Respondent filed chief examination affidavit stating that Petitioner was engaged in contingencies for
works of urgent nature and the same was intermittent. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 3.12.1993 after
lapse of more than 5 years from the date of disengagement, with an allegation that the Respondent retrenched
his services without following the provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947. It is deposed by MW1 that the
Petitioner was not appointed by following regular appointment process and he was engaged purely on temporary
basis depending upon the availability of work. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the Respondent
retrenched his services without following the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. It is
submitted that the Petitioner never worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar Year, therefore, the
question of following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. He further stated that the
Petitioner is not a Workman and there is no question of termination and discharge of the Workman as
contemplated in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The Ex. W-2 filed by the Petitioner is not a genuine record and
he never worked for the days mentioned in the Ex. W-2 document. He further stated that so far Respondent
paid an amount of Rs.1,38,693/- towards half of back wages from October, 1988 to March,2000 and Rs.
1,43,065/ towards 17-B wages from 01-10-2001 to 31-08-2014, Rs. 923/- pm to the Petitioner in all totalling to
Rs.2,81,758/- as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. He further stated that the there is a ban on
appointment of casual and temporary employees by the Government of India vide letters No.270/6/84- STN
dated 30/03/1985 and 22-06-1988. MW 1 has marked photocopies of two documents i.e., Ex.MI and Ex.M2
in support of his statement. During cross examination he stated that for every mazdoor Respondent issue muster
roll every month and on that basis they will be paid wages and since Ex.W2 book was not issued and maintained
by the Telecom Office, but maintained by the petitioner only and hence, it is not a genuine one. It is stated by
him that the petitioner was not appointed by following regular appointment process, but was engaged purely on
temporarily basis depending upon the availability of work. There was no particular procedure for appointment
as casual labour. The muster rolls and other connected records of the years 1986 and 1987 showing the period of
work of the petitioner are not available and as such the question of verification does not arise. Respondent
has not filed existing rules of appointment.
6.
Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.
7.
Petitioner has submitted the written arguments wherein the Petitioner has stated that from the date of
his initial employment on 1.3.1986, the Petitioner was continuously employed for 552 days till the end of
September, 1988 on the plea of ban imposed by the former Director General, P & T, New Delhi on 30.3.1985
prohibiting fresh recruitment and employment of casual mazdoor. Since the DG’s order dated 4.5.88, in OA
No.529/88 in Shri Sunderlal and others Vs. Union of India and others held that no more valid in view of
judgement in Daily rated casual Labour in P & T.. Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1987 SC 2342).
Therefore, the Petitioner’s retrenchment on that ground is invalid and untenable. It is submitted that Petitioner
was worked for more than 240 days in each year during the employment, more particularly, the year preceding
his date of termination which is 1.10.1988 and termination of his services is void ab-initio being in violation of
the legislative policy inbuilt in the I.D. Act, 1947. It is also submitted that before termination from service he
was not given notice nor was he paid the notice period wages and he was also not paid compensation as per
mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, Petitioner’s termination is void ab-initio
and he is entitled for reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and other benefits such as grant of
temporary status as per the DOT’s order dated 7.11.1989 and regularizing according to Petitioner’s seniority
among the casual mazdoors of Warangal Telecom District.
8.
On the other hand, Respondent’s counsel submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the
Petitioner was not appointed as regular employee of the Respondent Management and he was daily wages
workman employed for specific period and specific project for the work or urgent nature and the same was
intermittent and same was permitted vide lr. No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 not withstanding the ban of
engagement of casual labour vide letter dated 30.3.1985. It is also submitted that engagement of the Petitioner
was entertained for 160 days in 1986, 194 days in 1987, and 199 days in 1988 and there is no engagement of
240 days in any year and engagement was on intermittent period for specific work of urgent nature. It is
submitted that Petitioner is not a workman for the purpose of I.D. Act, 1947 and is not entitled for reinstatement
and there is no question of termination and discharge of workman as contemplated in Sec.25F of the I.D. Act,
1947. Therefore, Respondent prayed for dismissal of the reference.
1540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
Respondent filed certain citations in support of his argument. In Delhi Development Horticulture
Employment Union Vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1992 SC 7890) wherein the Apex Court held, causal
labour employed on temporary works are not entitled to claim regular absorption on the ground that such
casual labour have put in works for 240 days.
10.
In Sitaram and ors. V.s Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, AIR 2008 SC 1955(1), Apex
court held: “Daily wages appointed by Charitable Trust – Appointment made to carry on certain work
undertaken by Trust – Trust subsequently discontinuing that work – Granting relief of reinstatement – Not
proper – Trust directed to pay compensation to workman.”
11.
In Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. AIR 2010
SC page 2140, it was held:
“6.
In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with
back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of
the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages in cases of
such nature may be appropriate.
7
It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position
that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages
would ordinarily follow. However, in the recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long
line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is
not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact-situation even though the termination of an
employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held
to meet the ends of justice.
8.
in view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that he workmen were engaged as daily wagers
about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them
cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In our
considered view, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each of the workmen (Respondent Nos.1 to 4) shall meet
the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which
the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.”
12.
In the case of 2014 (6) ALD 618 (DB) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held: “Reinstatement into
service with back wages – grant of relief of, on retrenchment being found illegal –Not permissible, when
Respondent s were only casual workers – Rs.1,60,000/- awarded as compensation to each of Respondents.”
13.
In another case, Mohd Sadiq Ali Vs. Union of India and another 2015 (3) ALD 354(DB) wherein
the Hon’ble High Court held: “Appellants engaged for laying underground cables and construction of overhead
alignment-and construction of overhead alignment-work was not for a specific period or of specific nature – It
is only when work is described in specific terms that possibility to invoke S.2(oo) of Act would exist, on
establishing that work so specified has been executed – reference to “underground cables’ or ‘overhead
alignment’ in general terms –Does not have effect of taking away rights of appellants that are conferred upon
them under S.25F.” It is further held that further there is not much work with Respondent No.1 to engage
them- and as length of service rendered by them before retrenchment was hardly one year, in the interest of
justice award passed by Tribunal modified to the extent that in lieu of relief of retrenchment and other attendant
benefits, a sum of Rs.1,50,000 to each of Appellants shall be paid.”
14.
In the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. K. Lakshminarayana
and another, 2014(4) ALD 642 (DB) Hon’ble High Court held: “It is not in dispute that the Appellant is a
gigantic organization owned by the Government of India and it has got a comprehensive set of rules providing
for appointment of employees of all the categories. It is only when an employee has been appointed as per the
prescribed procedure New Delhi discontinued in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act, that the relief of
reinstatement can be granted by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi’s
case (supra), has obviously taken into account the fact that wherever the appointments in an organization are
governed by a set of rules, it is only the appointments made, in accordance with such rules, that can be
protected in law. In other words, if any person is engaged for any unforeseen or temporary or casual work,
such person cannot be treated as part of workforce nor can he be extended the benefit of Section 25-F of the
Act.”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1541
15.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, following issues are emerging for determination:-
1. Whether the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District in
terminating the services of Sri P. Lakshminarayana, Ex.Casual mazdoor, w.e.f. 1.10.88, is justified?
2. If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled for?
16.
Point No.I: The Petitioner submitted that respondent SDO (T) Mahboobabad initially employed the
petitioner as casual mazdoor w.e.f from 1st March, 1986 to work in working party and he continuously
employed them for 552 days till the end of September, 1988, but he was retrenched from service w.e.f
1st October, 1988 on the plea of ban imposed by the Former Director General P&T, New Delhi on 30th March,
1985 prohibiting fresh recruitment and employment of casual mazdoor. It is submitted that petitioner has been
employed for more than 240 days in each year during his employment and more particularly in the year
preceding the date of his termination i.e. 30th September, 1988. Petitioner submits that before his termination
from service he was not given notice nor he was paid the notice period wages and he was also not paid any
compensation as per the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of ID Act 1947. In view of the violation of the
provision of the said Section 25-F, his termination is void ab initio and he is entitled to reinstatement with
continuous service.
17.
Respondent in his counter has refuted the allegation made by the petitioner and submitted that the
petitioner has been engaged for intermittent period i.e. for 160 days in the year 1986, 194 days in the year 1987
and 199 days in the year 1988 and there was no engagement of Petitioner for 240 days in any year. Since his
engagement was for an intermittent period for specific work of urgent nature therefore there's no question of
termination or discharge of workman as contemplated in Section 25-F of the ID Act. It is also submitted that
claim of the petitioner is untenable, having regard to the decision of Hon'ble High Court dated 2nd July, 1996, in
writ petition no. 12885 of 1996 wherein Hon'ble Court categorically mentioned that relief under section 25-F of
the ID act is not available for intermittent engagement of workman. There's no violation of compliance of
Section 25-F and Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
18.
Before proceeding to discuss and consider the contentions raised by the parties, it would be relevant
to discuss relevant decisions relating to the matter as decided by the Apex Court.
In Rajasthan State
Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held: “It was the case of the
workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the
appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that
cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the
claimant had worked for 240 days in a year.” These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T.
Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25. “ No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that
regard was produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the
Labour Court held that the workman had worked for 240 days as claimed.” In Municipal Corporation,
Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held “the burden was on the workman to show that he was
working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment.” In M.P.
Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the
Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference
drawn erroneously.” In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges
Bench of the Apex Court held that “the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had
completed 240 days of service.” In the case of Mohan Lal vs. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225, Hon'ble
Apex Court held, “Before a workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID
act, he has to show that he has been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had
retrenched him from service.”
19.
Now, in view of the above decisions by the Apex Court, we have to see whether the petitioner in the
present matter has produced reliable evidence to prove his plea that he had worked for 240 days continuously
with employment of Respondent during 12 months just preceding from date of termination i.e. 30th September,
1988. Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and in chief affidavit he has reiterated his version of claim
statement. In cross examination witness WW1 states that he was initially appointed as casual labour in March,
1986 and no order of appointment was issued to him. The entries in Ex. W2 were made by him and paying
officer has signed it. Further, he states that particulars of days mentioned in Ex. W2 are not correct. Further, he
states that he has not filed any document except Ex. W2 to show that he has continuously employed for 552
days. Further, he denied the suggestions that it is not true that he never worked for a continuous period of 240
days in any calendar year.
1542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
On the other hand, respondent witness MW1 states that document Ex. W2 was not issued by the
Telecom office but maintained by the petitioner himself, hence it is not a genuine document. He has denied the
suggestions given by the petitioner counsel that the petitioner worked as casual labour in 1986 and 1987. The
perusal of the Ex. W2 goes to show that it starts from the date 1.3.1986 and it is simply a notebook and
admittedly entries therein were made by the petitioner himself. Although, it is also alleged by the petitioner that
it has been signed by the respondent office, but he didn't disclose the name and designation of so called
authorized person who has put his signature in the said notebook. Moreover, the entry of working days as made
in the notebook has not been proved by the petitioner As WW1 admitted in cross examination that number of
days mentioned in Ex.W2 are not correct. Thus, the said entries doesn't prove the fact that he had worked for
240 days in the just preceding calendar year from the date of termination. Perusal of entries in the note book
itself reveals that he worked intermittently during the said period and not continuously.
21.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL has held: “Clause (2)(a)
provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that
he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days
during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date
being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is
necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie. the date of termination of service which is complained of as
retrenchment. After that date is ascertained, move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of
retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has rendered service for
a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the workman pursuant to the
deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the workman is in continuous service for
a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F.”
Therefore, in
view of the above, discussion and law laid down by the apex Court, Tribunal is of considered opinion that
Petitioner failed to prove his averment that he has work for 240 days in a year continuously. Further, the
petitioner was terminated on 1st October 1988, but he raised the industrial dispute in the year 1997, almost after
a long gap of 9 years and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the workman for such delay in
raising the dispute. In this long gap of delay it is not expected from for respondent management that he must
keep the record of daily wages labor intact. Respondent witness MW1 has stated that due to non availability of
the record it couldn't be produced. Apex Court have held that mere non-production of muster rolls per se
without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an
adverse inference against the management. The Petitioner has also failed on this count.
22.
On the other hand the Respondent witness MW1 has stated in cross examination that for every
mazdoor they issue muster roll every month and on that basis they will pay the wages and since Ex.W2 book
was not issued and maintained by the Telecom Office, but maintained by the Petitioner only, hence, he could
say that it is not a genuine one. MW1 also states that the muster roll and other records after 1986-87 showing
the work of Petitioner are not available. As such, the question of verification does not arise. MW1 has denied
the suggestion that they have conveniently ignored the orders which show casual labour to be regularized. In
the present matter Petitioner has not produced any proof or receipt of salary or wages and muster roll to prove
that he worked in Respondent employment for 240 days. Even no co-worker was examined. The details of
working days of the Petitioner as mentioned by the Respondent in his counter i.e., 160 days in the year 1986,
194 days in year 1987, and 199 days in the year 1988 has not been contradicted by the Petitioner. It is quite
improbable that the workman who claimed to have worked with the Respondent for the period of three year
would not possess any documentary evidence i.e., muster roll or salary receipt to prove nature of his
engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Therefore, the Tribunal is of the
opinion that the workman has utterly failed to discharge his burden of proof that he was in employment for 240
days during the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of his service. The Central Government as a
matter of policy have issued instruction to the Department vide OM No.49014/84-Estt(C) dated 7.5.1985 to
discontinue engagement of casual labour and further clarified in OM F. No.19014/2/86-Estt(C) dated June,
1988 reiterating that it should be ensured that there is no more engagement of casual labour for attending the
work of regular nature. Thus, there is no policy to engage casual labour in any manner.
23.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that petitioner failed to prove his averment that he
had worked 240 days in a calendar year, just preceding from the date of his termination in the respondent
employment rather he had worked intermittently. Therefore, no question of violation of provision of Section
25-F ID Act would arise.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
24.
Point No.II : In view of the discussion in forgone paras and finding in the Point No. I, I am of the
considered view that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and his petition is liable to be dismissed.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1543
ORDER
Thus, the reference is answered: The action of management of Sub Divisional Officer, Telecom
Mahboobabad, Warangal District in terminating the services of Sri P Lakshmi Narayana, Ex Casual Mazdoor
w.e.f 1st October, 1988 is found justified. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the petition of the
petitioner is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictate to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the
14th day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri P. Lakshmi Narayana
MW1: Sri R. Sethu Madhava Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of employment registration card
Ex.W2: Note book containing particulars of working days between 1.3.86 to 30.9.88
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of representation dated 8.12.1993 to ACL
Ex.W4:
Minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 6.7.95
Ex.W5:
Carbon copy of failure report dated 14.11.1995 of the ACL
Ex.W6:
Photo copy of order dated 7.11.1989 of Telecommunications.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of Circular dated 30.3.1985 issued by Government of India.
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of Circular dated 22.6.1988 issued by Government of India.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 787.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार मुय महाᮧबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, एिब᭙स, हैदराबाद; सहायक महाᮧबंधक (ᮧशासन), ओ/ओ
सीजीएमटी, ए.पी. स᳸कᭅल, हैदराबाद, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ीमती च. ᮰ीदेवी, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभᭅ
सं. 07/2012) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, को ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी
के साथ 10.05.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-89-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad ;The Assistant
General Manager (Admn.),O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, and Smt. Ch. Shridevi, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.05.2023.
[No. L- 42025-07-2023-89-IR (DU]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
1544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 7th day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 7/2012
Between:
Smt. Ch. Sridevi,
W/o Venkateswar Rao,
R/o H.No.3-5-303/1/A,
Pillichinnakrishna Thota,
Khammam.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunications, BSNL,
Abids, Hyderabad.
2.
The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
O/o CGMT, A.P. Circle,
Hyderabad – 1.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Smt. Ch. Sridevi, who worked as office clerk cum receptionist (who will be referred to as the
workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents,
Railway Electrification Project (REF), BSNL, Secunderabad seeking for declaring the proceeding No.
TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/23 dated 27.4.2010 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,
violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to
regularize or re-engage the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits and such other
reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner has worked as office clerk cum receptionist in Railway
Electrification Project (REF) Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.11996 for 1004 days along with
others. The Petitioner submitted that thereafter she along with others continued on voucher payment basis for
some time and thereafter on contract basis. Petitioner along with others have been requesting for regularization
or to provide regular work still no action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for a
considerable period. Further, petitioner came to know that by proceedings dt.21.11.2000 similarly situated 79
persons have been regularized by giving them "temporary status" by the respondent, in fact those persons are
juniors to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. Petitioner hails from poor family and have been
pursuing the authorities since long time with a hope that the department would consider her claim in a positive
manner. Petitioner submits that, as there was no action taken by the respondents she along with others
approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad by filing OA. Nos.
100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon'ble Tribunal after hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010
with specific directions "since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the
WP.No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this Original Application by giving a direction to the
applicants to file individual representations to the respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places
at which they were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on
receipt of such representations, the respondents shall examine their applications with reference to the records
and the scheme that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such
representation.” It is submitted that, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal the petitioner and others have
submitted elaborate representations to the Respondent No.1 along with order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal and
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1545
also attendance book etc. on 3.3.2010 the Respondent No.1 instead of appreciating the circumstances and
without proper verification of records and without providing opportunity of being heard, Respondent has issued
the impugned letter dt.27.4.2010 stating,
“ i) With reference to the representation, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10.2.2010 in
OA. No.100/10 it is informed that the same has been duly considered having regard to the policy and
availability of records and it is regretted that it is not open to re-engage you as casual labours or grant of
temporary status under the scheme dt.7.10.1989 which has exclusive application to casual labour who
have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 and continued as such. The following have duly taken
into consideration for the aforesaid decision. All the casual labors who were eligible as per letter
dt.29.9.2000 of DOT were regularized as one time measure.
(ii) Records pertaining to Railway electrification Project are not available for due verification of information
furnished by you as they were weeded out as per the retention schedule. The letter of appointment and
payment thereof is requisite record to verify your engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 and the basis
for the same while DOT, New Delhi letter No.270-6/84-STN dt.22.6.1988 imposed ban on engagement
of casual labours including project circle.
(iii) The certification by the Divisional Engineer about such engagement is not acceptable in the absence of
records as indicated above.
(iv) It is stated that you have been disengaged as casual labour and also thereafter continued with contractor
and thus there is no employer-employee relationship at any point of time thereafter and as such there is
no scope to re-engage you as casual labour and also in view of the complete ban as per DOT, New Delhi
letter no.269-4/93 STN-II dt. 12.2.1999 and further affirmed vide letter no.269-4/93/STN Il dt.15.6.1999
and the said policy is continuing.
v) The violation of provisions of Sec.25F of ID Act, 1947 having questioned in the appropriate forum at any
time and as such disengagement has become final for all purposes.
vi) This disposes of your representation and it is hereby clarified that no further correspondence will be
entertained on this subject.”
Petitioner submitted that the proceedings dt.27.4.2010 are ex.facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and
contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of Constitution of
India. It is submitted when similarly situated persons were regularized the respondent ought to have extended
the same benefit to the petitioner also. Further, the reasoning recorded by the respondent as mentioned in the
clause-(i) of the impugned order stating that benefit of extension of temporary status under scheme dt.7.10.1989
is only for casual labours who have engaged prior to 31.10.1985 up to 22.6.1988 is not tenable and when the
department had extended similar benefit to similarly situated persons and having extracted work from the
petitioner during subsequent period, denial of said benefit amounts discrimination. The contention of the
respondents as mentioned in clause-(ii), records pertaining to Railway Electrification Project are not available
as have weeded out as per the retention schedule is also not tenable. It is submitted non-availability of the
records in the department cannot be attributed to the petitioner and respondent ought to have accepted the
records produced by the petitioner. It is submitted regarding para no (4) of the impugned order that when
similarly situated persons were engaged and records shows the services rendered by the petitioner the contention
that there is no relationship as employer and employee is also not tenable. Clause (5) of the order is not
maintainable in respect of the claims of petitioner as she has been pursuing with the department to re-engage
him in the respondent department in view of their past experience. The petitioner is having record and also the
department had considered similarly situated persons as such the petitioner is entitled for relief. It is submitted
that the impugned order is not only illegal but also contrary to earlier directions issued by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal as such as a last resort the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble court. The petitioner,
along with others approached Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and
filed OA. No. 1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides the Hon'ble Tribunal has directed the applicants
therein to approach concerned Labour court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and hence, this petition. It is
submitted the petitioner and others have filed their concerned days book duly signed by the employer on every
month ending, identity card, etc., the days book clearly postulates all the relevant information of the petitioner
with regard to work i.e. MRPTS work, cable work, or alignment, store work, etc., and Petitioner was paid
Rs.60/- per day. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to i) Declare the impugned
letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/23 dt.27.4.2010 issued by the respondent as illegal arbitrary, discriminatory
and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said letter.
3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
1546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Respondent submitted that the claim petition is misconceived and is barred by limitation. There is
no engagement of casual labour in BSNL, after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such
before the imposition of ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-
STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have
been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in the project after the
imposition of ban vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the
Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. The claimant is confusing the
Hon'ble Tribunal with regard to the letter No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010, in OA No.100/2010 filed in
continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the High Court seeking for the identical relief and the communication
dated 27.4.2010 based on the directions dt.10.2.2010 in O.A.No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order
notwithstanding the fact that the said O.A.No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to
the definition of employee in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules, 2006 implemented as such from 10.1.2006
thereby leaving no scope to exercise any jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Tribunal and on 28.2.2011 in
O.A.No.1229/2010. It is not open for the claimant to assail the same before this Hon'ble Court in any manner for
any purpose. The Railway Electrification project for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said
project is out side jurisdiction of the respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged
by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of
the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law.
The Petitioner is relying on the documents which do not form part of the record of the respondent without any
letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of the records in not the administrative
concern of the answering respondent and no records as such are maintained after the expiry of three years
relating to muster roll as per the retention schedule. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to dismiss the claim petition.
4. Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and examined herself as WW1 reiterating the facts stated in claim
petition stated that, she has worked as office clerk cum receptionist (casual labour) in Railway Electrification
Project (REF) Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.19996 for 1004 days along with others.
Thereafter, she, along with others continued on voucher payment basis for some time and thereafter on contract
basis requesting for regularization and no action has been taken by the department, though they have worked for
a considerable period. During cross examination, Petitioner stated that she has not received any appointment
letter but she worked as clerk in the Respondent’s office. She was working under one contractor Mr. Lakshman,
from January, 1994 to 30.9.1996 and paid Rs.50/- per day by the contractor. She has also worked for 2 years.
She is not in a position to recognize the persons who were regularized in service. She cannot say the name of
the person who promised for her regularization.
5. Respondent did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Both parties filed written arguments as well as
submitted oral arguments.
6. Heard. Perused the pleadings of both the parties.
7. The following points arise for consideration:-
I.
Whether the Petitioner is eligible to be regularized as temporary status with Respondent
employment under the scheme Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)
Scheme 1989?
II. Whether order dated 8.6.2010 passed by Respondent on Petitioner’s representation is just?
III. To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled?
Finding:
8. Points No.I & II: Before proceeding to determination on points, it would be relevant to narrate the facts in
the back drop of the matter. As pleaded by Petitioner workwoman Smt. Ch. Sridevi, she has worked as
mazdoor (casual labour) in Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to
30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. The Petitioner along with others continued on voucher payment
basis for some time and thereafter on contract basis. She along with others have been requesting for
regularization and to provide the regular work. Still no action has been taken by the Department, though they
have worked for a considerable period. It is also pleaded that Petitioner came to know that by proceedings
dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated 79 persons have been regularized by giving them temporary status by the
Respondents. Since no action was taken by the Respondents she along with others approached Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA No.100/10 and 101/10 and the Hon’ble
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1547
Tribunal after hearing both the parties disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 with specific direction which reads
as follows: “since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the WP
No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA by giving a direction to the applicants to file
individual representations to the respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they
were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such
representations, the respondents shall examine their applications with reference to the records and the scheme
that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation.”
The Petitioner in compliance of the above order moved representation dated 3.3.2010 to the Respondent
authority and Respondent rejected the representation by passing impugned order dated 27.4.2010. Against this
impugned order present industrial dispute petition has been filed by the workman before the Tribunal. It is also
submitted that the Petitioner along with others have challenged impugned order dated 27.4.2010 rejecting the
representation of Petitioner and filed OA No.1229/2010 and after hearing both the sides Hon’ble Tribunal has
directed the applicant to approach the Labour Court under I.D. Act, 1947. The copy of the order dated
28.2.2011 passed in OA No.1229/2010, G. Pentaiah and others Vs. Union of India has been filed wherein
Hon’ble Tribunal has observed as below:
“8. Admittedly, the applicants were engaged between 1.1.1994 and 30.9.1996 and they do not come
under the scope of the scheme. However, a direction was given by this Tribunal earlier to examine
their cases since the applicants claimed that some juniors who were appointed subsequently had been
regularized. I now find that the Respondents have rejected the claim on the ground that relevant
records have been weeded out. the matter raised disputed questions of fact viz., whether the applicants
were employed as casual labourers for more than 1000 days and whether they are eligible for
temporary status, etc. In the absence of records, it is not possible for this Tribunal to adjudicate this
matter.
9. I, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the applicants to approach the labour
authorities under the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947, if they are so advised, with all the relevant material
so that a decision on their eligibility for temporary status or otherwise can be taken by the Respondent
authorities. The Learned Counsel for the applicants has no objection to such a direction being given.”
Therefore, in view of the above direction of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, we proceed to
decide to determine the question whether the applicant was engaged as casual mazdoor for more than 1000 days
and they are eligible for temporary status.
9. In this regard, the Petitioner has pleaded that she has got engaged as mazdoor(casual labour) in Railway
Electrification Project, Secunderabad to Nagpur form 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for 1004 days along with others. It
is also submitted that she along with others continued as such on voucher payment basis and later on contract
basis.
10. On the other hand, the Respondent has filed counter stating therein that there is no engagement of casual
labour in BSNL after 10.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before the imposition of
ban vide letter No.270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for
the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification project circles have been continued in BSNL
as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after the
imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not
open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. It is submitted that the
Petitioner is not covered under the definition of employee with Rule 3 sub clause 8 of BSNL & CDA Rules,
2006. Therefore, it is not open for the claimant to assail the same in any manner for any purpose. It is also
submitted that Railway Electrification Project for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said projects
is out side jurisdiction of the answering Respondent thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour
engaged by the said projects organization after the imposition of the ban and disengaging thereafter and
entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the
settled law. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that the Petitioner had worked as a mazdoor in Railway
Electrification Project of the Respondent on contract basis. The Petitioner has submitted the documents in
support of his allegation which are: Ex.W1 is photocopy of order dated 27.4.2010 which the Respondent
authority has rejected the representation of the Petitioner by assigning reasons therein. Ex.W2 is a copy of
representation dated 3.3.2010. The last para of the representation reveals that Petitioner has prayed for relief
from Respondent to provide her employment, whereas in petition she has sought relief of regularization in the
Respondent employment. Document Ex.W3 and W4 are photocopies of the orders of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal passed in OA 1229/2010 and 100/2010. Other document Ex.W5 is photocopy of order
passed in OA No.101/2010 dated 10.2.2010. The documents Ex.W6 to W9 are photocopies of the proceedings
which were supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner which contains list of casual labour. Ex.W10 is
1548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
photocopy of letter regarding temporary status and Ex.W11 is the attendance sheets of the workwoman
Petitioner which has been signed by Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Secunderabad which reveals that the
Petitioner has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in Railway Electrification Project.
11. It would be relevant to reproduce the provision of Sec.2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act, 1947 which provide that,
“(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include:-
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-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; “
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager has
held: “the termination of the service of workman engaged in a scheme or project amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following provision being satisfied:
i)
That the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
ii) The employment was on contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that
the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii) The employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract.
iv) The workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at
the commencement of employment.”
13. Since the Petitioner has alleged that she has worked as mazdoor from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 in the
Railway Electrification Project as contract labour. It goes to show that Petitioner has worked in the Respondent
employment on a project which is open for a limited time and after completion of the project the Petitioner
cannot claim any employment or regularization in the service of the Respondent. As far as the contention of the
Petitioner is concerned that she should be regularized as other casual workers regularized under the scheme, it is
settled law that any contract workman has no right to seek regularization of employment from employer, since
it is a matter of discretion of the employer. Even otherwise, if a fresh contract contemplated to secure employee
appointment with higher qualification or seek a fresh job on contractual employment having more skills, the
employer will always have an authority to decide what is best for improving its functioning and which can be
depend on work requirements.
14. Petitioner contended that Respondent has mentioned that in the impugned order the record pertaining to
Railway Electrification Project are not available for due verification of the information furnished by the
Petitioner. As they have weeded out as per retention schedule. The letter of appointment and payment thereof
is requisite record to verify the engagement from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996. It is the duty of the authority to protect
official files and record, it would be worthy to mention here that Petitioner had worked as Mazdoor in
Respondent project for the period 1994-1996 as contract labour and she raised present industrial dispute by
filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in June, 2012. Long span of time more than 15 years have
elapsed. Respondent in his counter has stated that no record as such are maintained after the expiry of three
years relating to the muster roll as per the retention schedule. Since there was gross latches of inordinate delay
on the part of Petitioner in raising present industrial dispute. Respondent is not supposed to maintain record of
contractual labour beyond retention schedule. Therefore, in the case of non-production of the record by the
Respondent, no adverse inference can be drawn against her in this case.
15. Respondent submitted that there is no engagement of casual labour in BSNL after 1.10.2000 and the casual
labour who have been engaged before the imposition of the ban vide letter No. 270/6/84-STN dated 30.3.1985
and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the
Electrification project circles have been continued in BSNL as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having
been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after the imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated
22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement
or for regularization under the said policy. The Respondent has submitted the copy of letter No.270/6/84-STN
dated 30.3.1985 wherein it is mentioned that the Telecom Department has directed to stop the recruitment or
employment of casual labour of any kind, any type of work. Further, copy of letter No.270-6/84-STN dated
22.6.1988 which is regarding casual labour recruitment wherein it is mentioned (para 2) that, there shall be no
recruitment of casual labour even for specific period and it was directed to Respondent Department to engage
from neighbouring divisions, employed for the project or electrification work. Further, the copy of the letter of
DG Telecom, New Delhi dated 7.11.1989 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the casual labourers
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : मई 13, 2023/ वैशाख 23, 1945
1549
could be engaged after 30.3.1985 in projects and Electrification Circles only for specific works and on
completion of the work the casual labourers so engaged were required to be retrenched. It is also mentioned
that as per the direction in letter dated 22.6.1988 fresh recruitment of casual labourers even for specific works
for specific periods in Projects and Electrification Circles also should not be resorted to. Therefore, in view of
the ban on engagement of casual labourers the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Since the Petitioner
was engaged through contractor in the Railway Electrification Project which was meant for a specific period
and after completion of the project work his employment is terminated and she is not eligible to claim for
regularization in view of above letters and her status as contract labour.
16. Now the question arises whether there existed employee and employer relationship between the claimant
and Respondent. Petitioner has admitted the fact that she was doing the work as a contract labourer in the
Respondent Department. Further, to prove the employment there has to be a strict evidence to show some
nexus between the claimant and the Respondent. This can be any kind such as appointment letter, monthly
payment slip, deduction of Provident Fund, payment of any dues, which can show that she was in the
employment of the Respondent. In the case of Automobile Association of Upper India vs. Presiding
Officer Labour Court-II, 2006 LLR page 851 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held, “ Engagement
and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of appointment letter, a
written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the
nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave records, deposit of Provident Fund contribution and
employees state insurance contribution etc.. The same can be produced and proved by the workers or he can
call upon and caused the same to be produced and proved by calling for witnesses who are required to produce
and prove these records.”
17. But in the present case the claimant Petitioner has not produced any single piece of evidence showing that
he was issued appointment letter by the Respondent. In fact, she has not disclosed date of actual joining of the
employment as casual labour of the Respondent. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that she was casual
labourer is not found to be proved by her evidence. Hence, she was not covered under Regularization Scheme
rather she was contract labour as she has admitted in petition.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
18. Point No.III: In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Petitioner was not a casual labourer,
rather had worked as contract labour for the period from 1994 to 1996. Therefore, Petitioner is not eligible to
be regularized as a casual labour in the Respondent employment. The impugned order dated 8.6.2010 passed
by Respondent needs no interference and petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the finding given in
Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for regularization or reengagement.
However, the Respondent has submitted that this Tribunal has disposed of LCID No.8/2012 vide its order dated
29.2.2020 and granted relief of compensation to the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above, Petitioner is
liable for getting the compensation of Rs.50,000/.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the findings given above, it is hereby ordered: The petition of the Petitioner is allowed in
part. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to the Petitioner towards
compensation within four months from the receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate steps according to Law.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the
7th day of March, 2023
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt. Ch. Sridevi
MW1: Nil
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of the Order dt 27-4-2010
1550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2023/ VAISAKHA 23, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of the Representation of WW1
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 1229/2011
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of order passed in OA. No. 100/2010
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order passed in CA. No. 101/2010
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of proceeding of respondent dt 9-5-2007
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of proceeding of Director, BSNL Railway Electrification
Project Secunderabad dt. 12-9-2002
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of list of candidates issued by Div. Engineer, Secunderabad dt. 11-9-2002
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of proceeding Dt. 13-11-2007 providing information under RTI Act
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of letter dt.21-11-2000 with regard to temporary status
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of Days Book signed by authority
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of Identity card of petitioner
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
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: 2023.05.19 11:36:07 +05'30'