4223 GI/2023

(2443)

रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 28]

नई ददल् ली, जुलाई 9—जुलाई 15, 2023, िजनवार/आषाढ़ 18—आषाढ़ 24, 1945

No. 28]

NEW DELHI, JULY 9—JULY 15, 2023, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 18—ASHADHA 24, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती िज जजससे दक यि ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1173.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा ददल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् थाृना अजधजनयम,1946 (1946 का 25) की

धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृठ त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, झारखंड राज् य सरकार की अजधसूचना

सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-404/2021/1251, ददनांक 16.03.2023, गृि, कारागार एवं आृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग, रांची के माध्यम

से जारी सम्मजत से, मो. मुबीन अंसारी ृुत्र यार मोिम्मद जनवासी नारायणृुर, ग्राम-ृिाड़ृुर, ृोस्ट्ट-ससदूरी नारायणृुर,

जामताड़ा, झारखंड-815352 द्वारा इंटरनेट ृर इलेक्ट्रॉजनक प ृ में बच्चों को यौन कृत्य में स्ट्ृष्ट प ृ से दिााने वाली सामग्री

सजित अश्लील सामग्री प्रकाजित/प्रसाठरत करने के अनजतक आचरण में जलप्त िोने के संबंध में सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजधजनयम

(2000 का 21) की धारा 67-बी और यौन अृराधों से बच्चों का संरक्षण अजधजनयम, 2012 (2012 का 32) के तित दकए

गए अजभकजथत अृराध(धों) का अन्वेपण तथा ऐसे अृराध(धों) से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा

और/अथवा पड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराध का अन्वेपण करने

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-24072023-247555

CG-DL-W-24072023-247555

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-24072023-247555

CG-DL-W-24072023-247555

2444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

के जलए ददल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती

िज।

[फा. सं. 228/39/2023-एवीडी-II]

संजय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1173.—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 Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-404/2021/1251 dated 16.03.2023, Home,

Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) alleged to have been committed by Mohd. Mubin Ansari S/o Yar Mohammad R/o Narayanpur,

Gram-Paharpur, Post-Sinduri, Narayanpur, Jamtara, Jharkhand-815352 by indulging in immoral practices of

publishing/transmitting obscene material including the material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic

form over the internet 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. 228/39/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1174.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा ददल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् थाृना अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

सं. जी.ओ. एमएस सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-402/2022-2097, गृि, कारागार एवं आृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग, रांची के माध्यम से

जारी सम्मजत से, (1) श्री एन. एल. रजक, भूतृूवा एसओ (सेवाजनवृत्त), (2) श्री ृरमेश् वर दास, एसओ (सेवाजनवृत्त), (3)

श्री एस. के. लाल, भूतृूवा एसओ (सेवाजनवृत्त), (4) श्रीमजत मनीपा ृूर्मत, वठरष्ठ एसएसए, (5) श्री मनोज लाकरा, वठरष्ठ

एसएसए, (6) श्रीमजत रीता उरांव, वठरष्ठ एसएसए, (7) श्रीमजत संध्या लाल, वठरष्ठ एसएसए, (8) अवय कुमार जसन्िा,

वठरष्ठ एसएसए, (9) टी.आर. नायक भूतृूवा-आरसी-1, (10) अयोध्या ृासवान, वठरष्ठ एसएसए, (11) जत्रृुरारी कुमार,

ृुत्र स्ट्वगीय सुरेि कुमार, (12) श्री जबनोद कुमात, ृुत्र सुदिान प्रसाद, (13) लवली ब्यूटी ृालार, माफात अजय प्रसाद द्वारा

भारतीय दंड संजिता (1860 का 45 ) की धारा 120-बी सृठ त धारा 420, 409, 468, 471 तथा भ्र्‍ टाचार जनवारण

अजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (जजसा दक भ्र्‍ टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 में ददनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए

संिोधन से ृिले जवजित दकया गया था) की धारा 13 (2) सृठ त धारा 13(1)(डी) और भ्र्‍ टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम,

1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजधजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजधत) की धारा 7 के तित दकए गए अजभकजथत

अृराध(धों) का अन्वेपण तथा ऐसे अृराध(धों) से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और/अथवा पड्यंत्र

एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराध का अन्वेपण करने के जलए ददल्ली

जविेप ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/40/2023-एवीडी-II]

संजय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1174.—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 Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. G.O. Ms No. 10/C.B.I.-402/2022-2097, Home, Prisons and

Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2445

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under section 120-B

r/w 420, 409, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of

2018) alleged to have been committed by (1) Shri N. L. Rajak, Ex. SO (Retd.), (2) Shri Parmeshwar Das, SO (Retd.),

(3) Shri S. K. Lal, Ex-SO (Retd.), (4) Smt. Manisha Purti, Sr. SSA, (5) Shri Manoj Lakra, Sr. SSA, (6) Smt. Rita

Oraon, Sr. SSA, (7) Smt. Sandhya Lal, Sr. SSA, (8) Avay Kumar Sinha, Sr. SSA, (9) T. R. Nayak Ex-RC-1, (10)

Ayodhya Paswan, Sr. SSA, (11) Tripurari Kumar, S/o Late Suresh Kumar, (12) Shri Binod Kumat, S/o Sudarshan

Prasad, (13) Lovely Beauty Parlor, C/o Ajay Prasad, 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. 228/40/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 30 जून, 2023

का.आ. 1175.—केन् रीय सरकार, राजभापा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन सावाजजनक क्षेत्र के

उृक्रम के जनम् नजलजखत कायाालय को, जजनके 80 या अजधक प्रजतित कमाचारी वृन् द ने जिन् दी का कायासाधक ञानान प्राप् त कर

जलया िज, अजधसूजचत करती िज:-

बामर लॉरी एण्ड कम्ृनी जलजमटेड,

ृजिमी क्षेत्र, 5 जे एन िेरेजडया मागा,

बेलाडा एस्ट्टेट, मुम्बई - 400001

[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.]

िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उृ जनदेिक (राजभापा)

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2023

S.O. 1175.—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 of the Public Sector undertaking

under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff

have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-

Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited,

Western Zone, 5 JN Heredia Marg,

Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001

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

SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)

नई ददल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1176.—तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजधजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा 3 की उृ-धारा (3)(ख)

द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंर सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री जी. कृ्‍णकुमार, अध्यक्ष और प्रबंध जनदेिक (सीएमडी),

भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरिन जलजमटेड (बीृीसीएल) को ददनांक 07.07.2023 से, या अगले आदेिों तक, तेल उद्योग

जवकास बोडा के सदस्ट्य के प ृ में जनयुि करती िज।

[फा.सं. जी-38011/41/2016-जवत्त.I/ओएनजी-I]

आर.के. कुरील, जनदेिक

2446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2023

S.O. 1176.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri G. Krishnakumar, CMD, BPCL

as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 07.07.2023, until further orders.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-F.I/ONG.I]

R. K. KUREEL, Director

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 5 जून, 2023

का.आ. 1177.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k - सि - Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] धनबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 06/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@06@2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-20012/118/2018-vkbZ-vkj(सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंदन एन, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2023

S.O. 1177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.06/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023.

[No. L-20012/118/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Dr. S. K. Thakur,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 06 OF 2019.

PARTIES:

The Regional Secretary (ECL) ,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path, Post Box No. 22 ,PO: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

Vs.

The General Manager,

Mugma Area of M/s BCCL.,

PO: Mugma, Dhanbad,

(Jharkhand)

Order No. L-20012/118/2018 –IR(CM-I) dt. 05.02.2019

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

None .

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

Jhrkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20^th March, 2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2447

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/118/2018 –IR(CM-I) dt.05.02.2019 .

SCHEDULE

Whether the Circular Ref. No. 10107 (w) 5656dated 28.06.1998 ,subjected as ―Underground Allowance‖ issued

by the General Manager (System & MP) , Eastern Coalfield Ltd., is legally sustainable in r/o clause 4.4.0 of

National Coal Wages Agreement provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 & provisions of Mines Act ,1952

and is proper considering transforming scenario of work in underground Mines ? If not, what reliefs are Shri

Kumar Ch.Mahato & 36 others (List of workers enclosed) are entitled for ?

List of the workmen

Sl. No.

Name

Kartik Ch. Mahato

Mahender Paswan

Sushil Kr. Marandi

Jogindar Bhuia

Tulshi Bhuia

Biswanath Singh

Prabhu Saw

Binod Majhi

Dipak Bauri

Satyajit Rawani

J.P. Singh

Budhan Rabidas

Rampada Majhi

Congress Nahak

N.K. Harijan

Suresh Pd. Saw

Saheb Lal Majhi

Swapan Bauri

Minan Bauri

Paresh Turi

Chandi Bauri

Ramakbal Malla

Haru Muchi

Gend Ram

Tulshi Bhuia

Naran Gosai

Rabilal Manjhi

28.

Sonoban Paswan

Rabillal Majhi

Domain Majhi

Anil Kr. Sharma

Bipati Bauri

Musafir Chouhan

Pankaj Kr. Haldar

Borani Bouri

Saman Mia

Md. Jilani

1 On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as to the Respondent/Management.

The postal articles sent to the workmen, referred above duly delivered to the workmen union. The workman were

given sufficient opportunity to file claim statement. But none turned up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file the

claim statement, which shows that the workmen are not interested to adjudicate the matter on merit.

2448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. Since the workmen have neither put their appearance nor they have filed statement of claim to prove their case

against the Respondent/management. The Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Claim Award‘ and

same is passed in the instant reference I.D Case No.06/2018.

3. Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Sec. 17 of the for

publication.

Dr. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 28 जून, 2023

का.आ. 1178.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ृजिम रेलवे 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;] अिमदाबाद ds iapkV (115/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 41011/10/2013- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2023

S.O. 1178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.115/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

their workmen.

[No. L-41011/10/2013- IR(B.I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present - Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Date: 28^th April, 2023

Reference (CGITA) No. : 115/2013

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Mumbai Central,

Mumbai

….…….First Party / Employer

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,

33, Moti Bhavan, 2^nd Floor, Dr.D‘Silva Road, Dadar (W),

Mumbai - 400028

(for the workmen (1) Shri Wasim Ahmed (2) Shri Navneet Kumar Pandey (3) Shri Shakeel Ahmed (4) Shri

Mahendra Pratap Tripathi (5) Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh and (6) Shri Manoj Kumar Singh)

..….…Second Party / Union / Workmen

Advocates for the First Party / Employer : Shri K. V. Gadhia &

Shri M. K. Patel

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2449

Representative for the Second Party / Union /

Workmen : Shri R. S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India / Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/10/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 03.06.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule as under.

THE SCHEDULE

―Whether the demand of the union Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Mumbai for reinstatement in service of

S/Shri (1) Wasim Ahmed, (2) Navneet Kumar Pandey, (3) Shakeel Ahmed, (4) Mahendra Pratap Tripathi, (5) Dinesh

Kumar Singh and (6) Manoj Kumar Singh is legal, proper and just? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled to?‖

1. At the very outset, it is worth mentioning that this Tribunal passed ex-parte award dated 28.07.2017 due to

non-appearance of the first party / employer despite sufficient service. The first party / employer moved

restoration / Misc. Application No. 40/2017, which was rejected vide order dated 05.04.2018. Both these

orders dated 28.07.2017 and 05.04.2018 were challenged by the first party / employer before the Hon‘ble

Gujarat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No. 14926 of 2018 (converted from SCA/28743/2018

dated 25.09.2018). Hon‘ble Gujarat High Court, vide order dated 30.07.2021 set aside the ex-parte award

dated 28.07.2017 and order dated 05.04.2018 directing this Tribunal to decide the matter on merit after

hearing both the parties.

2. The second party / union submitted the statement of claim at Ex. 5, stating that the workmen (1) Wasim

Ahmed, (2) Navneet Kumar Pandey, (3) Shakeel Ahmed, (4) Mahendra Pratap Tripathi, (5) Dinesh Kumar

Singh and (6) Manoj Kumar Singh, were appointed and permitted to join as per the directions of the first

party / employer on 27.06.1995, 27.06.1995, 19.06.1995, 19.06.1995, 18.05.1995 and 27.06.1995

respectively as ad-hoc / substitute employees (Khalasi) at Valsad Electric Loco Shed after undergoing

medical fitness test. The first party / employer initiated departmental enquiry for securing the appointments

on the basis of false and forged records. An FIR criminal Case No. 101/1996 was also registered in the

matter. 46^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai vide order dated 19.01.2012

acquitted all the accused persons shown in said FIR. The first party / employer without waiting for the

outcome of the criminal proceedings, terminated the services of the aforesaid six workmen w.e.f. 20.07.2000.

The second party / workmen have further stated that despite their representations before higher authorities of

Railway, the said workmen were not taken into service violating the principles of natural justice and Article

20 (2) & 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. Prayed for setting aside the termination order and reinstate the

aforesaid workmen in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The first party / employer submitted its written statement at Ex. 21, stating therein that the second party /

workmen secured their employment fraudulently with the first party by producing forged and fabricated

documents. It has been specifically stated by the employer that none of the workmen was named as accused

in the said criminal Case No. 101/1996 before 46^th ACMM, Mazgaon, Mumbai. It is further averred that all

the workmen were served with the charge sheet on 20.07.1996. After holding departmental enquiry and

affording sufficient opportunities, the charges were proved and the second party / workmen were terminated

vide order dated 20.07.2000. The departmental appeal filed by the second party / workmen before the Sr.

Divisional Electrical Engineer, Valsad was also rejected vide appellate authority‘s order dated 01.02.2001.

The first party / employer has further stated that out of 6 workmen mentioned in the schedule of reference, 5

workmen except Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, approached the Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),

Mumbai by way of filing O. A. No.‘s 739/2000, 740/2004, 741/2004, 743/2004 & 745/2000 challenging their

dismissal order dated 20.07.2000 along with one Shri Saroj Kumar Shukla vide O. A. No. 742/2000 and the

Hon‘ble CAT, Mumbai dismissed all the aforesaid O.A.‘s vide order dated 22.10.2003 on merit. The said

order has not been challenged by the second party / workmen before any higher forum, hence it has attained

finality and the reference is barred by the principle of ‗res judicata‘ and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present reference. The first party / employer has further pleaded that the second party /

workmen approached this Tribunal after a long delay of 10 years. Prayed to dismiss the claim of the second

party / workmen with cost.

4. The second party / workmen‘s union filed documentary evidence detailed as under:

Sl.

No.

Name / Details of the document

Date

Document

Seriatam

Document

Type

Remarks

Office order issued from Mandal Rail Prabhandak,

18.05.1995

Ex. 9 /

Xerox

2450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mumbai Central, in respect of appointment of Shri Dinesh

Kumar Singh

M-9/1

Office order issued from Mandal Rail Prabhandak,

Mumbai Central, in respect of appointment of Shri

Shakeel Ahmed and Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi

19.06.1995

Ex. 9 /

M-9/1/1

Xerox

Office order issued from Mandal Rail Prabhandak,

Mumbai Central, in respect of appointment of Shri Manoj

Kumar Singh, Shri Navneet Kumar Pandey and Shri

Wasim Ahmed along with 3 others

27.06.1995

Ex. 9 /

M-9/1/2

Xerox

Letter written by Pradhan Karyalaya, Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai in respect of appointment of Shri

Dinesh Kumar Singh along with 1 other

13.08.1994

Ex. 9 /

M-9/2

Xerox

Appeal filed by 6 concerned workmen before the General

Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai and Dy. General

Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai against their

dismissal from service

11.05.2012

Ex. 9 /

M-9/3

Xerox

Representation from Paschim Railway Karmachari

Parishad, Mumbai to The Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Mumbai, requesting to intervene in the matter

of dismissal of six workmen

04.06.2012

Ex. 9 /

M-9/4

Xerox

Letter from Western Railway, Mumbai to Shri Shakeel

Ahmedabd in respect of his appointment

06.05.1995

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/1

Xerox

Letter from Western Railway, Mumbai in respect of

appointment of Shri Shakeel Ahmed, Shri Mahendra

Pratap Tripathi & Shri Wasim Ahmed

05.06.1995

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/2

Xerox

Office order issued from Mandal Railway Prabhandak,

Mumbai Central, Railway in respect of appointment of

Shri Shakeel Ahmed and Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi

19.06.1995

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/3

Xerox

Communication from Sr. DEE (TRS), Electronic Loco

Shed, Valsad on the subject of recruitment

18.07.1995

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/4

Xerox

Reply of Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi to Asst. Electrical

Engineer, O/o DEE (TRS), Elect. Loco Shed, Valsad

20.02.1996

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/5

Xerox

Order regarding subsistence allowance admissible to Shri

Mahendra Pratap Tripathi

June 1996

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/6

Xerox

Orders of departmental enquiry issued by O/o DEE

(REW) BL, DRM‘s Office, Mumbai Central against Shri

Mahendra Pratap Tripathi

23.08.1996 &

13.01.1997

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/7 & 8

Xerox

Communication from DEE (REW) BL , O/o Sr.

DEE/TRS, Electric Loco Shed, BL, Western Railway to

all the workmen on the subject of Defence

26.03.1997

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/9

Xerox

Preliminary enquiry proceedings against Shri Mahendra

Pratap Tripathi & one Shri Saroj Kumar Shukla

28.08.1998 &

12.07.1999

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/10

Xerox

Findings of departmental enquiry held against Shri

Mahendra Pratap Tripathi

30.11.1999

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/11

Xerox

Findings of departmental enquiry held against some Shri

Saroj Kumar Shukla

30.11.1999

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/11

Xerox

Representation of Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi against

the findings of departmental enquiry to The DEE

(TRS)/BL

08.01.2000

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/12

Xerox

Representation of Shri Shakeel Ahmed against the

findings of departmental enquiry to The DEE (TRS)/BL

08.01.2000

Un-numbered

Xerox

Judgement passed by the 46^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai in criminal case serial no.

338/P/2000

19.01.2012

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/13

Xerox

Appeal memo filed by all the six workmen before the

General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai and Dy.

General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai against their

dismissal from service

11.05.2012

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/14

Xerox

Representation from Paschim Railway Karmachari

Parishad, Mumbai to The Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Mumbai

04.06.2012

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/15

Xerox

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2451

Letter from General Manager, Pradhan Karyalaya,

Churchgate,

Mumbai

respect

disciplinary

proceedings in Hindi language

05.06.1989

Ex. 28/A

M-28/A/16

Xerox

Information received from Information Cell, Mukai / ED

under RTI Act, 2005

11.11.2020

Ex. 28/A

M–28/A/17

Xerox

Policy Guidelines for engagement of substitute bungalow

peons

12.11.2008

Un-numbered

Xerox

Information, enclosing 15 pages, received from Personnel

Department Divisional Office, Bhavnagar Para, Western

Railway, Gujarat on application dated 17.10.2020 of some

Shri Amit Kumar filed under RTI Act, 2005

19.11.2020

Un-numbered

Xerox

Four letters in respect of Bungalow Peon appointed by

General Manager, Western Railway (illegible)

Illegible

Un-numbered

Xerox

Information, enclosing 6 pages, received from Chief

Workshop Manager‘s Office, Loco Carriage & Wagon

Workshop, Freelandganj - Dahod on application dated

14.10.2020 of some Shri Amit Kumar filed under RTI

Act, 2005

05.11.2020

Un-numbered

Xerox

5. The second party / workmen Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Shri Shakeel Ahmed,

Shri Navneet Kumar, Shri Wasim Ahmed and Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh have deposed themselves at Ex. 23,

Ex. 24, Ex. 25, Ex. 26, Ex. 27 & Ex. 28 respectively.

6. The first party / employer has filed documentary evidence detailed as under:

Sl.

No.

Name / Details of the document

Date

Document

Seriatam

Document

Type

Remarks

Order dated 22.10.2003 passed by Hon‘ble CAT, Mumbai

in O. A. No. 739/2000, 740/2000, 741/2000, 742/2000,

743/2000 & 745/2000

22.10.2003

Ex.

Annexure A

Xerox

7. The first party / employer has not produced any oral evidence.

8. I have perused the records and heard Shri Yogi K. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel, advocates for first party /

employer in addition to their written arguments submitted at Ex. 32 and Shri R. S. Sisodiya, representative

for second party / workmen‘s union in addition to his written arguments submitted at Ex. 31.

9. Ld. Counsels for the first party / employer have drawn the attention of this Tribunal in respect of the

consolidated orders dated 22.10.2003 passed by Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,

Mumbai in O.A. No.‘s 739/2000, 740/2000, 741/2000, 743/2000 & 745/2000 in respect of the workmen Shri

Mahendra Prasad Tripathi, Shri Navneet Kumar Pandey, Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Shri Shakeel Ahmed &

Shri Wasim Ahmed, arguing that Hon‘ble CAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai has passed detailed order on merit

in respect of the aforesaid five workmen with the observation that these workmen secured the appointment

fraudulently by producing false and forged documents and the cases of the aforesaid five workmen were

dismissed. He has further argued that the present reference is barred by the principle of ‗res judicata‘ and this

Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate the same issue again.

10. Ld. Counsel for the second party / workmen has argued in accordance with his written submissions filed at

Ex. 31 and emphasised that the cause of action arose at Valsad in Gujarat, hence this Tribunal has the

jurisdiction to decide this industrial dispute and the Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai was

not competent and had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the matter and argued that the principle of ‗res

judicata‘ is not applicable in the present industrial dispute.

11. In view of the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsels for the first party / employer in respect of the bar of ‗res

judicata‘ to the present proceedings, it deems just and proper to firstly give finding as to whether this

reference is barred by the principle of ‗res judicata‘?

12. The question of applicability of the principle of ‗res judicata‘ before this Tribunal is no more ‗res integra‘.

The Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, the Fertilizers and Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd. V

General Secretary, Fact Employees Association, 2019 (o) AIJEL-SC 63977, has clarified this situation. The

relevant Paras 23 to 27 of the judgement read as under.

―23. In our considered view, the question, as to whether the principle of res judicata defined in

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Code‖) applies to

the labour proceedings or not, remains no more res integra and stands answered by three decisions

of this Court.

2452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24. The first case is R. C. Tiwari V MP State Co operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. (1997)

5 SCC 125. In this case, an employee of a cooperative society was dismissed from the services. He,

therefore, referred the dispute of his termination to the Registrar under Sections 55 and 64 of the

M.P. Cooperative Society Act. The Deputy Registrar upheld the finding of the misconduct recorded

in the domestic inquiry against the employee and upheld the termination as being legal and proper.

The State then made a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the ID Act for deciding the

legality of the termination by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, however, declared the domestic

inquiry invalid and, in consequence, held the termination as bad in law. The employer, therefore,

filed a writ petition in the High Court of MP. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside

the award of the Labour Court. The employee then carried the matter to this Court in appeal. This

Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the view taken by the High Court.

25. This Court ruled that the reference to the Labour Court made by the State under Section 10 of ID

Act was hit by the principle of res judicata defined under Section 11 of the Code and, therefore, the

reference made to the Labour Court was barred. It was held that the issue of termination of the

employee was earlier gone into by the Deputy Registrar on its merits and the same once answered

against the employee, it could not be again gone into in the reference proceedings by the Labour

Court. This is what is held in Para 4:

―4. Admittedly, there is a finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar upholding the

misconduct of the petitioner. That constitutes res judicata. No doubt, Section 11 CPC does

not in terms apply because it is not a court, but a tribunal, constituted under the Societies

Act is given special jurisdiction. So, the principle laid down there under mutatis mutandis

squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act. It operates as res judicata. Thus,

we find that the High Court is well justified in holding that the Labour Court has no

jurisdiction to decide the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in law.‖

26. The second case is Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. P. Kulothangan & Anr.,

(2004) 1 SCC 68. In this case also, this Court again examined the question as to whether the

principle of res judicata including the principles of constructive res judicata applies to the industrial

adjudication or not. Though this Court did not notice the law laid down in the case of R.C.Tiwari

(supra), yet it took the same view, as is clear from Paras 10 and 11:

―10. In our opinion, the appellant has correctly contended that the industrial dispute

pertained to the same subjectmatter dealt with in the earlier writ proceedings and was

barred by the principles of res judicata. It is well established that although the entire Civil

Procedure Code is not applicable to industrial adjudication, the principles of res judicata

laid down under Section 11 of the Code are applicable including the principles of

constructive res judicata. Thus in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, 1977(2) S.C.C. 806, it

was held that the dismissal of a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings on the

ground that the charged officer had not been afforded reasonable opportunity to meet the

allegations against him, operated as res judicata in respect of the subsequent suit in which

the order of dismissal was challenged on the ground that it was incompetently passed. This

Court also held: (SCC p. 808)

It may be that the same set of facts may give rise to two or more causes of action. If in such

a case a person is allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to

reserve the other for subsequent litigation, that would aggravate the burden of litigation.

Courts have therefore treated such a course of action as an abuse of its process.

11. The principle of res judicata operates on the court. It is the courts which are prohibited

from trying the issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier

proceedings between the same parties, provided the court trying the subsequent proceeding

is satisfied that the earlier court was competent to dispose of the earlier proceedings and

that the matter had been heard and finally decided by such court. Here the parties to the

writ petition filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court and the industrial dispute

were the same. The cause of action in both was the refusal of the appellant to allow the

respondent to rejoin service. The Madras High Court was competent to decide the issue

which it did with a reasoned order on merits and after a contested hearing. This was not a

case where the earlier proceedings had been disposed of on any technical ground as was the

case in Workmen v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust, 1978(3) S.C.C.

119 and Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal, 1989(2) R.R.R. 106. The ―lesser relief‖ of

reinstatement which was the subject matter of the industrial dispute had already been

claimed by the respondent in the writ petition. This was refused by the High Court. The

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2453

correctness of the decision in the writ proceedings has not been challenged by the

respondent. The decision was, therefore, final. Having got an adverse order in the writ

petition, it was not open to the respondent to reagitate the issue before the Labour Court

and the Labour Court was incompetent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent and

re-decide the matter in the face of the earlier decision of the High Court in the writ

proceedings.‖

27. The third case is Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. & Anr. V Digambara Rao & Ors., (2004)

8 SCC 262. In this case also, this Court placing reliance on the decision in Kulothangan (supra)

reiterated the same view, earlier taken by this Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari (supra) with these

words:

―15………..It is now well settled that the general principle of res judicata applies to an

industrial adjudication.‖

13. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, this Tribunal has to answer the reference as to whether the

demand of union on behalf of above named six workmen for their reinstatement in service, is legal, proper

and just?

14. It is not in dispute that the basis of this industrial dispute is the termination order dated 20.07.2000 passed by

the employer after full-fledged departmental inquiry, in which the workmen were found to have secured

employment by producing forged and fabricated documents.

15. Out of six workmen, five workmen Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi, Shri Shakeel Ahmed, Shri Navneet

Kumar Pandey, Shri Wasim Ahmed and Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh have admitted in their affidavits

submitted in their examination in chief at Ex. 23, Ex. 25, Ex. 26, Ex. 27 and Ex. 28 respectively that they had

challenged the said termination orders dated 20.07.2000 before Hon‘ble Central Administrative Tribunal,

Mumbai and Hon‘ble CAT had rejected the claim of these five workmen on 22.10.2003. These five workmen

have further admitted that the order passed by the Hon‘ble CAT has attained finality because it was not

challenged before the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay. Hence the contents of the photocopy of the Hon‘ble

CAT‘s order dated 22.10.2003 filed by the first party / employer as annexure A to its written statement, are

undisputed. The perusal of order passed by Hon‘ble CAT discloses that the issue involved in the proceedings

before Hon‘ble CAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai was securing the appointment of these workmen by

production of forged and fabricated documents. All incidental issues arising thereon have accordingly

attained finality. Five workmen as aggrieved party in the present reference and the employer are the same as

were before the Hon‘ble CAT at Mumbai. The question of legality of termination order dated 20.07.2000 was

directly and substantially in issue before Hon‘ble CAT which was heard and finally decided vide Hon‘ble

CAT‘s order dated 22.10.2003 on merits

16. As far as the arguments of the union / workmen in respect of the incompetence of Hon‘ble CAT to decide the

dispute is concerned, Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 does speak of exclusion of

jurisdiction of Hon‘ble CAT in respect of a person holding civil post in the Union of India or under ‗railway

department‘ under the Indian Union. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 also does not oust

the jurisdiction of its creation in the form of ‗CAT‘. Hence Hon‘ble CAT also has inbuilt jurisdiction in

respect of such service matters.

17. Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others V Keshab Deb, 2008 (8) SCC 402, has held

that Section 28 does not bar the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It saves the jurisdiction

of the Industrial Tribunal. An employee who claims himself to be a workman, therefore, will have a right of

election in the matter of choice of forum. It is therefore not correct to contend that Central Administrative

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. This apart, the head quarter of the first party /

employer is situated at Mumbai where from the initiation of securing employment by the workman by

producing forged and fabricated documents is said to have commenced. Part of cause of action also arose at

Mumbai, hence territorial jurisdiction can also not be disputed. The law laid down by Apex Court in Keshab

Deb (supra), squarely applies to the facts of the present reference, hence it is held that Hon‘ble CAT at

Mumbai was a competent Court to decide the said dispute vide its order dated 22.10.2003.

18. It is now not necessary to examine the merits of the present case as it is not legally permissible because it

does not survive for consideration having once decided in earlier round of litigation having attained finality

to the extent of five above named workmen. It is not open to these five workmen to reagitate the issue again

before this Tribunal. The reference is accordingly partially barred by the principle of ‗res judicata‘ to the

extent of above said five workmen namely Shri Wasim Ahmed, Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, Shri Shakeel

Ahmed, Shri Mahendra Pratap Tripathi and Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh.

19. The remaining workman Shri Manoj Kumar Singh did not file any case before the Hon‘ble CAT, Mumbai.

Hence the reference is examined partially on merit only to the extent of this single workman. Shri Manoj

2454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kumar Singh filed affidavit Ex. 24 in his examination in chief wherein he has stated to have filed his claim

before the Hon‘ble CAT. This seems to be drafting error and deserved to be ignored.

20. The case of workman Shri Manoj Kumar Singh is similar to the case of aforesaid five workmen. Shri Manoj

Kumar Singh has admitted in his cross-examination at Ex. 24 that he was served with the charge sheet by the

Railway for submitting forged documents. He has further admitted that he was dismissed from service on

20.07.2000 on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the Railway against him. He has further admitted that all

the relevant papers related to the inquiry were given to him. He has also stated in his examination in chief

that he also preferred departmental appeal on 25.07.2000 against the termination order dated 20.07.2000. The

departmental appeal was also dismissed on 01.02.2001. Admittedly, he was not the accused in the said

criminal case no. 101/1996 wherein the concerned accused persons are said to have been acquitted vide order

dated 19.01.2012 passed by ACMM, Mazgaon (Mumbai). Hence the entire statement of the workman goes to

show that the principles of natural justice were fully observed in the departmental inquiry. This workman has

made no endeavours to summon and produce any other witness in support of his claim. The workman Shri

Manoj Kumar Singh was removed from service for submitting false and forged letter of appointment. The

termination order dated 20.07.2000 thus amounts to the cancellation of his appointment. He is not entitled for

the claimed relief. The demand of the union for reinstatement of workman Shri Manoj Kumar Singh is not

legal, proper and just.

21. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussions and law laid down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the Fertilizers and

Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd. (supra) and Keshab Deb (supra), the reference in respect of five workmen

namely Shri Wasim Ahmed, Shri Navneet Kumar Pandey, Shri Shakeel Ahmed, Shri Mahendra Pratap

Tripathi, and Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh cannot be adjudicated as the same is barred by the principle of ‗res

judicata‘. As far as the demand of the union for reinstatement of remaining workman Shri Manoj Kumar

Singh is concerned, the same is not legal, proper and just. The reference is answered as stated above.

22. The award is passed accordingly.

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

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1179.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj इंजडयन ओवरसीज बैंकds 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;] चेन्नई ds iapkV (17/2017) izdkf”kr djrh

gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/01/2017-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2023

S.O. 1179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.17/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/01/2017-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT &

EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI

ID No. 17/2017

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 21.06.2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2455

Smt. S. Gomathi

W/o Sri Velusamy

No. 116, Venkatapuram

Chinnamalai

Chennai-600015

1^st Party/Petitioner

1. Managing Director

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office, Indian Relations Department

Anna Salai

Chennai-600032

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

2. The Branch Manager

Indian Overseas Bank

Dr. MGR Medical University Branch

Chennai-600032

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Sri. T. Ramkumar

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Advocates, M/s Sri K.K. Sivashanmugham

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/01/2017-IR (B.II) dtd.

10.03.2017 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 Overseas Bank, is justified and legal in not considering the

case of Smt. S. Gomathi for absorption into the Bank’s services and terminating her from service without notice? If so,

to what relief is Smt. S. Gomathi is entitled to?”

2 On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, is registered as ID No. 17/2017 and due

notices were issued to both parties for their appearance and documents on 10.04.2017. The Respondent represented

through Counsel, but the Petitioner did not turn up. The case was adjourned to 03.05.2017 The Petitioner filed

Vakalath and Claim Statement. Counter Statement and Documents were filed by Respondent on 29.06.2017. The case

was listed for Rejoinder till 05.09.2018 intervening several dates. It reveals from the Order Sheet that sine the post of

Presiding Officer lying vacant for the above period no progress was noticed. After joining of the Presiding

Officer, the case was re-scheduled for hearing. The case was listed to 11.02.2019. On that day, while the Respondent

was present, none on behalf of the Petitioner was present nor any Rejoinder was filed. The case was listed to

19.02.2019 directing the Petitioner to file Affidavit Evidence. Since then the case was listed to further dates

intervening 5 adjournments for the same purpose till 22.10.2019. The Petitioner filed Proof of Affidavit and

Documents. The case was listed to 14.01.2020 for Cross-Examination. Since the case was listed to several dates till

27.10.2021 intervening 8 adjournments for the same purpose. The Petitioner did not turn up for Cross-Examination.

However, taking into consideration the prevailed hard situation of outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19, no coercive step

was taken against the Petitioner but the Tribunal dealt the matter leniently and for the interest of justice, the case is

again listed to 28.12.2021 for Cross-Examination. The Petitioner did not turn up. Even then the Tribunal suo-moto

afforded 7 adjournments for Cross-Examination till 01.03.2023. On that day, the Counsel for the Respondent who

almost appears on each date of posting raises strenuous objection not to post to any other date but to dispose of the

case in accordance to Law. The Petitioner did not appear on repeated calls. The case was accordingly reserved for

final order as it reveals that despite of several opportunities, though were made available to the Petitioner to prove her

case by adducing Evidence, she chose not to depose evidence in support of Proof of Affidavit. It is crystal clear that

the Petitioner deliberately withheld herself to come to the Witness Box. Due to non-participation of the Petitioner in

the proceeding there was no progress in the case. The case is simply dragged for more than six years.

In such circumstance, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate

Government vide dtd. 10.03.2017. 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.

2456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the result the ID case stands dismissed.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 21.06.2023)

नई ददल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1180.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy cSad 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; psUubZ ds iapkV (5/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-20]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2023

S.O. 1180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.5/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2023-IR(B-II)-20]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT &

EPF APPELLATE INDUSTRIAL

CHENNAI

ID No. 5/2017

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 01.06.2023

N. Gunasundari

W/o Nagendra

No. 32, Old Edappadi Road

Kottai Street

Sankakiri

Salem District

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Branch Manager

Punjab National Bank

ICL Complex, Bavani Main Road

Sankariri

Salem District-637303

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

2. The Chief Manager

Punjab National Bank

[(Circle Office (HRD)]

Trichy-620014

Presently at

Khandha Enclave

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2457

179, Sarojini Street

Ramnagar

Coimbatore-641009

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Arunachalam Associates

For the Respondents

Advocates, M/s S. Jayaraman

AWARD

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The Applicant raises the dispute challenging the denial of her job as Part-Time Sweeper by the First

Respondent Bank since 30.06.2015. The case of the Applicant in brief is that she was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper

in the First Respondent Bank on 01.06.2009. She was all along doing the menial work such as Sweeping, Cleaning,

File Stitching and Carrying files, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon with initial remuneration

paid on daily basis. But the Respondent never recognized the duties discharged by the Applicant nor was paid with

equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The Respondent never considered to absorb the Applicant in full

time job but on the other hand despite of her continuance in job for 6 years, 1 Month, the Applicant was denied the job

on 30.06.2015 without prior intimation. It is further contended that as per the Bipartite Settlement dtd. 19.10.1996

when the Applicant has completed 5 years unblemished service need to be afforded with preference for filling up the

permanent vacancies. It is further contended that when some vacancies arose the Applicant made oral and written

representations to place her on the full time job in place of part-time job. The First Respondent Bank though

recommended her name for such post, the Second Respondent did not consider her case, but resorted to direct

recruitment of subordinate cadre posts with prescription of higher qualification, age limit, etc. vide publishing

necessary advertisement in Tamil Daily i.e. ―Thanthi‖ on 03.12.2014. The advertisement was for filling up of 80

permanent vacancies in Trichy Circle.

It is further pleaded that the denial / termination from job of the Applicant, without prior notice amounts to

retrenchment within the purview of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The Applicant / Petitioner was seriously affected

financially and mentally for no fault of her. She raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer – Asstt Labour

Commissioner (C), Puducherry which was subsequently transferred to Dy. CLC (C), Chennai. The dispute since could

not be resolved at the said forum, the Applicant approached this Tribunal seeking relief of her reinstatement in service

with backwages and all other attendant benefits and regularization of his service from the date of his appointment

Both the Respondents entered appearance by filing Common Counter Statement traversing almost all the

pleadings except the admitted facts. The main plank of contention is that the Applicant / Petitioner is not a Workman

within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act. There exists no relationship of Employer-Employee in between the

Respondents and the Petitioner. The service condition of the workmen / employees of the Banking Industry

including the Respondent Bank are governed by Sastry Award and Desai Award and also various Bipartite

Settlements. As per the Respondent‘s Bank Rules, the case of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange

is only to be considered for such employment. In view of the settlement dtd. 07.05.1985 reached by the All India PNB

Employees Federation and the Bank which was circulated vide Circular No. 772 dtd. 17.05.1984 clearly speaks about

the procedures to be followed unless Thikana system is prevailed in the particular area. The said circular also

prescribes that the recruitment of Part-Time / Full-Time Sweepers shall be as per the eligibility criteria laid down by

the Bank from time to time. In supersession of the said circular, the Bank had issued another PAD Circular dtd. 72

dtd.11.02.2012 which also provides for Rules regarding the eligibility for posting of Part-Time Sweepers in various

branches. It is further contended that no right exists for any person to claim regularization / absorption in Bank dehors

the Bank‘s Rules and Guidelines. The Respondent(s) specific pleading is that the Petitioner / Applicant was never

appointed on 01.06.2009 or terminated from service on 30.06.2015. There was no Service Agreement in between the

Bank and the Petitioner. The claim of the Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Petitioner / Applicant is

not entitled to any relief as sought for.

In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, N. Gunasundari while examined herself as WW1, adduced evidence through one L. Shankaravadivelu as

WW2. The Petitioner relied on 23 documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W23. The Respondent examined the Manager

(HR), Sri Mitra Teja as MW1 and relied on 6 documents already produced on on 24.02.2022 in ID 37/2022 ie

Ext.M1 to Ext.M6. It submitted since those documents are common documents for the entire batch case, may be

taken to consideration.

The pleadings of both parties, brings out the following issues for determination:

(i)

Whether the Applicant is a Workman within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act.

2458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii)

Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the

Petitioner.

(iii) Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice?

(iv) To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?

Issues (i) & (ii)

Since the Issues I & II are interlinked inter alia are taken up together. Both the Witnesses WW1, the

Petitioner and WW2 adduced evidence in support of the pleadings of the Claim Petition. The Petitioner while states to

have joined the Respondent Bank on 01.06.2009 as Part-Time Sweeper and continued till termination on 30.06.2015,

the WW2 corroborates the fact. He introduced himself as the General Secretary of Punjab National Employees Union

affiliated to All India Bank Employees Association and being authorized by the present Petitioner and the Petitioners

of a bunch of cases initiated against the Respondent almost on same and similar grounds. WW2 categorically states

that he was employed as a Clerk and rendered service for 25 years till his superannuation in the year 2019 He

further states that he knows that the Petitioner on being engaged as Temporary Employee, was doing the menial

work of Sweeping, Cleaning, File Stitching, carrying files, etc. as good as a Permanent Employee. The Respondent on

the other hand adduces evidence through the Manager (HR), one Mitra Teja who denies the plea taken by the

Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner cannot plead to project herself as a workman within the purview of Section-

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as much as her services was utilized as and when required by the Respondent Bank

and she was adequately paid for her service. The Petitioner is debarred from backdoor entry. It is admitted by both the

parties that no Appointment Letter was ever issued in favour of the Petitioner nor any Termination Letter was issued.

Accordingly, the claim of the Petitioner for reinstatement with back wages is not acceptable. The Counsel for both

parties advanced their respective arguments drawing attention to the documents on record.

In view of the evidence made through the Witnesses as well as arguments advanced by both the parties, it is

to be seen if there exists any Employer-Employee relationship in between the Petitioner and the Respondent. In this

context the documents filed by the Petitioner are taken into consideration. The admitted undisputed fact remains that

at no point of time, the Petitioner was issued with any Written Appointment Letter by the Respondent nor was issued

any Termination order. At the outset, on a close perusal of documents relied by the Petitioner, it reveals that the

Petitioner made an application vide Ext.W1 dtd. 19.04.2010 to offer her the post of Part-Time Sweeper which was

enclosed with Ext.W2 reflecting the requisite qualification issued by the Branch. Ext.W3 is another application of the

Petitioner dtd. 28.09.2010 in Tamil version addressed to Zonal Manager, Trichy. Ext.W4 is a communication from

Chief Manager (HRD) to the Incumbent Incharge, Branch Office, Sankakiri (West) for recruitment of Part-Time

Sweeper. Ext.W5 is a forwarding letter dtd. 01.10.2010 communicated by the Manager addressed to the Chief

Manager (HRD), Trichy which was enclosed with the Bio-Data and applications vide Ext.W1, Ext.W2 and Ext.W3. In

the said letter he recommended to consider the application of the Petitioner showing her to have worked as Part-Time

Sweeper since July, 2009 as against the vacant post of retired PTS. It is also mentioned therein in Ext.W5 that the

Petitioner was also engaged on Daily Wage Basis even prior to the retirement of the PTS. It needs mention that

Ext.W5 does not disclose the name of the retired PTS against whose vacancy the Petitioner was engaged. Ex.W7 is

the letter of request issued vide dtd. 21.01.2011 of the Senior Manager addressed to Chief Manager (HRD), Trichy

Circle recommending consideration of the application of the Petitioner to recruit her as Part-Time Sweeper for their

Sankakiri Branch, already sent on 01.10.2010 vide Ext.W5. While recommending the Application of the Petitioner,

the Senior Manager stated therein that the Petitioner has been working since 2009. In this context, the submission of

the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has got sufficient force to consider the fact of engagement of the Petitioner in

the year 2009. So far the claim of engagement date is concerned, no supporting evidence has been adduced. Not a

single scrap of document has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner that she joined on 01.06.2009. Even if the

contentions of Ext.W5 is taken into consideration that the Senior Manager categorically stated that the Petitioner was

engaged in the month of July 2009 on Daily Wage Basis during leave period, even prior to the retirement of the then

PTS, such fact cannot be accepted so far the claim of Petitioner that she joined on 1st June 2009. Ext.W5 is silent

about the name of PTS and the date of his retirement which resulted in filling up the vacancy by the Petitioner.

Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner to have joined as Part-Time Sweeper on 01.06.2009 has got no bearing so far as

the documents are concerned but it can be well accepted that she has been working since July 2009 in view of Ext.W5

and Ext.W7.

In this context, it is to be seen if at all by accepting the fact of engagement of Petitioner would translate that

there exists the Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondent and Petitioner. It needs mention that the

Petitioner has produced a number of documents denoting a number of correspondences made by the General

Secretary, All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) to General Manager (P&A) requesting

to follow the Desai Award vide Ext.W8. Ext.W9 is the MoU arrived in between the Bank and AIPNBEF dtd.

22.02.2014 with regard to the promotion of an Employee in Subordinate Cadre including Part-Time Employees in the

Subordinate Cadre drawing full-scale wage, shall be eligible for promotion to the Clerical Cadre. The educational

criteria was defined therein (in Ext.W9) for four categories and the fifth category denotes for Non-Matriculate

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2459

Employee with 8 years service shall be eligible for promotion to the next cadre. Ext.W10 is a proposal raised by the

General Secretary of AIPNBEF and circulated vide letter dtd. 24.02.2014 to all the Office Bearers, CCMS and

General Secretaries of State Affiliates for conversion of Part-Time Employees (PTE/Sweeper) as Peon. Ext.W11 is an

incomplete document which is nothing but a congratulation letter in favour of the General Secretary, PR Mehta,

AIPNBEB for signing the settlement with the Management making the PTS eligible for promotional process in the

Clerical Cadre. Ext.W12, Ext.W13 and Ext.W14 (pertaining to Credit Cash Challans shall be discussed separately).

Ext.W15 is also a communication of General Secretary, AIPNBEF to the General Manager (P&A) requesting to

revisit and to revise the Educational Qualification criteria from 10+2 to fix at minimum 8^th Standard Pass or

Equivalent Course for recruitment to Subordinate Cadre Peons. Ext.W16 states about the letter of communication by

the General Secretary, AIPNBEF to all Temporary Staff Members to provide complete details for resolving the issue

under Ext.W15. Ext.W17 is a circular for Special Recruitment Drive for recruitment of Peons in Subordinate Cadre.

Ext.W18 is the Representation (in Tamil Version) of the Petitioner dtd. 07.02.2016 demanding employment after her

oral termination on 30.06.2015. Ext.W19 is the repeat of the same document of Ext.W18.

At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner raised the dispute vide her Representation dtd.

01.06.2016 before the Conciliation Officer-cum-ALC (C), Chennai. It reveals the Respondent entered appearance and

furnished the reply objection on dtd. 23.08.2016 vide Ext.W20. After expiry of the prescribed time limit of 45 days,

since the dispute could not be resolved, the Petitioner approached this Tribunal under Section-2A(3) of the ID Act,

1947 by obtaining a Certificate from the Conciliation Officer-cum-ALC (C), Chennai dtd. 23.11.2016.

10.

Ext.W21 is a letter of communication by the General Secretary, AIPNBEF in favour of the Executive

Director regarding request for recruitment of workmen staff other than Godown Keeper are to be given preference for

filling up permanent vacancies. The above documents as discussed are found not helpful to the case of the Petitioner.

Almost all these documents are the communications made by the Union represented through State Level General

Secretary to the National Level General Secretary of Federation suggesting the improvement of promotional avenues

of the Subordinate Temporary Staffs. Some of those communications are found to have been communicated to the

appropriate authorities for approval and sanction. But the Petitioner seriously failed to produce any approval or

sanction letter with regard to the suggestions made by the General Secretaries of the Union and Federation. Thus, all

these documents do not come to the rescue of the Petitioner. Ext.W22 is the Extract copy of the 8^th Bipartite

Settlement with regard to their wage limits restricted to working hours. Ext.W23 is the extract of the 9^th Bipartite

Settlement with regard to the wages of Part-Time employees restricting to working hours.

12.

It is pertinent to mention that the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried his best to convince the Tribunal

that the Petitioner since engaged from 01.06.2009 and continued till her termination on 30.06.2015 by adducing the

aforesaid documents under Exhibits. However, at the cost of repetition it needs mention that out of those documents

only two documents i.e. Ext.W5 and Ext.W7 can be taken into consideration so far the claim of the Petitioner‘s

engagement is concerned. Besides, the documents under Ext.W12, Ext.W13 are two sheets containing the Xerox copy

of three Credit Cash Challans each regarding the payment towards Water Tax. Ext.W14 contains a single Credit Cash

Challan towards payment of Water Tax and Electricity. Admittedly, all these Challans bear the logo of PNB and the

signature of the Petitioner appears on the reverse of each of such Credit Cash Challan under Ext.W12 to Ext.W14.

These Challans pertains to different months i.e. August, November and December of 2014. By producing these

documents, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner however tries to convince the Tribunal with regard to the fact of

service of the Petitioner utilized in different ways during different time spells beyond her exclusive duty as Part-Time

Sweeper. In this context, it is vehemently argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that even if the Credit

Cash Challans bear the signature of the Petitioner, such mere fact cannot be the basis for the Petitioner to claim of

continuous engagement in the Respondent Bank that too in want of relevant supporting documents such as Wage

Vouchers for the relevant period of claim. Admittedly, the Petitioner even though relied on a bunch of documents, 23

in all, failed to file a single document with regard to Wage.

13.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent drew attention to the common documents filed by the

Respondent in ID 37/2016 on dated 24.02.2022 (marked therein as Ext.M1 to Ext.M6). MW1, Sri Mitra Teja, the HR

Manager of the Respondent‘s Bank categorically states that at present there are 5 Circle Offices with approximate 225

branches across the State of Tamil Nadu. The Zonal Office of the Respondent‘s Bank is situated in Chennai whereas

the Head Office is at Delhi. MW1 adduced evidence with regard to the procedures followed by the official protocol

that all Branch Managers report to the Competent Officer / Authority of the concerned Circle Office. In that

circumstance, all official actions taken by the Branch Managers are reported to the concerned Competent Officer /

Authority of the Circle Office. In that case, even if any person is engaged as a Part-Time Worker for a specific period

of time, that would not bind upon the Respondent‘s Bank to define the Employee as a regular employee. In the instant

case, even if the then Branch Manager of Sankakiri Branch communicated two nos. of letters of request vide Ext.W5

and Ext.W7 to the higher authorities, no approval or sanction was accorded by the Competent Authority. Accordingly,

in such circumstance, even if it is accepted that the Petitioner was engaged for some time in Sankagiri Branch, it

cannot said to be an engagement made by the appropriate Competent Authority. It is pertinent to mention that in

2460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

view of the discussion held supra with regard to the procedures and protocol system prevailed in the Bank, such

temporary engagement of any person as and when required by the Branch Manager who is not a Competent Authority

in this regard, cannot hold good to say that there exists Employer-Employee relation in between the Respondent and

the Petitioner.

In view of the discussions vide preceding paragraphs, the Issues (i) & (ii) are answered against the Petitioner.

Issues (iii) & (iv)

14.

Admittedly, the Petitioner failed to produce a single scrap of document to substantiate that she was

disbursed with component of wage either weekly, monthly or annually preceding 240 days of her termination dtd.

30.06.2015, claimed as oral termination. In this regard the documents filed by the Respondent in ID 37/2016 are

taken into account. Ext.M1 is the settlement dtd. 07.05.1984 in between the parties with regard to the fixation of

wages and other allied matters like Recruitment and Appointment. Ext.M2 is a Circular dtd. 11.02.2012 issued by

the Respondent Bank posting of Part-Time Sweeper in the Branches. Ext.M3 is the Circular dtd. 26.03.2014

banning Temporary Appointment in the Bank. Ext.M4 is the Circular dtd. 21.09.2015 issued by the Bank with

regard to the Recruitment and Appointment of Part-Time Sweeper. Similarly Ext.M5 is the HRMD Circular letter

no. 10/2016 circulated on 04.07.2016 for alternative mechanism in lieu of interviews for Recruitment of Full-Time

Sweeper or Part-Time Sweeper. The HRMD Circular no. 430 was circulated on 28.11.2018 banning Temporary

Appointment in the Bank. This witness accordingly states that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought

for. This part of his evidence is supported by the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

16.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs and the materials borne out from the documents on

record no way establishes the claim of the Petitioner to have rendered service continuously from 01.06.2009 till the

so-called date of oral termination i.e. 30.06.2015. At the cost of repetition, it would not be out of place to mention

that the Petitioner was never issued with any Appointment Letter or Termination Order by the Respondent. Thus,

the onus lies on the Petitioner to prove the fact with relevant documents. The documents under Ext.W5 and Ext.W7

disclose that the Petitioner was engaged in Sankakiri Branch in month of July, 2009 as the fact is mentioned by the

then Branch Manager in his official capacity. Accordingly, it is accepted that the Petitioner was engaged by the

Respondent‘s Bank in the month July, 2009 and working as Part-Time Sweeper till 21.01.2011 when the

recommendation letter was sent by Senior Manager to the Chief Manager (HRD) vide Ext.W7. In this context,

even if it is accepted that the Petitioner worked for the above period approximately 16 months, would no way

suffice to establish her claim. Besides, for the sake of argument even if it is also accepted that her service was

utilized in the year 2014 in view of Ext.W12 to Ext.W14 which adds upto 150 days (August to December), such

mere fact of engagement also cannot substantiate to attract Section-25(F) of the ID Act. These Challans pertains to

month of August, November and December of 2014 which are certainly not the Wage Vouchers to translate it as

her claim that she was in continuous service for that period till her so-called oral termination on 30.06.2015. The

fact advanced argument relying on the judicial verdict of the High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of

Sri J. Alwin Edwin Vs. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Two Others vide WP No. 23017/2019

dtd. 06.10.2020 .It is held by their Lordships that in the absence of any candid document, the Petitioner cannot

seek relief on an illusory evidence stating that she was terminated from job without prior notice.

As well as the Petitioner cannot claim her engagement as Part-Time Sweeper for any period of time of 240 days

of Calendar Year preceding to her so-called oral termination on 30.06.2015.

In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought

for. The Issues (iii) and (iv) are also answered against the Petitioner.

Accordingly the Application under 2A(2) is answered against the Petitioner

The ID Case stands dismissed.

An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day

the 1^st June 2023)

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Smt. N. Gunasundari

WW2, Sri L. Sankaravadivelu

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri Mitra Teja

Documents Marked:-

On the petitioners side

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2461

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex.W1 19.04.2010

Representation from N.Gunasundari with

acknowledge

Ex.W2 27.08.2010

Education qualification for PTS

Ex.W3 28.09.2010

Representation from N.Gunasundari

Ex.W4 28.09.2010

Circular regarding recruitment

Ex.W5 01.10.2010

Certificate of performance in respect of

N. Gunasundari

Ex.W6 23.12.2010

Circular regarding recruitment

Ex.W7 21.01.2011

Recruitment of part-time sweeper

Ex.W8 17.02.2014

Regulation regarding absorption of PTS

Ex.W9 22.02.2014

Memorandum for absorption

Ex.W10 24.02.2014

Conversion of PTS as Peons

Ex.W11 04.03.2014

Circular regarding absorption of PTS

Ex.W12 16.08.2014

Cash voucher payment to N.Gunasundari

Ex.W13 05.12.2014

Cash voucher payment to N.Gunasundari

Ex.W14 05.12.2014

Cash voucher payment to N.Gunasundari

Ex.W15 12.02.2015

Education qualification to Peon

Ex.W16 27.05.2015

Letter from General Secretary from the Union

Ex.W17 01.07.2015

Special recruitment trivet of Peon.

Ex.W18 07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after Termination to the

Branch Manager by N.Gunasundari

Ex.W19 07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after Termination to the

General Manager by N.Gunasundari

Ex.W20 23.08.2016

Reply filed by Management before ALC (C),

N.Gunasundari

Ex.W21 31.05.2017

Circular from the General Secretary of the

Employees Federation

Ex.W22 -

Relevant portion of 8^th Bipartite Settlement

Ex.W23 -

Relevant portion of 9^th Bipartite Settlement

Documents Marked: On the Respondent side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1 07.05.1984

Settlement regarding fixation of wages and other

Allied matters like Recruitment and Appointment.

Ex.M2 11.02.2012

Circular issued by the Respondent Bank regarding

posting of Part-Time Sweepers in the Branch

Ex.M3 25.03.2014

Circular banning the Temporary Appointment in the

bank.

Ex.M4 21.09.2015

Circular issued by the Bank with regard to the

Recruitment and Appointment of Part-Time Sweeper.

Ex.M5 04.07.2016

HRMD Circular Letter dated 10/2016 issued by the

Bank with regard to alternative mechanism in lieu of

interview for recruitment of Full Time/Part Time

Sweeper in Subordinate Cadre.

Ex.M6 28.11.2018

HRMD Circular No.430 Banning the Temporary

Appointment in the Bank.

2462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1181.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj मोरमुगाओ ृोटा रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2 eqacbZ ds iapkV (24/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-36011/02/2020-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2023

S.O. 1181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.24/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mormugao Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-36011/02/2020-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

CAMP: GOA

PRESENT

Laxmi Narain Jindal

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/24 of 2020

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MORMUGAO PORT TRUST

(Now : MORMUGAO PORT AUTHORITY

The Chairman

Mormugao Port Trust

(Now: Mormugao Port Authority

Headland Sada

Vasco, Goa.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The General Secretary

Mormugao Port & Railway Workers‘ Union

MPT Administrative Building

Adjacent to Canteen, Headland Sada

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

The General Secretary

Goa Port and Dock Employees‘ Union

MPT Administrative Building

Adjacent to Canteen, Headland Sada

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ms. H. Barad, Advocate, i/b

M/s. M.V. Kini & Co.

FOR THE UNION NO.1

Mr. Karim A. Mulla,

Representative.

FOR THE UNION NO.2

Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate.

Dated the 6th June, 2023.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2463

AWARD

This reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-36011/02/2020 – IR (B-II) dated 02.12.2020. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the proposal of management to discontinue the Relieving Overtime in 33 KV substation and

thereby stopping the allowance of the workers working there in the absence of any change in working

condition is correct or not? If correct, what about the relieving overtime allowance paid till now?”

After receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. Matter was fixed for filing of

Statement of Claim by the unions. Union No.2 Goa Port & Dock Employees Union filed by post an application dated

02.06.2022 withdrawing themselves from the dispute as they are not interested in contesting the matter further.

Today Shri Karim A. Mulla, Representative of Mormugao Port & Railway Workers‘ Union, i.e. Union no.1,

filed an application to the effect that he did not wish to pursue the present reference. His statement was recorded to the

following effect:

―It is stated that, I have been authorised by Mr. Ulhas Thanekar, President of the Union to appear today

before this Tribunal. It is further stated that the second party no.1 also withdraw the present case and does

not intend to contest the dispute.‖

In view of the above, ‗no dispute‘ award is passed in the present reference.

June 06, 2023

LAXMI NARAIN JINDAL, Presiding Officer

Camp : Goa

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1182.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy cSad 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; psUubZ ds iapkV (39/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-21]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.39/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2023-IR(B-II)-21]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT &

EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI

ID No. 39/2016

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 05.06.2023

Smt. R. Venkateswari

W/o K. Panneerselvam

No. 44, Parivallal Street

Surumapetti

Erode-638009

Petitioner

AND

2464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Branch Manager

Punjab National Bank

Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam

Erode-638001

First Respondent

The Deputy General Manager

Punjab National Bank

Circle Office (HRD)

Khandha Enclave

179, Sarojini Street

Ramnagar

Coimbatore-641009

Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s S. Arunachalam & Associates

For the 1^st & 2^nd Respondent

Advocate, Sri S. Jayaraman

AWARD

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The Applicant raises the dispute challenging the denial of her job as Part-Time sweeper the First Respondent

Bank on 30.06.2015.

The case of the Applicant in brief is that she was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper (PTS) in the First Respondent

Bank on 02.06.2004. She studied upto 5^th Standard. She was all along doing the menial work such as Sweeping,

Cleaning and File Stitching, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon with initial remuneration paid on

daily basis at the rate of Rs175/-. She was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Trichy. But the Respondent never

recognized the duties discharged by the Applicant nor was paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular

employees. The Respondent never considered to absorb the Applicant in full time job but on the other hand despite of

her continuance in job for 11 years and 29 days, the Applicant was denied the job on 30.06.2015 without prior

intimation. It is stated that as per the Bipartite Settlement dtd. 19.10.1996 when the Applicant has completed 5 years

unblemished service need to be afforded with preference for filling up the Permanent Vacancies. It is further

contended that when some vacancies arose the Applicant made oral and written representations to place her on full

time job in place of part-time job. Besides, since she has completed continuous service of 480 days in 2 years

therefore is entitled to be regularized under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to

Workmen) Act, 1961. The First Respondent Bank though recommended her name for such post, the Second

Respondent did not consider her case, but resorted to direct recruitment of subordinate cadre posts with prescription of

higher qualification, age limit, etc. vide publishing necessary advertisement in Tamil Daily i.e. ―Thanthi‖ on

03.12.2014. The advertisement was for filling up of 80 permanent vacancies in Trichy Circle.It is further pleaded that

the denial / termination from job of the Applicant, without prior notice amounts to retrenchment within the purview of

Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The Applicant / Petitioner was seriously affected financially and mentally for no fault of

her. She raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer – Asstt Labour Commissioner (C), Puducherry on

01.06.2016. The dispute since could not be resolved at the said forum, the Applicant approached this Tribunal seeking

relief of her reinstatement in service with backwages and all other attendant benefits.

Both the Respondents entered appearance by filing Common Counter Statement traversing almost all the

pleadings except the admitted facts. The main plank of contention is that the Applicant / Petitioner is not a Workman

within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act. There exists no relationship of Employer-Employee in between the

Respondents and the Petitioner. The service condition of the workmen / employees of the Banking Industry including

the Respondent Bank are governed by Sastry Award and Desai Award and also various Bipartite Settlements. As per

the Respondent‘s Bank Rules, the case of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is only to be

considered for such employment. In view of the settlement dtd. 07.05.1984 reached by the All India PNB Employees

Federation and the Bank which was circulated vide Circular No. 772 dtd. 17.05.1984 clearly speaks about the

procedures to be followed unless Thikana system is prevailed in the particular area. The said circular also prescribes

that the recruitment of Part-Time / Full-Time Sweepers shall be as per the eligibility criteria laid down by the Bank

from time to time. In supersession of the said circular, the Bank had issued another PAD Circular dtd. 72 dtd.

11.02.2012 which also provides for rules regarding the eligibility for posting of Part-Time Sweepers in various

branches. It is further contended that no right exists for any person to claim regularization / absorption in Bank which

dehors the Bank‘s Rules and Guidelines. The Respondent(s) specific pleading is that the Petitioner / Applicant was

never appointed on 02.06.2004 or terminated from service on 30.06.2015. There was no Service Agreement in

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2465

between the Bank and the Petitioner. The claim of the Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Petitioner /

Applicant is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, R. Venkateswari while examined herself as WW1, adduced evidence through one L. Shankaravadivelu as

WW2. The Petitioner relied on 32 documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W32. The Respondent examined the Manager

(HR), Sri Mitra Teja as MW1 and produced 6 documents marked as Ext.M1 to Ext.M6.

The pleadings of both parties, brings out the following issues for determination:

(i)

Whether the Applicant is a Workman within the purview of 2(s)of the ID Act.

(ii)

Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the

Petitioner.

(iii) Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice?

(iv) To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?

Issues (I) & (II)

Since the Issues I & II are interlinked inter alia are taken up together. Both the Witnesses WW1, the Petitioner

and WW2 adduced evidence in support of the pleadings of the Claim Petition. The Petitioner states to have joined the

Respondent Bank on 02.06.2004 as Part-Time Sweeper and all along doing the menial work such as Sweeping,

Cleaning and File Stitching, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon. The initial remuneration was

paid to her on daily basis at the rate of Rs 175/-. But the Respondent never recognized the duties discharged by the

Applicant nor was paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The Respondent never considered

to absorb the Applicant in full time job. But on the other hand despite of her continuance in job for 11 years and 29

days, the Applicant was denied the job on 30.06.2015 without prior intimation. In view of the Bipartite Settlement

dtd. 19.10.1996, the Applicant is entitled to get the preference to fill up the Permanent Vacancy when completes 5

years of service. Her representation in this regard was never considered.

WW2 viz. Shri L. Shankaravadivelu, one retired Clerk of Respondent‘s Bank now holds the post of the

General Secretary of ―Punjab National Employees Union‖ which is affiliated to ―All India Bank Employees

Association‖ adduces evidence in support of the Petitioner. He categorically states to have rendered 25 years of

service in the Respondent Bank till his superannuation in the year 2019. He has direct knowledge that since the

engagement of the Petitioner on dtd. 02.06.2004 as a Temporary Employee in the Respondent‘s Bank, her service

was utilized for whole day. The Petitioner was not only doing the menial work such as Sweeping, Cleaning, etc.

but was paying Electricity and Telephone Bills, Clearing Cheques and Courier and many more works, as good as the

job of a Permanent Employee. But the Applicant was never been paid wages / remuneration at par with a Permanent

Employee.

The Respondent on the other hand adduces evidence through the Manager (HR), Mitra Teja who denies the

pleadings of the Petitioner and the statement of both the Witnesses. In support of the contentions made in Counter

Statement, it is stated that the Petitioner cannot plead to project herself as a ―Workman‖ within the purview of

Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as much as she was engaged of and on whenever exigencies arose on the

part of the local Branch Manager who lacks any authority to give appointment to anyone. The Applicant on the other

hand has been adequately paid for her service rendered for the Branch. There exists no Employer-Employee

relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner amounts to backdoor entry

thus the claim for reinstatement with back wages is not sustainable.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs with regard to the pleadings of the parties, it is to be seen

if the Petitioner is a ―Workman‖ within the purview of the Act and if there exists any Employer-Employee

relationship in between the Petitioner and the Respondent. In this context the documents filed by the Petitioner are

taken into consideration. It reveals Ext.W1 dtd 19.01.2007 and Ext.W3 dtd. 04.09.2010 are the Representations (in

Tamil) of the Petitioner. The Circular for Recruitment of Part-Time Sweeper dtd. 27.08.2010 is Ext.W2. The Branch

Manager forwarded the Application dtd. 19.01.2007 of the Petitioner for recruitment of Part-Time Sweeper vide

Ext.W4 dtd. 04.09.2010. Ext.W5 dtd. 11.05.2011 is the Interview Call Letter of the Petitioner. A number of

documents are under the caption of ―Voucher being handled‖ under Ext.W6 to Ext.W11 for the year 2012 and 2013.

Ext.W12 dtd. 17.02.2014 and Ext.W13 dtd. 22.02.2014 are the regulation regarding absorption of PTS and

Memorandum for Absorption respectively. The General Secretary circulated a proposal for conversion of Part-Time

Employees as Peon vide his letter to All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) vide Ext.W14

dtd. 24.02.2014. Ext.W15 dtd. 04.03.2014 is an internal communication of a Circular regarding absorption of PTS.

Ext.W16 is the Application dtd. 25.04.2014 alongwith Bio-Data of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also furnished the

cash vouchers in token of payment of her wages vide Ext.W17 to Ext.W23. A proposal initiated by the General

Secretary vide Ext.W24 dtd. 12.02.2015 was sent to the General Manager (P&A) to fix the educational criteria for the

post of Peon as minimum 8^th Standard instead of 10+ 2. The General Secretary sent a letter to the temporary staff

2466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

members on dtd. 27.05.2015 vide Ext.W25 to provide the details in pursuant to Ext.W24. A Special Recruitment

Drive was initiated by the Circle Office, Trichy vide Ext.W26 for recruitment to fill the post of Peons in Subordinate

Cadre. After termination, the Petitioner moved the Deputy General Manager vide her letters viz. Ext.W27 dtd.

07.02.2016 to consider her on Permanent Post. Ext.W28 is the copy of Ext.W27. Ext.W30 is the Circular dtd.

31.05.2017 issued by the Head Office for recruitment of Workman Staff (other than Godown Keeper). Ext.W31 and

Ext.W32 are the extracts of 8^th and 9^th Bipartite Settlements. After the oral termination as claimed by the Petitioner,

she raised the dispute before the ALC. It reveals that the Respondent entered appearance in the Conciliation

Proceedings and furnished reply vide Ext.W29 dtd. 30.08.2016 regarding the fact of non-consideration of the

Representation dtd. 01.06.2016 of the Petitioner.

In view of the discussion held supra, when the engagement of the Petitioner in the Respondent‘s Bank as a Part-

Time Sweeper on 02.06.2004 stands disputed, being thoroughly challenged, the onus of proof heavily lies on the

Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner has produced a bunch of documents. Thus, it is to be seen if in order to

substantiate her claim of joining / engagement on 02.06.2004, any document is filed. In this context, it needs mention

that since it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was not issued with any Appointment Letter, such plea should have

been substantiated by any document other than the oral evidence of WW2. Admittedly, the Petitioner seriously failed

to file any scrap of document with regard to her claim of engagement on 02.06.2004. In addition to that, she has failed

to furnish any document regarding her continuance. Not a single scrap of document has been filed showing her

assignment of any duties, disbursement of wages in any manner i.e. Voucher as against Cash Payment or any Entries

in Bank Account Statement till her Representation dtd. 19.01.2007 (Ext.W1). It is pertinent to mention when the

Petitioner failed to file any document in support of her claim regarding her continuance from the alleged date of

engagement i.e. 02.06.2004 till she made an Application / Representation dtd. 19.01.2007 (Ext.W1). On a close

perusal it appears that the then Branch Manager sent the Application / Representation (Ext.W1) of the Petitioner to the

Circle Office, Trichy vide Ext.W4 dtd. 04.09.2010 mentioning therein that the Petitioner has been working on

Temporary Basis as PTS since 2007. Thus, under the circumstance inference can be drawn that the Petitioner was

engaged on Temporary Basis as PTS since 2007 and not from 2004. An Interview Call Letter vide Ext.W5 dtd.

11.05.2011 was sent by Manager (HRD) to the Petitioner, Venkateswari to appear in the Interview at 02.45 PM on

13.05.2011 at the venue fixed. The Petitioner produced some Credit Cash Payment Vouchers under Ext.W6 to

Ext.W11 which is not continuous but with intermittent gaps. Only two such Wage Vouchers for the Year 2012 i.e.

02.07.2012 and 01.08.2012 and two Vouchers for the Year 2013 i.e. 02.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 are filed. Besides, the

Petitioner also filed some Cash Credit Vouchers relating to her wage in Ext.W17, Ext.W19, Ext.W21 and Ext.W23.

Ext.W18, Ext.W20 and Ext.W22 relates to her duty assignments. As such, all these documents Ext.W17 to Ext.W23

necessarily speaks about her engagement and duty assignment in the Bank. Accordingly, it is held that the Petitioner is

a ―Workman‖ as defined under 2(s) of the ID Act. In the fact and circumstance, it is held that there exists

Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner.

The Issues (i) & (ii) are answered in favour of the Petitioner.

Issues (III) & (IV)

10.

The undisputed admitted fact remains that the Petitioner was never issued with an Appointment or Termination

Letter by the Respondent. However, the claim of the Petitioner regarding his engagement in the Respondent‘s Bank on

02.06.2004 is not amply proved by the Petitioner. At the cost of repetition, it needs mention that even if the Petitioner

claims to have joined on 02.06.2004 and continued in job till 30.06.2015, she seriously failed to link-up the chain of

her continuous engagement for the above period. But the document, the Application/Representation dtd. 19.01.2007

(Ext.W1) and the forwarding letter (Ext.W4 dtd. 04.09.2010) of the Branch Manager are taken into consideration. It

reveals from those document that the Petitioner when fails to produce any document to link up her continuance from

the claimed date of joining i.e. 02.06.2004 till 2007, this Ext.W1 and Ext.W4 says about her job in the Respondent‘s

Bank, as much as the Branch Manager himself mentioned therein in Ext.W4 that the Petitioner was working as PTS

on Temporary Basis since 2007. As such an inference can be drawn that the Petitioner was working therein in the

Respondent Bank from 2007 to 2010 till the Branch Manager forwarded Ext.W4 to the Circle Office, Trichy. The

Interview Call Letter Ext.W5 and the documents under Ext.W6 to Ext.W11 and Ext.W17 to Ext.W23 are also taken

into judicial note. All these documents shows that the Petitioner was engaged on Temporary Basis as Part-Time

Sweeper from the period 2007 (Ext.W1 & Ext.W4) till 01.12.2014 (Ext.W23 – Credit Cash Voucher seems to have

been paid as Wages to Petitioner PTS) with intermittent gaps. Besides, when the Petitioner contended in her Claim

Petition that she was denied job on 30.06.2015, it was the bounden duty of the Petitioner to substantiate this claim

with supporting document. Needless to mention, she has seriously failed to furnish any such document showing her

continuance after 01.12.2014 (Ext.W23). Therefore, her such claim of continuance in job till 30.06.2015 is not

sustainable.

11.

On the other hand, in view of the discussions held with regard to the above documents, inference can be drawn

that she was working from 2007 to 2014, with intermittent gap, then the onus lies on her to prove that she was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2467

working continuously for 240 days prior to 01.12.2014 (Ext.W23) in a Calendar Year to get the privilege of the

Section-25(f) of the Act.

12.

The fact emerges in this regard stands disputed as the Learned Counsel for the Respondent raises strenuous

objection that the case of the Petitioner does not attract Section-25(f) of the Act. Admittedly, the Wage Vouchers such

as Ext.W17 of 02.08.2014, Ext.W19 of 04.10.2014, Ext.W21 of 03.11.2014 and Ext.W23 of 01.12.201 no way proves

her claim of continuance. Even if despite of such intermittent gaps, the said period if at all is accepted for the purpose

of the case of the Petitioner, it is found that she worked from 02.08.2014 to 01.12.2014 which comes to 121 days.

Thus, at any stretch of circumstance, this period from 02.08.2014 to 01.12.2014 cannot attract Section-25(f) of the

Act. In this context, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent advanced argument relying on the judicial verdict of the

High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of Sri J. Alwin Edwin Vs. The Branch Manager, Punjab National

Bank and Two Others vide WP No. 23017/2019 dtd. 06.10.2020. It is held by their Lordships that in the absence of

any candid document, the Petitioner cannot seek relief on an illusory evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner

cannot take the privilege contemplated in the legislation under Section-25(f) in any manner either by adducing an

illusory evidence that she was terminated from job without prior notice on 30.06.2015 or by producing the document

showing her engagement till 01.12.2014. She failed to prove that she was engaged as Part-Time Sweeper for any

period of time of 240 days of Calendar Year preceding to both the dates either 01.12.2014 or 30.06.2015.

In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought

for. The Issues (iii) and (iv) are also answered against the Petitioner.

Accordingly the Application under 2A(2) is answered against the Petitioner

The ID Case stands dismissed.

An award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 05.06.2023)

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Smt. R. Venkateswari

WW2, Sri L. Sankaravadivelu

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri Mitra Teja

Documents Marked:-

On the petitioners side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

19.01.2007

Representation from R. Venkateswari

Ex.W2

27.08.2010

Education Qualification for PTS

Ex.W3

04.09.2010

Representation from R. Venkateswari

Ex.W4

04.09.2010

Certificate of Good Performance given to R.

Venkateswari

Ex.W5

11.05.2011

Interview call letter to R. Venkateswari with

acknowledgement

Ex.W6

02.07.2012

Voucher being handled by R. venkateswari

Ex.W7

01.08.2012

Voucher being handled by R. Venkateswari

Ex.W8

02.01.2013

Voucher being handled by R. Venkateswar

Ex.W9

01.02.2013

Voucher being handled by R. Venkateswari

Ex.W10

31.06.2013

Voucher being handled by R. Venkateswari

Ex.W11

01.07.2013

Voucher being handled by R. Venkateswari

Ex.W12

17.02.2014

Regulation regarding absorption of PTS

Ex.W13

22.02.2014

Memorandum for absorption

Ex.W14

24.02.2014

Conversion of PTS as Peons

Ex.W15

04.03.2014

Circular regarding absorption of PTS

Ex.W16

25.04.2014

Application with Bio-Data of R.

Venkateswari

2468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W17

02.08.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W18

01.10.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W19

04.10.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W20

04.10.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W21

21.11.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W22

05.12.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W23

05.12.2014

Cash Voucher payment to R. Venkateswari

Ex.W24

12.02.2015

Educational Qualification to Peon

Ex.W25

27.05.2015

Letter from General Secretary from the

Union

Ex.W26

01.07.2015

Special Recruitment trivet of Peons

Ex.W27

07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after Termination to

the General Manager by R. Venkateswari

Ex.W28

07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after Termination to

the General Manager by R. Venkateswari

Ex.W29

30.08.2016

Reply filed by Management before ALC (C),

R.Venkateswari

Ex.W30

31.05.2017

Circular from the General Secretary of the

Employees Federation

Ex.W31

Relevant portion of 8^th bipartite Settlement

Ex.W32

Relevant portion of 9^th bipartite Settlement

Documents Marked: On the Respondent side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

07.05.1984

Settlement regarding fixation of wages and other

Allied matters like Recruitment and Appointment.

Ex.M2

11.02.2012

Circular issued by the Respondent Bank regarding

posting of Part-Time Sweepers in the Branch

Ex.M3

25.03.2014

Circular banning the Temporary Appointment in the

bank.

Ex.M4

21.09.2015

Circular issued by the Bank with regard to the

Recruitment and Appointment of Part-Time Sweeper.

Ex.M5

04.07.2016

HRMD Circular Letter dated 10/2016 issued by the

Bank with regard to alternative mechanism in lieu of

interview for recruitment of Full Time/Part Time

Sweeper in Subordinate Cadre.

Ex.M6

28.11.2018

HRMD Circular No.430 Banning the Temporary

Appointment in the Bank.

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1183.—vk|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy cSad 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; psUubZ ds iapkV (37/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-22]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2469

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.37/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2023-IR(B-II)-22]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT &

EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI

ID No. 37/2016

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 07.06.2023

Sri B. Rajkumar

S/o Balakrishnan

Old No. 53, New No. 295, Thirupalthurai

Panayapuram

Thiruvalarsolai Post

Trichy-620005

Petitioner

AND

1.The General Manager

Punjab National Bank

Bhikshandar Koil Branch

No. 1, Toll Gate

Trichy-621216

First Respondent

2.The Deputy General Manager

Punjab National Bank

Circle Office (HRD)

Trichy-620014

Presently at:

Khandha Enclave

179, Sarojini Street

Ramnagar

Coimbatore-641009

Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s S. Arunachalam & Associates

For the 1^st & 2^nd Respondent

Advocate, Sri S. Jayaraman

AWARD

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The Applicant B. Rajkumar raises the dispute challenging the denial of his job as Courier / Peon by the First

Respondent Bank since 03.07.2015.

The case of the Applicant in brief is that he was appointed as Part-Time Courier-cum-Peon in the First

Respondent Bank on 01.02.2005 and terminated from job on 03.07.2015 without prior intimation. Since the Petitioner

has completed 10 years, 5 months, 2 days unblemished continuous service preference should have been given by the

Respondent to him for filling up the Permanent vacancy pursuant to the Bipartite Settlement dtd. 19.10.1996. Besides

he has completed his continuous service of 480 days preceding to the date of denial/termination thus is eligible for

regularization under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,

2470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1961. It is further contended that when some vacancies arose the Applicant made oral and written Representations to

place him on permanent post. The 1st Respondent sent the Representation with his recommendation to the

appropriate Authority, the 2nd Respondent for consideration. The Representation was never considered by the Second

Respondent, on the other hand resorted to direct recruitment of subordinate cadre posts for filling of 80 posts in

Trichy Circle vide advertisement on dtd 03.12.2014 in Tamil Daily i.e. ―Thanthi‖. The denial / termination from job

of the Applicant, without prior notice amounts to retrenchment within the purview of Section 2(oo) of ID Act. The

Applicant / Petitioner was seriously affected financially and mentally for no fault of him. He raised the dispute before

the Conciliation Officer – Asstt Labour Commissioner (C), Puducherry. The dispute since could not be resolved at the

said forum, the Applicant approached this Tribunal seeking relief of his reinstatement in service with back wages and

all other attendant benefits and regularization of his service from the date of his appointment

Both the Respondents entered appearance by filing Common Counter traversing almost all the pleadings except

the admitted facts. The main plank of contention is that the Applicant / Petitioner is not a ―Workman‖ within the

purview of 2(s) of the ID Act. There exists no relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondents and

the Petitioner. The service condition of the workmen / employees of the Banking Industry including the Respondent

Bank are governed by Sastry Award and Desai Award and also various Bipartite Settlements. As per the Respondent‘s

Bank Rules, the case of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is only to be considered for such

employment. In view of the settlement dtd. 07.05.1984 reached by the All India PNB Employees Federation and the

Bank and the same settlement was circulated vide Circular No. 772 dtd. 17.05.1984 which clearly speaks about the

procedures to be followed unless the Thikana system is prevailed in the particular area. The said circular also

prescribes that the recruitment of Part-Time / Full-Time Sweepers shall be as per the eligibility criteria laid down by

the Bank from time to time. In supersession of the said PD circular, the Bank had issued another PAD Circular No. 72

dtd.11.02.2012 which also provides for Rules regarding the eligibility for posting of Part-Time Sweepers in various

branches. It is further contended that no right exists for any person to claim regularization / absorption in Bank which

dehors the Bank‘s Rules and Guidelines. The applicability of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of

permanent status to Workmen) Act, 1961 was challenged in view of ID Act. The Respondent(s) specific pleading is

that the Petitioner / Applicant was never appointed by any of the Respondent on 01.02.2005 or terminated from

service on 03.07.2015. There was no Service Agreement in between the Bank and the Petitioner. The claim of the

Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Petitioner/Applicant is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

4. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, B. Rajkumar while examined himself as WW1, adduced evidence through one L. Shankaravadivelu as

WW2. The Petitioner relied on 31 documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W31. The Respondent examined the Manager

(HR), Sri Mitra Teja as MW1 and produced 6 documents marked as Ext.M1 to Ext.M6. The pleadings of both parties,

brings out the following issues for determination:

(I)

If the Applicant is a Workman within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act.

(II)

Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the Petitioner.

(III) Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice?

(IV) To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?

Issues (I) & (II)

Since the Issues I & II are interlinked inter alia are taken up together. Both the Witnesses WW1, the Petitioner

and WW2 adduced evidence in support of the pleadings of the Claim Petition. The Petitioner states to have joined the

Respondent Bank on 01 02.2005 as Part-Time Courier / Peon and all along doing the menial work such as Sweeping,

Cleaning and File Stitching, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon. The initial remuneration was

paid to him on daily basis at the rate of Rs 176. But the Respondent never recognized the duties discharged by the

Applicant nor was paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The Respondent never considered

to absorb the Applicant in full time job. But on the other hand despite of his continuance in job for 10 years, 5 months

and two days, the Applicant was denied the job on 03.07.2015 without prior intimation. In view of the Bipartite

settlement dtd19.10.1996, the Applicant is entitled to get the preference to fill up the permanent vacancy when

completes 5 years of service. His representation in this regard was never considered. WW2 viz. Shri

Shankaravaduvelu, one retired Clerk of Respondent‘s Bank now holds the post of the General Secretary of ―Punjab

National Employees Union‖ which is affiliated to ―All India Bank Employees Association‖ adduces evidence in

support of the Petitioner. He categorically states to have rendered 25 years of service in the Respondent Bank till his

superannuation in the year 2019. He has direct knowledge that since the engagement of the Petitioner dtd. 01.02.2005

as Temporary Employee in the Respondent‘s Bank, his service was utilized for whole day. The Petitioner was not

only doing the menial work such as Sweeping, Cleaning, etc. but was paying Electricity and Telephone Bills,

Clearing Cheques and many more works, as good as the job of a Permanent Employee. But the Applicant was never

been paid wages/remuneration at par with a Permanent Employee.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2471

The Respondent on the other hand adduces evidence through the Manager (HR), Mitra Teja who denies the

pleadings of the Petitioner and the statement of both the Witnesses. In support of the contentions made in Counter

Statement, it is stated that the Petitioner cannot plead to project himself as a ―Workman‖ within the purview of

Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as much as he was engaged of and on whenever exigencies arose on the

part of the local Branch Manager who lacks any authority to give appointment to anyone. The Applicant on the other

hand has been adequately paid for his service rendered for the Branch. There exists no Employer-Employee

relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner amounts to ―backdoor entry‖

thus the claim for reinstatement with back wages is not sustainable. The Counsel for both parties advanced their

respective arguments drawing attention to the documents on record.

The Counsel for both parties advanced their respective arguments drawing attention to the documents on record.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs with regard to the pleadings of the parties, it is to be seen if the

Petitioner is a ―Workman‖ within the purview of the Act and if there exists any Employer-Employee relationship in

between the Petitioner and the Respondent. In this context the documents filed by the Petitioner are taken into

consideration. It reveals from Ext.W6 that it is an undertaking furnished by the Petitioner to abide the term and

condition of his work assignments commencing w.e.f. 19.01 2005. Ext.W7 is the Calculation Sheet towards the

Courier charges in respect of the Petitioner which bears the endorsement of the then Branch Manager, N. Venugopal

on 31.01.2005 / 01.02.2005. The Petitioner claimed to have been engaged on 01.02.0205. This part of his Evidence is

supported by WW2. Sri Shankaravadivelu. Ext.W12 dtd 17.02.2009 is the letter of Branch Manager to the Senior

Manager (Audit), Trichy to enhance the limit of Clearing / Courier Charges in respect of the Petitioner. Ext W13 dtd

26.03.2009 is the approval of the proposal by the Authority, communicated by Senior Manager to the Manager,

Branch Office, Bhikshandarkoil regarding the enhancement of the charges to Rs 1400/-. Again vide Ext.W14 dtd

21.06.2012, the Senior Manager initiated another proposal requesting to the Senior Manager (Inspection and Audit),

Circle Office, Trichy to enhance the Clearing Conveyance charges of the Petitioner and the same was approved by

the Competent Authority. The same was communicated by the Senior Manager vide Ext.W15 dtd 14.08.2012

addressed to the Chief Manager, Bhikshandarkoil regarding the approval of the proposal by enhancing the Clearing

Conveyance charges from Rs. 1400/- to Rs 2000/- The Petitioner files his PNB Bank Statements showing the

disbursement of his remuneration / dues vide Ext W21 (consisting 7 Sheets). The PNB Account Statement reflects the

entries 02.01.2013 to 23.04.2014.

Thus, those documents under Exhibits also speak in support of the case of the Petitioner. In this context, even if

the Respondent‘s argument is taken into consideration, that the petitioner was engaged temporarily by the Local

Branch Managers, as and when required, it can also be well presumed that the Petitioner was engaged temporarily

since 2005 till 2014 with intermittent gap. No document has been filed in support of the continuity of engagement of

the Petitioner from 01.02.2005 till 2009 in view of Ext.W12. The documents Ext.W12 to Ext.W15 discloses the

Petitioner was engaged in 2009 and continued till 2014. This fact is well established with further documents i.e. Ext

W21, the Bank Statement (entries made from 02.01.2013 till 23.04.2014 and his Representation Ext.W22 (in Tamil)

dtd 08.05.2014. The said representation being enclosed with his Bio-Data (Ext.W23) regarding his Educational

Qualification, sent to the Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Branch, Regional Office, Trichy requesting for

his engagement as against Permanent Post, claiming to have served for 10 years.

In view of the discussion held supra, when the engagement of the Petitioner by the Respondent as a Part-Time

Employee on 01.02.2005 (in view of Ext.W6) stands undisputed, the Petitioner amply proves that he was assigned

with the work of Courier (in view of Ext.W7). Besides, the letters of request for enhancement of Courier Charges and

Clearing Conveyance Charges and the approvals from Appropriate Authority (vide Ext.W12 to Ext.W15), it is held

that it established that the Petitioner is a ―Workman‖ as defined under 2(s) of the ID Act. It is also an admitted fact

that even though the Petitioner fail to link up the chain to prove his continuity in Temporary Post from the date of

joining i.e. 01.02.2005 till 2009, the documents as stated above establishes that his engagement is in continuation till

2014 in view of Ext.W21. The claim of the Petitioner regarding the disbursement of the remuneration / dues by the

Respondent‘s Bank credited to his Bank Account for the period from 02.01.2013 to 23.04.2014 stands undisputed

since not being challenged by the Respondent. In the fact and circumstance, it is held that there exists Employer-

Employee relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner.

The Issues (i) & (ii) are answered in favour of the Petitioner.

Issues (III) & (IV)

10.

At the cost of repetition, it needs mention that the Petitioner relied on several documents relating to the internal

correspondences made by the General Secretary, AIPNBEF to General Manager (Personnel and Administration)

requesting to follow the Desai Award vide Ext.W16 dtd 17.02.2014. The Petitioner while claiming reinstatement and

backwages relied Ext.W17, the MoU dtd. 22.02.2014 arrived in between the Respondent‘s Bank and the AIPNBEF.

The Learned Counsel emphasizes basing on the terms of Ext.W17, the Petitioner made a Representation vide Ext.W22

being enclosed with the Bio-Data vide Ext.W23 showing the Petitioner to have failed Class-X. The argument

2472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard that when the Petitioner has completed more than 8

years of service from the date of his joining, he should have been posted against a Permanent Post. It is pertinent to

mention in view of the discussion in Issue No. I and II, it is held that the Petitioner has seriously failed to show the

continuity of his job from the date 01.02.2005 till 2009 when the Branch Manager moved the higher Authority for

enhancement of the Courier Charges, etc. The continuity of his engagement has been held by this Tribunal from the

period 2009 to 2014 which amounts to 5 years. Para-6 of Ext.W17 says that an employee in Subordinate Cadre

including Part-Time Employees in Subordinate Cadre (after conversion of their service into Full-Time) shall be

eligible to be considered for promotion to the Clerical Cadre (Sub-Clause IV) when a Non-Matriculate with 8 years of

service. As such the Petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria of eligibility either by length of service or by the term of

Para-6 of Ext.W17.

11.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent in his Common Written Argument emphatically stated

that in absence of any cogent and candid evidence the Petitioner cannot claim the continuity of service till the alleged

date of oral termination on 03.07.2015. He pressed into service the judicial verdict of the High Court of Judicature of

Madras in the case of Sri J. Alwin Edwin Vs. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Two Others vide

WP No. 23017/2019 dtd. 06.10.2020. It is held by their Lordships that “in the absence of any candid document, the

Petitioner cannot seek relief on an illusory evidence‖.

It is further submitted that the Petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria of eligibility either by length of service or

by the term of Para-6 of Ext.W17. His service was not converted to Full-Time service (as per Ext.W17).

Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot take advantage under Ext.W17.

It is an admitted case of both the parties that the Petitioner was never issued with any Written Order of

Termination. Thus, onus lies on the Petitioner to prove the continuity of his engagement till the date of his alleged oral

termination / disengagement on 03.07.2015. But such contentions of disengagement of the Petitioner on 03.07.2015, is

not substantiated in any manner by the Petitioner. Not a single scrap of document in this regard either relating to his

assignment, payment of any remuneration / dues or any entitlements has been filed him to establish his claim of

continuity from 03.04.2014 till 03.07.2015.

12.

In view of the discussion held supra, it is found that when the Petitioner well establishes his claim of

engagement on 01.02.2005 as Part-Time Courier under the Respondent Bank at Bhikshandarkoil vide Ext.W6 and

Ext.W7, fails to produce a single scrap of document to prove the continuity of his engagement till 2009 and his

continuation from 03.04.2014 to the alleged date of termination of 03.07.2015. At the outset it is to seen how the

Petitioner tries to establish his case by producing the documents. On going through the documents i.e. Ext.W12,

Ext.W15 and Ext.W21, it reveals that the Petitioner was working under the Respondent from 2009 to 2014. Ext.W12

is the letter of the Branch Manager communicated to the Senior Manager (Audit) vide letter dtd. 17.02.2009 to

enhance the courier charges of the Petitioner. Ex.W14 is similar proposal made by the Senior Manager to the Senior

Manager (Inspection and Audit Section) vide letter dtd. 21.06.2012 to enhance the clearing conveyance of the

Petitioner. Ext.W15 is the approval dtd. 14.08.2012 of the higher authority to the proposal initiated in Ext.W14. In

order to substantiate further continuance, the Petitioner well established his claim by furnishing the Bank

Statement under Ext.W21. This Bank Statement pertains to the period 02.01.2013 to 03.04.2014. The credit entries

disclose that the Petitioner was disbursed with an amount of Rs. 1,500/- towards Courier Charges and sometimes Rs.

1,000/- or Rs. 800/- likewise towards Clearing and Conveyance charges respectively. This Bank Statement under

Ext.W21 stands undisputed since not been challenged. At the outset, the Petitioner failed to produce any document to

link up the chain of his claim to have worked till the alleged date of oral termination on 03.07.2015 as not supported

with any candid or cogent evidence thus his plea cannot be accepted that he was disengaged / refused work on

03.07.2015. But at the same time, the documents under Ext.W21 as discussed above just cannot be brushed aside. In

the peculiar circumstance, inference can be drawn (in view of the entries reflected in Ext.W21) that the Petitioner was

disengaged on 03.04.2014, as no further entries were made available in the Bank Account. Since both the parties

failed to produce any notice of termination / disengagement, the last entry in Ext.W21 i.e. 03.04.2014 is necessarily

taken into account that the Petitioner was disengaged without prior notice or notice pay which amounts to termination.

Such disengagement undoubtedly might have caused severe financial hardship to the Petitioner to maintain his

livelihood as well as such act of the Respondent Management at the middle age of a Petitioner certainly would have

also caused mental agony. Such abrupt action of the Respondent Management is found unethical, illogical and defeats

the principles of natural justice.

13.

Now it is to be seen if the Petitioner had rendered service of 240 days continuously in the Calendar Year

preceding to his disengagement / refusal of work on 03.04.2014. At the cost of repetition for the purpose of the

discussion, it needs mention that this Tribunal drew inference that the Petitioner was working for the Respondent for

the period 2009 to 03.04.2014. The Ext.W21 pertains to the period from 02.01.2013 to 03.04.2014, which is

necessarily for a period of 240 days attracting 25F of the Act. These fact of Bank entries under Ext.W21 with regard

to the disbursement of Courier, Conveyance and Clearing charges was not challenged in any manner by the

Respondent. Thus stands undisputed in favour of the Petitioner. In that case, the disengagement on 03.04.2014 (as

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2473

revealed from Ext.W21) of the Petitioner by the Respondent could have been done with a prior notice with notice pay.

The Respondent is found to have violated the principles of natural justice in this regard.

14.

In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, since the Petitioner was employed on a Temporary Post

and the post was never been converted to a Permanent Post, it would be impossible on the part of the Respondent to

reinstate the Petitioner as the relief sought for. In the circumstance, in lieu of backwaages, the Petitioner is entitled to

be compensated with a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) which would best

serve the purpose.

The Issues (iii) & (iv) are answered in favour of the Petitioner.

The ID stands allowed.

15.

In the result, the Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) as

compensation in lieu of backwage to the Petitioner, Sri B. Rajkumar within a period of two months from the date of

notification in the Gazette, failing which the Respondent is liable to pay 9% of Interest on it from the date of Order till

the date of payment.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 07.06.2023)

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri B. Rajkumar

WW2, Sri L. Sankaravadivelu

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri Mitra Teja

Documents Marked:-

On the petitioners side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

04.11.2004

Letter from Asst. General Manager

Ex.W2

03.01.2005

Minutes of clearing House Members

Meet

Ex.W3

05.01.2005

Letter from Senior Manger change

of clearing time.

Ex.W4

12.01.2005

Decisions taken in the Branch

Managers meet

Ex.W5

13.01.2005

Change of clearing time.

Ex.W6

19.01.2005

Undertaking furnished by

B.Rajkumar

Ex.W7

31.01.2005

Salary fixed to B.Rajkumar

Ex.W8

12.12.2005

Enhancement of clearance

conveyance

Ex.W9

30.07.2008

Setting time for clearance

Ex.W10

02.01.2009

Enhancement of clearance

conveyance

Ex.W11

16.02.2009

Request from Manager

Enhancement of Clearance

Conveyance

Ex.W12

17.02.2009

Request from Manager

Enhancement of clearance

conveyance to B.Rajkumar

Ex.W13

26.03.2009

Enhancement of clearance

Conveyance

2474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W14

21.06.2012

Enhancement of clearance

conveyance

Ex.W15

14.08.2012

Enhancement of clearance

conveyance

Ex.W16

17.02.2014

Regulation regarding absorption of

PTS

Ex.W17

22.02.2014

Memorandum for absorption

Ex.W18

24.02.2014

Conveyance of PTS as Peons

Ex.W19

04.03.2014

Circular regarding absorption of PTS

Ex.W20

15.03.2014

Chief Manager forwarding the

application of B.Rajkumar

Ex.W21

03.05.2014

Pass Book entries B.Rajkumar

Ex.W22

08.05.2014

Application from B.Rajkumar

Ex.W23

09.05.2014

Biodata of B.Rajkumar

Ex.W24

12.02.2015

Educational qualification to Peon

Ex.W25

27.05.2015

Letter from General Secretary from

the Union

Ex.W26

01.07.2015

Special Recruitment trivet of Peon.

Ex.W27

07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after

Termination to the Branch Manager

Ex.W28

07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after

Termination to the General Manager

by B.Rajkumar.

Ex.W29

31.05.2017

Circular from the General Secretary

of the Employees Federation

Ex.W30

Relevant portion of 8^th bipartite

settlement

Ex.W31

Relevant portion of 9^th bipartite

settlement

On the Respondent side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

07.05.1984

Settlement regarding fixation of wages and other

Allied matters like Recruitment and Appointment.

Ex.M2

11.02.2012

Circular issued by the Respondent Bank regarding

posting of Part-Time Sweepers in the Branch

Ex.M3

25.03.2014

Circular banning the Temporary Appointment in the

bank.

Ex.M4

21.09.2015

Circular issued by the Bank with regard to the

Recruitment and Appointment of Part-Time Sweeper.

Ex.M5

04.07.2016

HRMD Circular Letter dated 10/2016 issued by the

Bank with regard to alternative mechanism in lieu of

interview for recruitment of Full Time/Part Time

Sweeper in Subordinate Cadre.

Ex.M6

28.11.2018

HRMD Circular No.430 Banning the Temporary

Appointment in the Bank.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2475

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1184.—vk|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy cSad ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (30/2008) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/14/2008-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/14/2008-IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 30/2008

Ref. No. L-12012/14/2008-IR(B-II) dated 12.05.2008

BETWEEN

Shri Ravi Kunj S/o Shri Mohan Lal

204, Chander Nagar, New Basti, Dehradun

AND

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Clock Tower Dehradun

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/14/2008-IR(B-II) dated 12.05.2008 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 action of the management of the Punjab National Bank in Termination/Disengaging Shri Ravi Kunj

w.e.f. 12-06-2007 from his engagement as Sweeper-cum-Peon is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

person is entitled?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 30/2008m registered on 23.05.2008.

On 02.06.2008, statement of claim has been filed by the claimant and in brief the facts which are stated by the

claimant therein are as under:

(a)

Claimant was engaged initially as part time sweeper in the branch of Punjab National Bank in the Welham Girls

Scholl, Dehradun.

(b) After rendering services as part time sweeper in the said branch, from 12.08.2006, he was discharging duties of

sweeper in the Race Course Branch, of Punjab National Bank, Dehradun.

(c)

In addition to the work of sweeper, he was discharging the duties of opening the lock and closing the bank and

work of peon was also taken form him and been paid Rs. 3400/- per month towards his salary.

(d)

on 25.05.2007, the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter dated 25.05.2007, thereby recommending that services of the

workman to made permanent; however, no heed has been paid in this regard.

(e) And by order dated 12.06.2007, his services were retrenched on one hand and on the other hand services of Smt.

Kailash & Ajay Kumar, part time sweepers in the same branch were retained.

Accordingly, it is prayed by the claimant that as he was retrenched in violation of the provisions of section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947, so the same be set aside and he may be reinstated in services, with back wages and

2476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

respondent may also be directed to pay the wages of the period 01.06.2007 to 12.06.2007 which has not been paid to

him.

On behalf of the on 17.12.2008 a written statement was filed in which a preliminary objection was taken, relevant

points are reproduced hereunder:

“1. That it is submitted that there was no employer and employee relationship between the Bank and Shri

Ravi Kunj and accordingly, it is submitted that so called dispute raised by Shri Ravi Kunj does not constitute

an Industrial Dispute, as defined under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and other Vs Umadevi and

others (JT 2006(4) SC420) has held that merely because a temporary employee is continued for a time

beyond the terms of appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made

permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made in terms of

the relevant rules.”

Further, in the written statement, it has been submitted by the Bank that one Shri Ajay Kumar was working as Part

Time Sweeper at Branch Office: Race Course, Dehradun in 3/4th Scale of wages since 01.01.1998. Shri Ajay Kumar

was promoted to Peon in Subordinate Çadre on 12.08.2006 and was later on given posting at Branch Office:

Koti Kanasar w.e.f. 14.08.2006. Shri Ravi Kunj was engaged by the bank" in leave gap arrangement".

The Bank has further stated that Shri Kunj was engaged by the Bank only in leave gap arrangement for sweeping the

area of BO: Race Course w.e.f. 14.08.2006 and his engagement was discontinued from work w.e.f. 11.06.2007; and

was used to be made payment for the number of days he worked and the same was paid through the salary bills.

And claimant was engaged in leave gap arrangement and by virtue of Section 2(00)(bb) of the ID Act, the engagement

of workman/claimant was discontinued so does not constitute retrenchment. As such, the question of giving

permanent employment to claimant does not arise.

It is specifically pleaded on behalf of the Bank that the claimant was engaged in leave gap arrangement and was paid

remuneration for the number of days he worked. He was never appointed in any vacant post by following the

procedure of recruitment, as per recruitment rules of the Bank. He was only engaged by the bank in leave gap

arrangement", pending filling up of the post of PTS on 3/4th wage scale at BO: Race Course, Dehradun in terms of

Conciliation Settlement dated 07.05.1984 on the basis of town-wise seniority of the existing permanent PTSs, so there

is no violation of any provision of law i.e. provision of Section 25 F of ID Act, as the same is not applicable to the

facts of the case.

Further, it has been pleaded in written statement that Smt. Kailasho at Branch Office, Race Course in 3/4th Scale was

done as per the settlement signed by the Management, before the, Regional Labour Commissioner(C), New Delhi, on

07.05.1984. Shri Ajay Kumar& Smt. Kailasho were posted against the sanctioned vacancies which were filled on the

basis of town-wise seniority of the existing PTSs, determined by converting the services put in at 1/3, ½, or 3/4th of

the scale wages into full time services. However, the claimant was only engaged in leave gap arrangement and was

paid remuneration for the number of days he worked.

Accordingly, it has been submitted by the respondent that the claim of the claimant be rejected being devoid of any

merit.

On 15.10.2009, rejoinder has been filed by the workman, supported by affidavit.

Thereafter, the documents between the parties have been exchanged.

In order to support his case, the workman has filed his evidence on oath (W-36) on 05.02.2011, he was cross-

examined on 25.11.2011.

Management in support of his case, has field evidence of Sri Bharat Bhushan Chopra, Chief Manager and Sri R.K.

Bajpai, Chief Manager. Sri R.K. Bajpai whose evidence was field and is on record as M-35, was cross-examined on

10.12.2014.

The matter was taken up at Camp Dehradun on 17.03.2023, in revised list, on one was present on behalf of the

workman, in spite of the fact that notices were duly served on him.

Needless to mention herein that from perusal of record, position which emerges out that on behalf of the claimant a

written argument has been filed (W-27) is on record; and in the written argument, argument taken by workman that on

12.08.2006 he was appointed as sweeper in the sweeper in the branch of Punjab National Bank in the Welham Girls

Scholl, Dehradun and from 12.08.2006 he is regularly discharging duties of sweeper in the Race Course Branch, of

PNB, Dehradun. It is also submitted that in addition to the work of sweeper, opening the lock and closing the bank,

work if peon after banking hours was also taken from him and for the said purpose, he has been paid Rs. 3400/- per

month. The respondent no. 2 wrote a letter dated 25.05.2007, thereby recommending the services of the workman to

made permanent; however, no heed has been paid in this regard; however, by order dated 12.06.2007, his services

were retrenched, retaining Smt. Kailash & Ajay Kumar, part time sweepers appointed in the same branch.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2477

And in addition to above said facts following plea were also stated in the written argument:

“1. यि दक वादी द्वारा एक कलजण्डर वपा में लगातार 240 ददन से भी अजधक ददन काया ृाटा टाईम चृरासी जबना दकसी

रुकावट के दकया गया।

2. यि दक वादी वतामान याजचका दाजखल िोने से ृूवा लगातार आ वपा वजल्िम गल्सा स्ट्कूल की ृंजाब नेिनल बैंक िाखा में

काया कर चुका था तथा उसके ृिात ददनांक 12-08-2006 से 11-06-2007 तक रेसकोसा िाखा ृंजाब नेिनल बैंक में काया

दकया गया।

3. यि दक प्रजतवादीगण द्वारा अृने जवाबदावे में वादी के कथनों की अस्ट्वीकारोजि किीं निीं की गई िज, केवल सजकेटरी स्ट्टेट

ऑफ कनााटका व अन्य बनाम उमा देवी व अन्य के केस जे. टी. 2006 (4) एस.सी. 420 के बाद के तित यि कथन दकया गया

िज दक केवल लगातार काया दकये जाने के कारण यादी स्ट्थायी नौकरी का िकदार निीं बन जाता िज।

4. यि दक वादी का बाद स्ट्टेट ऑफ कनााटका बनाम उमा देवी व अन्य के केस की ृठरजध से बािर िज तथा वादी के केस के तथ्य

उि बाद में जभन्न िज, जजस कारण स्ट्टेट ऑफ कनााटका बनाम उमा देवी व अन्य में प्रजतृाददत कानून वादी केस ृर लागू निीं

िोते िज।

5. यि दक वादी ृाटा टाईम कमाचारी िोने के कारण धारा 2(s) औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम के अंतगात आता िज तथा धारा

25-बी लगातार सेवा तथा धारा 25-एफ औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम के तित लाभ प्राप्त करने का ृूणा प ृ से अजधकार िज।

माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी वपा 2008 (4) CCC 214 SC में स्ट्ृष्ट दकया गया िज दक :-

"A part time workman would be covered within the definition in section 2 (S) of the Act and

thus he would be entitled to the benefit of continuous & service under section 25(B) and

benefit of section 25F."

6. यि दक यादी द्वारा अृने बाद ृत्र के साथ भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय का ृत्र ददनांक 12-05-2008 तथा उसमें ृाठरत

ऑडार लगाया गया िज जजसके तित जनम्न याद जबन्दु बनाया गया था जजस ृर िी माननीय न्यायालय को अृनी finding देनी

िज जो जनम्न िज :-

"Whether the action of the management of the Punjab National Bank in Termination/Disengaging Ravi Kunj

w.e.j. 12.06.2007 from his engagement as sweeper cum peon is legal & justified? If not to what relief the

concerned person is entitled?

7. (ए) यह कि दादी िो च ूंकि नौिरी से किना नोकिस, क्षकिप किि कदये किना, िान न िे किपरीि हिाया गया किस िारण

िादी Re- instatement िथा Full back wages प्राप्त िरने िा अकधिारी है।

8. (िी) यह कि िादी िो स्वीपर-िम- चपरासी िा िायि कदया गया। यह प्रकििादीगण द्वारा अपने प्रकििाद पत्र में पहले

ही स्वीिार िर कलया गया है किस िारण उक्त पहल पर प्रकििादीगण िो िोई आपकि नहीूं है।“

Along with written argument, the copy of judgment, passed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, in the case of Div. Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Sankaralingam 2008 (4) CCC 214 has been annexed.

Sri U.K. Bajpai, on behalf of the respondents after placing reliance on the facts stated in the written statement and

documents which were filed on behalf of the respondent submits that the claimant, Ravi Kunj worked as and when

work arises, so, for the said purpose, the services of Ravi Kunj were availed by the Branch of Race Course Branch of

PNB and for which he has been paid wages/remuneration.

He further submits that so far as the case taken by the claimant in in his claim petition that a recommendation has been

issued is concerned, the same letter reads as under:

“Reg:

Part Time Sweeper.

Part Time Sweeper, Sri Ajai Kumar on promotion to class IV employee as peon was transferred from this

office on 12.08.2006. Since then Sh. Ravi Kunj Sweeper of this area is working the cleaning job of Bank

Premises.

Sh Ravi Kunj has submitted his biodata as under

Date of birth

30.05.1985

Father’s name

Shri Mohan Lal

Address

Chander Road, Nai Basti

Dehradun

Equational equalization

Class IV pass.

2478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

We recommend that Sri Ravi Kunj may be given the job of Part Time Sweeper permanently.”

Sri U.K. Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent accordingly, submitted that from the said letter claimant cannot derive

any benefit as the petitioner‘s engagement was part time sweeper and was not engaged as per the Rules and

Regulation by which a person is engaged in the bank, so, by said letter he cannot get any benefit in view of the law as

laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others 2006

(4) SC 420.

Sri U.K. Bajpai further submits that claimant, Ravi Kunj cannot take any benefit of parity from the facts in regard to

retaining Ajay Kumar and Smt. Kailash, as the said persons are appointed against sanctioned vacancies, whereas the

claimant is only a part time sweeper.

Lastly, Sri U.K. Bajpai has place reliance on the judgment passed by a coordinated bench of this Tribunal at Delhi

dated 05.02.2019 in industrial dispute case no. 72/2013 General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Workers Union vs.

Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dehradun and another.

Accordingly, it is submitted by Sri Bajpai that present claim petition lacks merit, liable to be dismissed.

I have heard Sri U.K. Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent and gone through the pleading and other material on

record, relied upon by the parties.

First point of consideration:

Preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that there was no employer and employee

relationship between the Bank and Sri Ravi Kunj; so, dispute raised by Sri Ravi Kunj does not constitute an ‗industrial

dispute‘ as defined u/s 2‘k‘ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In order to decide the same, it is relevant to state that on behalf of the claimant it is pleaded that he was initially

appointed as Peon in Welham Girls School, after working there for eight years he was transferred on 12.08.2006 to

Race Course branch of the Bank and for the said purpose he has been paid Rs. 3400/- per month. It is further

summited by the workman that on 25.05.2007 a letter was written by Regional Manager, PNB, Dehradun inter alia

stating therein that the claimant is Part Time employee in the said branch of the bank and recommended his case that

his services may be made permanent, the said letter is quoted hereinabove.

On 12.06.2007 services of the workman were terminated.

Further, in the present case on behalf of the workman evidence in the shape of affidavit has been filed on 05.02.2011,

in which he has once again repeated the above said facts and on 25.11.2011 he was cross-examined by the counsel for

respondent and in the said cross-examination he has stated as under:

“Prashn: uprokt kaam ke liye aapko kya tankhwah milti thi.

Uttar: 1998 main 800/- Race Course mein 3400/- rupye milta tha.

Prashn: koi statement daakhil kiya hai.

Maine tankhwah ke sambandh main Bank Statement file kiya hai.

Prashn: 25.5.07 ka jo letter hai vah Part Time Sweeper ki recommendation hai, kya sahi hai.

Uttar: Jee han.‖

On behalf of the respondent, in support of its case, affidavit of one Sri R.K. Bajpai, the then Chief Manager of PNB,

Circle-1, Dehradun had been filed. In his affidavit he has stated following facts:

“4. That Shri Ravi Kunj was engaged in leave gap arrangement and by virtue of section 2(00)(bb) of the ID

Act, the discontinuance of his engagement does not constitute retrenchment. As such the question of giving

Shri Ravi Kunj permanent employment does not arise.

5. That letter dated 25.05.2007, if any, would not create any legal right in favour of Shri Ravi Kunj. It is

reiterated that vacancy at BO: Race course, Dehradun was required to be filled up in terms of conciliation

settlement dated 07.05.1984.

6. That the contention of Shri Ravi Kunj is misconceived, false and denied as no employment, either

temporary or permanent, was provided to Shri Ravi Kunj. Shri Ravi Kunj was only engaged in leave gap

arrangement and was paid remuneration for the number of days he worked. He was Aever appointed in any

vacant post by following rules of the Bank. He was only engaged by the Bank “in leave gap

05/01/201angement", pending filling up of the post of PTS on 3/4^th wage scale at BO: Race Course,

Dehradun in terms of Conciliation settlement dated 07.05.1984 on the basis of town - wise seniority of the

existing permanent PTSs. It is denied that in discontinuance of engagement of Shri Ravi Kunj, there has been

violation of any provision of law. It is further submitted that provisions of section 25F of ID Act are not

applicable to the facts of the case.”

And during his cross-examination on 10.12.2014 he further admitted as under:

“Mujhe pata nahi ki PNB ki shakhaon main Ravi Kunj ne kab se kab tak karya kiya.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2479

Leav Gap Arrangment ka record bank main hoga.

Mujhe nahi pata ki Sri Ravi Kunj ne 1998 main Melham Girls School, PNB, shakha main karya kiya athva

nahi.

Mujhe jaankaari nahi hai ki 25/5/2007 ko Regional Manager, PNH ne Ravi Kunj ko sthai karne ki sanstuti

ki.

Abhilekh 2/27 jo chhaya prati hai bank manager ne Sr. Regional Manger ko likha hoga jismein shri Ravi

Kunj ko Part Time Sweeper ki job dene ki sanstuti ki hai.

Abhilekh sankhya 2/12 se 2/14 sekh kar gavah ne kaha yah abhilekh chhaya prati hai, main yah nahi bata

sakta ki yah kis bank adhikaari ke hastakshar hain aur iski kya pramanikta hai.

Sri Ajay Kumar ko bank main sthyai pad yadi diya gaya hai to Bank ki policy ke tahat diya gaya hai.

Shrimati Kailasho ko anshkalik safaikari ke pad par niyukti bank ki policy ke tahat ki.”

Taking into consideration the above said factual background and law as laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the

case of Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. Sankaralingam 2008 (4) CCC 214 (SC); wherein it has

been held as under:

“3. Shri Atul Nanda, the learned Counsel for the appellant has first and foremost argued that the finding of

fact arrived at by the High Court as to the status of the workman was incorrect inasmuch as that in the

application filed by the respondent on 30th May 1989 praying that his service be regularized, he had

identified himself as a part-time Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier and in this background to hold that he was

working on full-time basis was contrary to the record. It has also been pointed that as per application dated

23rd September 1991 addressed to the appellant by the President of the District Committee for legal aid, the

workman had been employed only as a part time Sweeper. It has further been submitted that the respondent

was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act as he was not a workman within the meaning of

Section 2(s) thereof as in common understanding, a day must include a full day's work and not a part time

employment. He has in this connection referred us Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra

(1962)ILLJ119SC in which the scope of Section 79 of the Factories Act was under consideration to plead

that as this provision was analogous to Section 25B of the Act in so far as the requirement of 240 days of

employment was concerned, the workman was not entitled to any relief. He has also pointed out that this

Court in Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar (2007) 13 SCALE 499 and in Ram Lakhan

Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh 1989 Labour Industrial Cases 1650, had considered

the status of a part-time Sweeper, (as in the present case) and had held that such an employee could not

claim the benefit of Section 25 F of the Act.

4. As against this Mr. S.Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that the

reference made to the Industrial Tribunal did not raise a question as to the part-time or full time employment

of the workman and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench having both held on facts in his favour,

no interference was called for in this appeal. He has also urged that Section 2(s) which defined a

"workman", and Section 25B which talked of `continuous service' did not make any distinction between a

part-time and full time employee and if the Legislature intended to draw a distinction between the two

categories, the definition would have been in different and positive terms. The learned Counsel has also

pointed out that this Court in Shri Birdichand Sharma v. First Civil Judge, Nagpur and Ors.

(1961)IILLJ86SC and in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops &

Establishments and Anr. (1973)IILLJ495SC, had conclusively held that there was absolutely no distinction

between a full time and part-time employee and that a workman who was working part time would not lose

his status as a workman if he was employed with more than one employer. It has also been submitted that

preponderance of judicial opinion of various High Courts was in favour of the above proposition of law and

has cited:

(a) Govind Bhai v. N.K. Desai (Gujarat High Court) 1988 Lab I.C. 505 (para 6)

(b) Yashwant Sinha Yadav v. State of Rajasthan ( Rajasthan High Court) 1990 Lab I.C. 1451 (para 9 to 15)

(c) Rajaram Rokde & Bros. v. Shriram (Bombay High Court) 1977 Lab I.C. 1594 (following the decision in

Silver Jubilee case supra - paras 2 & 5)

(d) Dr. P.N. Gulati v. Labour Court, Gorakhpur (Allahabad High Court) 1977 Lab I.C. 1088

(e) Simla Devi v. Presiding Officer 1997 (1) LLJ 788

(f) G.M. Telecom, Nagpur v. Naresh Brijlal Charote and Anr. 2001 LAB I.C. 2127 Bombay High Court (at

para 11)

(g) Coal India v. P.O. Labour Court 2001-II-LLJ 45 Delhi High Court (pat paras 7 and 8)

(h) Kailash Chand Saigal v.Om Prakash and Ors. (2007)ILLJ144Del Delhi High Court (at paras 5 & 6)

2480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It will be seen that the

Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have both on a consideration of the oral evidence as

well as on the documentary record, and on admissions made in evidence given categorical findings of fact

that the respondent had worked till about 5 p.m. every day but even otherwise we are of the opinion in the

light of the various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, that a part time employee would be

a workman as understood in Section 2(s) thereof and would have the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. It is

also relevant that the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal was as under:

Whether the claim of Sri A. Sankaralingam that he was an employee of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., from

2.1.86 to 15.3.89 as a Sweeper cum Water Carrier is correct. If so, whether the action of the management of

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in terminating his services w.e.f. 15.3.89 is justified? What relief, if any, to Sri

A. Sankaralingam entitled to?

6. From a perusal of the reference, it is evident that the question as to the status of the workman as a full time

or part time employee was not in issue and the only dispute was as to whether he was a workman with the

appellant employer or not. As already observed above, it has not been disputed before us that the workman

had indeed been employed but the dispute is only with regard to his status as a full time or a part time

employee.

7. In the light of the above decisions, the question for consideration, which has been hotly debated, is the

status of a part time employee and as to whether such an employee falls within the definition of "workman".

Section 2(s) of the Act deals with the definition of "workman" whereas Section 25B talks about "continuous

service". Both these provisions are reproduced below:

Section 2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do

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

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

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

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

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

person -

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

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

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

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

by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

Section 25B. 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 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 of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding

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

for not less than -

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

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the

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

not less than -

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

8. A bare perusal of the two definitions would reveal that their applicability is not limited to only full time

employees but all that is required is that the workman claiming continuous service must fulfill the specific

conditions amongst others laid down in the two provisions so as to seek the shelter of Section 25F. Mr.

Nanda's reliance on Uttaranchal Forest Hospital's case (supra) and Ram Lakhan's case (supra) is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2481

misplaced. In Uttaranchal Forest's case (supra) this Court made a passing reference to the status of a part

time employee, but the main issue before the Court was as to whether the workman had, in fact, put in 240

days of service which would entitle him to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. This is what the Court had to

say:

It is undisputed that the work of cleaning the hospital has been given to a contractor w.e.f.

17.8.1996. Materials were placed before the Labour Court to show that the workman was engaged

for doing a part-time job and that he had worked for a few days in several months. The Labour

Court itself on consideration of the documents and records produced noted as follows:

It is evident that the workman had worked in August 1996-16 days, July, 1996 - 30 days,

May, 1996 - 30 days, April, 1996 - 30 days, March, 1996 - 29 days, February, 1996 - 29

days, January, 1996 31 days, December, 1995 -31 days, November, 1995 -20 days (full),

October, 1995 - 19 days (full) September, 1995 - 25 days (full) @ Rs. 35/- per day. In

addition to this, in November, 1995 - 3 days, October, 1995 - 9 days @ Rs. 20/- per day

towards part time work and in September, 1995 - days part time @ Rs. 5/- per day, had

worked.

The basic difference between a person who is engaged on a part-time basis for one hour or few hours and

one who is engaged as a daily wager on regular basis has not been kept in view either by the Labour Court

or by the High Court. The documents filed clearly establish that the claim of having worked more than 240

days is clearly belied.

The stand of the appellant that the respondent was called for work whenever work was available,

and as and when required and that he was not called for doing any work when the same was not

available has been established. The Labour Court itself noted that the workman was engaged in

work by others as he was working in the appellants' establishment for one hour or little more on

some days. It is also seen from the documents produced before the Labour Court that whenever

respondent was working for full period of work he was being paid Rs. 35/- per day and on other

days when he worked for one hour he was getting Rs. 5/-.”

Accordingly, in view of the above said facts the the preliminary objection taken by the respondent that claimant, Ravi

Kunj who was a casual employee and has been engaged as per requirement of work does not fall within the definition

of 2‘s‘ of the ID Act, 1947 is contrary to law and accordingly, rejected.

Second point of consideration:

Next point to be considered, ―whether applicant is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of section 25 F of the Act,

as per facts of the present case or not?‖

In the present case as per the case of claimant he was not allowed to work and discharge his duties w.e.f. 12.06.2007,

and in this regard reliance has been passed on the document (Annexure No.-II, paper No. 2/7).

From perusal of the same and Paper No. 36/2012 to 36/16, which are the statement in regard to the payment made by

the Bank to the workman, the position which emerged out is that the workman has not worked for 240 days, preceding

twelve months from the date of his retrenchment so, taking into consideration the said facts and the definition of

continuous services as given u/s 25 B Act reads as under:

―[25B. 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 or authorised leave or an accident

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

of the workman;

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

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

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

with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

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

hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date

with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and

twenty days, in any other case.

Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked

under an employer shall include the days on which-

2482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any

other law applicable to the industrial establishment;

(ii)

he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) he has been absent due to

temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and 1

Substituted by Act 48 of 1954. 2 Substituted by Act 36 of 1964. Sec. 25E The Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 27 (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total

period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.]”

Thus, taking into consideration the definition of continuous services as given u/s 25 B of the Act, as quoted herein

above, and the law as laid down by Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of M/s Virkram Singh v. Presiding

Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar and another 2023 LLR 410, after placing reliance on the

judgment given by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil & District,

Gurdaspur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur & another (2015) 1 RSJ 765; wherein it has held as under:

“4. We are of the considered opinion that the matter as noticed by the learned Single Judge also is fully

covered by the decision of the Full Bench passed in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar (supra), whereby it was

noticed as under:-

"Thus, the following principles are laid down:-

(i) Keeping in view the recognised power of the Industrial Tribunal to direct reinstatement on

account of the violation of Section 25-F of the Act the same cannot be denied solely on the ground

that appointments were made by public bodies against public posts and were not in accordance with

the relevant statutory recruitment rules.

(ii) The settled position of law as has been sought to be addressed by this Court is that the

provisions of Section 25-F being mandatory and on account of violation of the same, the

retrenchment would be void ab initio as if it was never in operation and, therefore, the employee

would be deemed to be continuing in service.

(iii) The right of reinstatement, however, is not an automatic right as such and while directing

reinstatement, the Labour Court will have to take into consideration various aspects as to the nature

of appointment, the availability of a post, the availability of work, whether the appointment was per

se rules and the statutory provisions and the length of service and the delay in raising the industrial

dispute before any award of reinstatement could follow in cases of persons appointed on a short

term basis Page No. 2 and as daily wagers and who had not worked for long period but solely on

the strength of having completed 240 days, would not per se be entitled for reinstatement as such,

even though the retrenchment was void.

(iv) The said retrenchment being void would, however, not entitle the workman as such to qualify or

claim a right for regularization and neither by an order of reinstatement, the permanency could be

granted to the said employee and only he would be held to be entitled in continuous service on the

same status as he was when his services were terminated.

(v) The employer would have a right to further terminate him in accordance with law by complying

with the mandatory provisions and the employee having any grievance against such a termination

could challenge the same in accordance with law.

(vi) The discretion of the Industrial Adjudicator has thus have to be respected and the said

Adjudicator has to keep in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court, as noticed above.

(vii) We do not subscribe to the view that the public authorities could claim total immunity and

protection from the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-B of the Act by taking resort to and shielding

themselves on account of the fact that the posts were not filled up in accordance with the relevant

statutory recruitment rules and, therefore, per se the workman could not claim reinstatement."

As well as settled principles of law, keeping in view the provisions of section 25F of the Act, first prima facie onus is

on the workman to substantiate through cogent evidence that he has worked 240 days continuously in twelve months

prior to his retrenchment and thereafter, the respondent has rebutted the said facts however, as per the facts of the

present case, the workman has failed to discharge the said onus, so, he is not entitled for any benefit of provisions of

section 25 F of the Act.

Third point of consideration:

So far as the case taken by the claimant that his services were retrenched and Sri Ajay Kumar and Smt. Kailaso were

continued in service, from perusal of the material on record, the position which emerged out that the said person were

engaged on permanent post and later on their services were continued; whereas as per the own case of the workman,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2483

the petitioner was not engaged in the Bank in said capacity. As such, from said facts, the petitioner cannot gain any

benefit in his favour.

Fourth point of consideration:

So far as the judgment cited by U.K. Bajpai that present case is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment passed

by coordinate bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi in ID No. 72/2013 General Secretary, Punjab National Bank

Workers Union, Dehradun v. Manger, Punjab Nation Bank, Dehradun & another, is not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case as in the said matter no evidence has been filed on behalf of the workman so his

case was dismissed.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons the reference is adjudicated against the workman, Ravi Kunj; and I come to the conclusion

that he is not entitled to any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

15^th June, 2023

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1185.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

जनदेिक, भारतीय जूट उद्योग अनुसंधान संघ (आईजेआईआरए), कोलकाता, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राम

चंर दास, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय-कोलकाता ृंचाट

(संदभा सं्‍या 4 OF 2019) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/169/2018-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 4 OF 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director,

Indian Jute Industries Research Association (IJIRA), kolkata, and Shri Ram Chandra Das,Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.07.2023.

[No. L-42012/169/2018-IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 4 OF 2019

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Indian Jute Industries Research Association (IJIRA)

AND

Their Workman

Appearance:

On behalf of Management

: None

On behalf of the Workman

: None

Dated 25^th April, 2023

2484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The management of Indian Jute Industries Research Association (IJIRA) and the workman Ram Chandra

Prasad (Das) are found absent when the matter is called. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that the workman

Ram Chandra Prasad (Das) who has challenged the termination of his service w.e.f. 26.12.2008 by the management of

Indian Jute Industries Research Association without complying with the provision as laid down in Section 25 (f) of the

I.D Act, is no more interested to pursue with the dispute or the present reference.

The Central Govt. through the Ministry of Labour‘s Order No. L-42012/169/2018-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2019

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

―Whether the action of the management of Indian Jute Industries Research Association, 17 Taratala Road,

Kolkata-700088 in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Chandra Das with effect from 26.12.2008 without complying

with the provisions as laid down under 25(f) of the ID Act is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?‖

The record shows the workman Ram Chandra Prasad (Das) who has espoused the above has failed to file his

statement of claim. However, the management has filed written statement and documents and from where it appears

that Ram Chandra Prasad (Das) was a permanent employee of Indian Jute Industries Research Association in the post

of a Sweeper. That he had opted for voluntary retirement in the year 2009. That on voluntary retirement he was paid

all his legal dues.

The management has alleged Ram Chandra Das (Prasad) was never terminated from the service or retrenched

from the service. Therefore, the management has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

Be that of it may, there is nothing in the record to substantiate the claim of the concerned workman

Ram Chandra Das (Prasad) that he was illegally terminated from the service with w.e.f. 26.12.2008 by the authorities

of the Indian Jute Industries Research Association without complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the ID

Act.

In view of the above, no dispute award is passed. Accordingly, Reference Case No. 04 of 2019 is disposed

of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1186.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससा फ्रंटलाइन (एनसीआर) जबजनेस सॉल्यूिंस प्रा. जलजमटेड, कोलकाता; मेससा चेन्नई नेटवका इंफ्रास्ट्रक्ट्चर जलजमटेड,

कोलकाता ; मेससा एस एंड आईबी सर्मवसेज प्रा. जलजमटेड, कोलकाता, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री एस.के

मोजिम, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- कोलकाता ृंचाट

(संदभा सं्‍या 92 OF 2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्र काजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42011/159/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 92 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata ; M/s S & IB

Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, and Shri S. K. Mohim, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/159/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2485

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 92 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. And others

AND

Their Workman

Appearance:

On behalf of Management

: Present

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

Dated 24^th April, 2023

AWARD

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Sri Ashis Doloi,

General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union (CITU) and concerned

workmen Sk. Mohim are found absent when the matter is called.

M/s SNIB Pvt. Ltd. is represented by Ld. Lawyer Sushil Karmakar.

Perused the record and from where it is seen that till date the Union and concerned workman who have

espoused the present dispute have failed to file their statement of claim.

The Govt. of India through Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) (d)

and Sub-Section (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred the dispute.

1. Whether the action of management of M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s Chennai

Network Infrastructure Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Sk. Mohim is legal and

/justified. If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

2. Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd. is justified by denying reinstatement u/s 25(H)

of ID Act, 1947. If not, what relief he workman are entitled to?

For adjudication by this Tribunal vide Order No. L-42011/159/2015-IR (DU) dated 02.11.2015.

It is very unfortunate to note that even after lapse of 08 years, the Union and the workman who have

espoused the above dispute have failed to file their claim statement.

Therefore, there is no materials in the record to decide or determine the above referred dispute.

That apart, none appearance of the Union and workman prove that they are no more interested to pursue with

the present reference case.

In the above, no dispute award is passed accordingly. Consequently, the Reference Case No. 92/2015 is

disposed of

Send copy of Award to the Ministry for doing the needful.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1187.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससा

फ्रंटलाइन (एनसीआर) जबजनेस सॉल्यूिंस प्रा. जलजमटेड,कोलकाता ; मेससा चेन्नई नेटवका इंफ्रास्ट्रक्ट्चर जलजमटेड, कोलकाता ,

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जमल्खा ससि, कामगार, द्वारा - मिासजचव, ृूबा मेददनीृुर, जजला सुरक्षा सेवा और

संबद्ध श्रजमक संघ (सीटू), के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- कोलकाता

ृंचाट(संदभा सं्‍या 95 OF 2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/156/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 95 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata, and Shri Milka

Singh, Worker, Through- The General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union

(CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/156/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.95 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.

AND

Their Workman

Appearance:

On behalf of Management

: Present

On behalf of the Workman

: None

Dated 24^th March, 2023

AWARD

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Sri Ashis Doloi,

General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union (CITU) and concerned

workman Sri Milka Singh are found absent when the matter is called.

M/s SNIB Pvt. Ltd. is represented by Ld. Lawyer Sushil Karmakar.

Perused the record and from where it is seen that till date the Union and concerned workmen who have

espoused the present dispute have failed to file their statement of claim.

The Govt. of India through Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) (d)

and Sub-Section (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred the dispute.

1. Whether the action of management of M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s Chennai

Network Infrastructure

Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Sk. Mohim is legal and /justified. If not, what relief the

workmen are entitled to?

2. Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd. is justified by denying reinstatement u/s 25(H)

of ID Act, 1947. If not, what relief he workman are entitled to?

For adjudication by this tribunal vide Order No. L-42011/156/2015-IR (DU) dated 02.11.2015.

It is very unfortunate to note that even after lapse of 08 years, the Union and the workman who have

espoused the above dispute have failed to file of their claim statement.

Therefore, there is no materials in the record to decide or determine the above referred dispute.

That apart, none appears of the Union and workman prove that they are no more interested to pursue with the

present reference case.

In the above, no dispute award is passed accordingly. Consequently, the Reference Case No. 92/2015 is

disposed of

Send cop of Award to the Ministry for doing the needful.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2487

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1188.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससा

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री तृन भांजा, कामगार, द्वारा - मिासजचव, ृूबा मेददनीृुर, जजला सुरक्षा सेवा और

ृंचाट(संदभा सं्‍या 96 OF 2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ थाl

[सं. एल -42011/153/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु,अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 96 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata, and Shri Tapan

Bhanja, Worker, Through- The General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union

(CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/153/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.96 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.& Others.

AND

Their Workman/Union

Appearance:

On behalf of S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd.

: Ld. Adv. Sushil Karmakar

On behalf of Other employers

: None

On behalf of the Workman/Union

: None

Dated 01^th May, 2023

AWARD

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Sri Ashis Doloi,

General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union (CITU) and concerned

workman Sri Tapan Bhanja are found absent when the matter is called.

M/s S&IB Pvt. Ltd. is represented by Ld. Lawyer Sushil Karmakar.

Perused the record and from where it is seen that till date the Union and concerned workmen who have

espoused the present dispute have failed to file their statement of claim.

The Govt. of India through Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) (d)

and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred the following issues for adjudication by this tribunal vide

Order No. L-42011/153/2015-IR (DU) dated 02.11.2015.

1. Whether the action of management of M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s Chennai

Network Infrastructure

Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Tapan Bhanja is legal and /justified. If not, what relief

the workmen are entitled to?

2488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd. is justified by denying reinstatement u/s 25(H)

of ID Act, 1947. If not, what relief he workman are entitled to?

It is very unfortunate to note that even after lapse of 08 years, the Union and the workman who have

espoused the above dispute have failed to file of their claim statement.

Therefore, there is no materials in the record to decide or determine the above referred dispute.

That apart, none appears of the Union and workman prove that they are no more interested to pursue with the

present reference case.

In the above, no dispute award is passed accordingly. Consequently, the Reference Case No. 96/2015 is

disposed of.

Send copy of award to the Ministry for doing the needful.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1189.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

कोलकाता , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री िंकर भोरा, कामगार, द्वारा - मिासजचव, ृूबा मेददनीृुर, जजला

सुरक्षा सेवा और संबद्ध श्रजमक संघ (सीटू), के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सि - श्रम

न्यायालय- कोलकाता ृंचाट(संदभा सं्‍या 97 OF 2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42011/155/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 97 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata, and Shri Sankar

Bhora, Worker, Through- The General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union

(CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/155/2015-IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.97 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Others

AND

Their Workman/ Union

Appearance:

On behalf of S&IB

: Ld. Adv. Sushil Karmakar

On behalf of Other Employer

: None

On behalf of the Workman/ Union

: None

Dated 01^th May, 2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2489

AWARD

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Sri Ashis Doloi,

General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union (CITU) and concerned

workman Sri Sankar Bhora are found absent when the matter is called.

M/s S&IB Pvt. Ltd. is represented by Ld. Lawyer Sushil Karmakar.

Perused the record and from where it is seen that till date the Union and concerned workmen who have

espoused the present dispute have failed to file their statement of claim.

The Govt. of India through Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) (d)

and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred the following issues for adjudication by this tribunal vide

Order No. L-42011/155/2015-IR (DU) dated 02.11.2015.

1. Whether the action of management of M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s Chennai

Network Infrastructure

Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Sankar Ghora is legal and /justified. If not, what relief

the workmen are entitled to?

2. Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd. is justified by denying reinstatement u/s 25(H)

of ID Act, 1947. If not, what relief he workman are entitled to?

It is very unfortunate to note that even after lapse of 08 years, the Union and the workman who have

espoused the above dispute have failed to file of their claim statement.

Therefore, there is no materials in the record to decide or determine the above referred dispute.

That apart, none appears of the Union and workman prove that they are no more interested to pursue with the

present reference case.

In the above, no dispute award is passed accordingly. Consequently, the Reference Case No. 97/2015 is

disposed of.

Send copy of award to the Ministry for doing the needful.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1190.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससा

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री खोकन भुंइया, कामगार, द्वारा - मिासजचव, ृूबा मेददनीृुर, जजला सुरक्षा सेवा और

संबद्ध श्रजमक संघ (सीटू), के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सि - श्रम न्यायालय -

कोलकाता ृंचाट(संदभा सं्‍या 99 OF 2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42011/151/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 99 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata, and Shri Khokan

Bhunia, Worker, Through- The General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Union

(CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/151/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.99 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. And others

AND

Their Workman

Appearance:

On behalf of Management

: Mr. Sushil Kumar

Karmakar, Advocate

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

Dated 24^th March, 2023

AWARD

M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Pvt. Ltd., M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure, Sri Ashis Doloi, General

Secretary, Purva Medinipur Zela Security Service and Allied Workers Unjoin (CITU) and concerned workman

Khokan Bhunia are found absent when the matter is called for hearing.

Mr. Sushil Karmakar, Ld. Advocate for M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd. is found present.

As per record the case is fixed for adducing evidence from the side of the Union. The Union has failed to file

the evidence of its witness.

None appears on behalf of the Union/ concerned workman and non-filing of evidence in chief on affidavit of

witnesses by the union, a presumption can be drawn, that Union /concerned workman are not interested to proceed

further with the hearing of present reference case.

However, the Central Govt. through Ministry of Labour‘s Order No. L-42011/151/2015 (IR (DU)) dated

02.11.2015 has referred the following issues for determination by this Tribunal:-

1. Whether the action of management of M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution, contractor of M/s

Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Khokan Bhunia is

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

2. Whether the present contractor M/s S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd. is justified by denying reinstatement u/s

25(H) of ID Act, 1947. If not, what relief the workman are entitled to?

The record shows that the concerned workman had filed his statement of claim and where he has stated

that Aircel Cellular Limited / Aircel Limited / Dishnet Wireless Ltd. had installed Mobile Towers throughout

the district Purva Medinipur and through M/s Frontline, it engaged around 1500 security guards to run guard

employees those mobile tours.

The concerned workman had rendered his services to M/s Frontline, the Service Provider of Aircel /

Dishnet Wireless Limited since 16.07.2005 without any break.

Subsequently, Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited took over the Mobile Telecom. Services

from Aircel Limited / Dishnet Wireless Limited in the Year 2010.

The concerned workmen continue to work under the new management of M/s Chennai Network

Infrastructure Limited.

Subsequently, termination of contract between Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited and M/s S&IB

Services Pvt. Limited was appointed w.e.f. 30.10.2014.

M/s SNIB Services Limited absorbed all the guard of M/s Frontline, but it failed to absorb the concerned

workman. His service was terminated without giving him all statutory financial benefits. Therefore, he has

alleged termination of his service w.e.f. 30.10.14 is illegal and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.

The record shows M/s S&IB Services contested the claim of the workman by filing a written

statement. It has contended that it never engaged the concerned workman to work as a guard for M/s Chennai

Network. It has no employer and employee relationship with the concerned workmen. It never terminated

the service of the concerned workman and as such, question of reinstatement of the concerned workman does

not arise. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

Unfortunately, apart from the claim statement the concerned workman and Union have failed to produce

any oral and documentary evidence to substantiate and prove the concerned workman was an employee of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2491

M/s Frontline or later he was absorbed by M/s S&IB Pvt. Limited on termination of contract in between M/s

Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited and M/s Frontline or that M/s Frontline has illegally terminated the

service of concerned workman on 30.10.14.

In fact, it appears that on termination of contract in between M/s Network Infrastructure Limited and its

Service Provider M/s Frontline on 30.04.2014, the service of concerned workman an employee of M/s

Frontline too stands terminated.

Nothing has come on record to show that on termination of the contract in between M/s Chennai

Network and M/s Frontline, there was an undertaking by Chennai Network that all the employees of M/s

Frontline will be absorbed by its new Service Provider M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Limited or that M/s ―S&IB

voluntarily agreed to absorb all the existing employees of M/s Frontline.

Therefore, nothing is there in the record to substantiate the claim of the Union/ concerned workman apart

from the uncorroborated statement of claim.

In view of the above, no dispute award is passed. Consequently, Reference Case No. 99 of 2015 is

disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1191.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मजससा

जनदेिक, अंतदेिीय जलमागा प्राजधकरण, कोलकाता; मजससा एजियन जसक्ट्योठरटी एंड अलाइड सर्मवस, कोलकाता, के प्रबंधतंत्र

के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मिासजचव, ृूबा मेददनीृुर, जजला सुरक्षा सेवा और संबद्ध श्रजमक संघ (सीटू), के बीच अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण – सि - श्रम न्यायालय - कोलकाता ृंचाट (संदभा सं्‍या 104 OF 2015) को

जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल -42011/144/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 104 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, M/s Inland Waterways Authority of India, Kolkata ; M/s Asian Security & Allied Service, Kolkata, and Shri

Khokan Bhunia, Worker, Through- The General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied

Workers Union (CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/144/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.104 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Asian Security & Allied Service and another

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance:

On behalf of Management

: Absent

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

Dated 25^th April, 2023

AWARD

2492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 15, 2023/ASHADHA 24, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The principal employer M/s Inland Waterways Authority of India and contractor employer M/s Asian

Security & Allied Service are found absent when the matter is called.

Similarly, the union of Purba Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Workers union (CITU) who has

espoused the dispute too is found absent when the matter is called.

It is very interesting to note the Union which has espoused the present dispute in the year 2015 has failed to

file its claim statement till date. Such conduct on the part of the union prove that union after espousing the dispute

before the authorities concerned is no more interested to pursue with the present dispute.

The Central Govt. through Ministry of Labour‘s Order No. L-42011/144/2015 (IR(DU))dated 02.12.2015 has

referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Asian Security & Allied Service, contractor of M/s Inland Waterways

Authority of India is justified without adhering section 2F (a) & (b) of ID Act, 1947 by terminating the services of Sri

Siba Sankar Kar is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

Since there is no statement of claim or any material to substantiate the dispute raised by the union this

Tribunal has no other option but to pass a no dispute award.

Accordingly, Reference Case No. 104 of 2015 is disposed of

JUSTICE K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1192.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मजससा

जनदेिक,अंतदेिीय जलमागा प्राजधकरण, कोलकाता; मजससा एजियन जसक्ट्योठरटी एंड अलाइड सर्मवस, कोलकाता, के प्रबंधतंत्र

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- कोलकाता ृंचाट(संदभा सं्‍या 105 OF 2015) को जजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 07.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

था।

[सं. एल -42011/145/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2023

S.O. 1192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 105 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, M/s Inland Waterways Authority of India, Kolkata ; M/s Asian Security & Allied Service, Kolkata, and Shri

Khokan Bhunia, Worker, Through- The General Secretary, Purva Midinipur, Zela Security Service and Allied

Workers Union (CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

07.07.2023.

[No. L-42011/145/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.105 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Asian Security & Allied Service and another

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जुलाई 15, 2023/ आपाढ़ 24, 1945

2493

On behalf of Management

: Absent

On behalf of the Union

: None

Dated 25^th April, 2023

AWARD

The principal employer M/s Inland Waterways Authority of India and contractor employer M/s Asian

Security & Allied Service are found absent when the matter is called.

Similarly, the union of Purba Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Worker‘s union (CITU) who has

espoused the dispute too is found absent when the matter is called.

It is very interesting to note the Union who has espoused the present dispute in the year 2015 has failed to file

its claim statement till date. Such conduct on the part of the union prove that union after espousing the dispute before

the authorities concerned is no more interested to pursue with the present dispute.

The Central Govt. through Ministry of Labour‘s Order No. L-42011/145/2015 (IR(DU)) dated 02.12.2015

has referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Asian Security & Allied Service, contractor of M/s Inland Waterways

Authority of India is justified without adhering section 2F (a) & (b) of ID Act, 1947 by terminating the services of Sri

Subal Chandra Tunga is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

Since there is no statement of claim or any material to substantiate the dispute raised by the union this

Tribunal has no other option but to pass a no dispute award.

Accordingly, Reference Case No. 104 of 2015 is disposed of

JUSTICE K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. MANOJ

KUMAR VERMA

Digitally signed by MANOJ

KUMAR VERMA

Date: 2023.07.24 19:23:53 +05'30'