1795 GI/2024
(1153)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 11]
नई दिल् ली, मार्च 17—मार्च 23, 2024, िजनवार/फाल् गुन 27, 1945—र्ैत्र 3, 1946
No. 11]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 17— MARCH 23, 2024, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 27, 1945–CHAITRA 3, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िै जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूर्नाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मचक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्मचक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 502.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए केरल राज् सरकार, गषि (एम)
जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम, केरल की अजिसूर्ना सं. िी.ओ(एमएस)सं.167/2023/गषि, दिनांक 31/07/2023 (एस.आर.ओ.
सं. 859/2023 के प ृ में प्रकाजित) और गषि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम की एरटम अजिसूर्ना सं. िी.ओ (एमएस)
सं. 232/2023/गषि, दिनांक 13/11/2023 (एस.आर.ओ. सं. 1217/2023 के प ृ में प्रकाजित) के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से, श्री मुजन प्ृन, सीमा िुल्क अिीक्षक, कालीकट अंतराचष्ट्री िवाई अड्डा, कारीृुर, मालप्ृुरम, केरल एवं
अज्ञात अन् , दि कोई िो, के जवरुद्ध भारती िण्ड संजिता 1860 (1860 का केन्री अजिजन म 45) की िारा 120बी
सृठ त िारा 409 और भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (वपच 2018 केन्री अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ासंिोजित) की
िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (1) का ण्ड (ए) सृठ त उृ-िारा (2) के तित िण्डनी अृराि(िों) त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08042024-253600
CG-DL-W-08042024-253600
1154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों
से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज् में करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 228/06/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजर्व
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 22nd Febuary, 2024
S.O. 502.—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 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of
the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O(Ms)No.167/2023/Home dated 31/07/2023, Home (M)
Department,
Thiruvananthapuram
(Published
as
S.R.O
No.
859/2023)
and
Erratum
Notification
No. G.O.(Ms)No.232/2023/Home dated 13/11/2023, Home(M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as
S.R.O. No. 1217/2023], hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the offence(s) against Shri Muniyappan,
Superintendent Customs, Calicut International Airport, Karipur, Malappuram, Kerala and unknown others, if any,
punishable under section 120B read with section 409 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) and
under clause (a) of sub-section(1) read with sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(as amended by the Central Act, 16 of 2018) 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. 228/06/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 503.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए ृंिाब राज् सरकार के आिेि
सं. गषि-एर्एम-40जवजवि/25/2024-3एर्4 दिनांक 15.02.2024, गषि मामले और न् ा जवभाग (गषि-4 िा ा), ृंिाब
सरकार के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री गोववंिर कुमार ृुत्र स्ट्वगी िरिेव लाल द्वारा श्री िठर ओम, एृीओ, क्षेत्री
ृासृोटच का ाचल , िालंिर, ृंिाब के ज लाफ भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोिक अजिजन म, 1988 ( ा संिोजित 2018) की िारा 7
के तित दिनांक 14.02.2024 को ििच कराई ग ी जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 15.02.2024 को सीबीआई
मामला आरसी 0052024ए0005 ृंिीकषत दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेपण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों)
से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं
तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 15.02.2024 से) समस्ट्त ृंिाब राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/08/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 8th March, 2024
S.O. 503.—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 Punjab, issued vide order No.HOME-HM-40MISC/25/2024-3H4 dated 15.02.2024, Home Affairs
and Legal Department (Home-4 Branch), Punjab Government hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1155
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 15.02.2024) to the whole State of Punjab for
investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 14.02.2024 lodged by Shri Govinder Kumar S/o
Late Hardev Lal against Shri Hari Om, APO, Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar, Punjab u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as
amended in 2018), based on which a CBI case RC0052024A0005 has been registered on 15.02.2024 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. 228/08/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 504.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए छत्तीसगढ़ राज् सरकार की
अजिसूर्ना सं. एफ-4-13/िोम-सी/2024, नवा रा ृुर, अटल नगर, दिनांक 02.02.2024 एवं िुजद्धृत्र सं. एफ-4-13/
िोम-सी/2024, नवा रा ृुर, अटल नगर, दिनांक 26.02.2024, छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार, गषि जवभाग (सी-सेक्िन), मंत्राल ,
मिानिी भवन, मंत्राल के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री सत् प्रकाि भारती ृुत्र स्ट्वगी रािना प्रसाि जनवासी वाडच
25, फौिी नगर, ाना िामुल, जिला िुगच द्वारा श्री िम्सुज्जमा ान, कजनष्ठ स्ट्वास्ट्थ् जनरीक्षक, ृीएर्डी, प्रवतचन
का ाचल , संृिा जवभाग, जभलाई इस्ट्ृात सं ंत्र, जभलाई के ज लाफ भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 ( ा संिोजित
2018) की िारा 7 के तित दिनांक 29.01.2024 को ििच कराई ग ी जिका त सीओ1242024ए0003, जिसके आिार
ृर दिनांक 05.02.2024 को सीबीआई मामला आरसी1242024ए0001 ृंिीकषत दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों)
का अन्वेपण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा
उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस
स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 05.02.2024 से) समस्ट्त
छत्तीसगढ़ राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/10/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 504.—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 Chhattisgarh, issued vide Notification Sl. No. F-4-13/Home-C/2024, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dated
02.02.2024 and Corrigendum Sl.No.F-4-13/Home-C/2024, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dated 26.02.2024 Govt. of
Chhattisgarh, Home Department (C-Section), Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya hereby extends the powers
and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 05.02.2024) to the
whole State of Chhattisgarh for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint CO1242024A0003 dated
29.01.2024 lodged by Shri Satya Prakash Bharti S/o Shri Late Rajnath Prasad R/o Ward 25, Fouji Nagar, Police
Station Jamul, Distt. Durg against Shri Shamsuzzama Khan, Junior Health Inspector, PHD, Enforcement Office,
Estate Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), based
on which a CBI case RC1242024A0001 has been registered on 05.02.2024 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. 228/10/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 505.—केंर सरकार, रािभापा [संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग] जन मावली, 1976 ( ा
संिोजित 1987,2007 और 2011) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में कार्मचक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग के
1156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अिीनस्ट् का ाचल , केंरी अन् वेपण ब् ूरो के अिीन जनम् नजलज त का ाचल ों, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ाठर ों ने
विंिी भापा का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िै, अजिसूजर्त करती िैः-
1.
भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोिक िा ा, र्ेन्नई
2.
आर् चक अृराि िा ा, र्ेन्नई
3.
जविेप का च िा ा, र्ेन्नई
4.
जविेप इकाई, र्ेन्नई
5.
भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोिक िा ा, भुवनेश्वर
6.
भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोिक िा ा, इम्फाल
7.
भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोिक िा ा, जिलांग
8.
भ्रष्टार्ार जनरोिक िा ा, मिुरै
[फा. सं. ई.-11017/1/2022-विंिी]
एस. डी. िमाच, सं ुक् त सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 505.—Central Government in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of official languages [Use for official
purpose of union] Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011) hereby notifies the following offices under the
Central Bureau of Investigation, a subordinate office of Department of Personnel and Training whose more than 80
percent staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi language:-
1. Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai
2. Economic Offences Branch, Chennai
3. Special Task Branch, Chennai
4. Special Unit, Chennai
5. Anti Corruption Branch, Bhubaneswar
6. Anti Corruption Branch, Imphal
7. Anti Corruption Branch, Shillong
8. Anti Corruption Branch, Madurai
[F. No. E-11017/1/2022-Hindi]
S. D. SHARMA, Jt. Secy.
ृ चटन मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 506.—सावचिजनक ृठरसर (अप्राजिकषत अजिभोजग ों की बेि ली) अजिजन म, 1971 (1971 के 40
द्वारा) के ंड 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए और ृ चटन मंत्राल , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 11 अिूबर,
2011 की अजिसूर्ना एस.ओ. सं. 2950 िो दिनांक 22 अिूबर, 2011 को भारत के रािृत्र में प्रकाजित हुई; दिनांक 24
नवम्बर, 2009 की अजिसूर्ना एस.ओ. सं. 3259 िो दिनांक 5 दिसम्बर, 2009 को भारत के रािृत्र में प्रकाजित हुई;
दिनांक 2 िनवरी, 2009 की अजिसूर्ना एस.ओ. सं. 87 िो दिनांक 17 िनवरी, 2009 को भारत के रािृत्र में प्रकाजित
हुई और दिनांक 26 अगस्ट्त, 2020 की अजिसूर्ना एस.ओ. सं. 718 िो दिनांक 29 अगस्ट्त, 2020 को भारत के रािृत्र में
प्रकाजित हुई, के अजिक्रमण में और ऐसे अजिक्रमण से ृूवच दकए गए ा दकए िाने िेतु अृेजक्षत का ों को छोड़कर भारत
सरकार एति् द्वारा जनम्नजलज त ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त अजिकारी को सरकार के रािृजत्रत अजिकारी की
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1157
श्रेणी के समकक्ष अजिकारी िोने ृर उि अजिजन म के प्र ोिन िेतु संृिा अजिकारी जन ुि करती िै और ताजलका के
कॉलम (2) की संबंजित प्रजवजष्ट में जवर्नचदिष्ट दकए गए अनुसार सावचिजनक ृठरसरों की स्ट् ानी सीमाओं को भी ृठरभाजपत
करती िै, जिसके संबंि में संृिा अजिकारी प्रित्त की गई िजि ों का प्र ोग करेगा और उि अजिजन म द्वारा ा उसके
तित संृिा अजिकारी को दिए गए कत्तचव्यों का जनवचिन करेगा।
ताजलका
अजिकारी का ृिनाम
(1)
सावचिजनक ृठरसरों की श्रेणी और इसके का चक्षेत्र की
स्ट् ानी सीमाएं
(2)
उृ मिाप्रबंिक और उनसे ऊृर के स्ट्तर के अजिकारी,
मेससच भारत ृ चटन जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड, मु् ाल ,
स्ट्कोृ कॉम्ृलेक्स, कोर 8, 7 लोिी रोड, नई दिल्ली-
110003
दिल्ली, मध् प्रिेि, उत्तर प्रिेि, ओजडिा और िम्मू एवं
कश्मीर संघ राज् क्षेत्र में जस्ट् त भारत ृ चटन जवकास
जनगम जलजमटेड से संबंजित ा इसके द्वारा लीज़ ृर जलए
गए सभी ृठरसर ा संृजत्त ां।
[फां. सं. ईओएन.ृीएस ू-6/15/2018-ृीएस ू]
इरिाि आलम, उृ सजर्व
MINISTRY OF TOURISM
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2024
S.O. 506.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants), Act 1971 (vide 40 of 1971) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of Tourism, vide S.O. No. 2950 dated the 11th October, 2011 published in the Gazette of India,
dated the 22nd October, 2011; vide S.O. No. 3259, dated the 24th November, 2009 published in the Gazette of India
dated the 5th December, 2009; vide S.O. No. 87 dated the 2nd January, 2009 published in the Gazette of India dated
the 17th January, 2009 and vide S.O. No. 718 dated the 26th August, 2020 published in the Gazette of India, the
29th August, 2020, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Government of
India hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column(1) of the Table below, being the officer equivalent to the rank
of gazetted officer of the government to be the estate officer for the purposes of this Act and also defines the local
limits of public premises, as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, in respect of which
the said estate officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform duties imposed, on the estate officer by or
under the said Act.
TABLE
Designation of the Officer
(1)
Categories of public premises and local limits of the
jurisdiction
(2)
Deputy General Manager and above, M/s India Tourism
Development Corporation Limited, Head Quarter,
Scope Complex, Core 8,7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi –
110003.
All premises or properties belonging to or taken on
lease
by
M/s
India
Tourism
Development
Corporation Limited situated in Delhi, Madhya
Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and Union territory of
Jammu and Kashmir.
[F. No. EON.PSU- 6/15/2018-PSU]
IRSAD ALAM, Dy. Secy.
सिकाठरता मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 507.—केंरी सरकार, रािभापा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म
10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में सिकाठरता मंत्राल के अिीन रा् री सिकारी प्रजिक्षण ृठरपि के जनम् नजलज त
1158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अिीनस्ट् का ाचल में 80% से अजिक कमचर्ाठर ों को विंिी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त िोने के फलस्ट् वप ृ एत्ारा
अजिसूजर्त करती िै:
सिकारी प्रबंि संस्ट् ान
रािेंर नगर, िैिराबाि- 500030
(तेलंगाना स्ट् टेट)
[फा. सं. ई-14018/1/2024- सिकाठरता मंत्राल ]
एस. एम. सादिक, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF COOPERATION
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 507.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976; the Central Government hereby notifies the under mentioned subordinate office of National
Council for Cooperative Training under the Ministry of Cooperation wherein more than 80% of the staff have
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
Institute of Cooperative Management
Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad-500030
(Telangana State)
[F. No. E-14018/1/2024-MoC]
S. M. SADIQ, Dy. Director
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
ईसीएल की बरमोंजड ा
)
ए
(
कोजल री
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj कल् ाण प्रसाि जतवारी dkexkj ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
सि-
आसनसोल ds iapkV
(
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-22012/47/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2024
S.O. 508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Barmondia (A) Colliery of ECL and Kalyan Prasad Tewari worker.
[No. L-22012/47/2022– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1159
REFERENCE CASE NO. 20 OF 2022
PARTIES: Kalyan Prasad Tewari
Vs.
Management of Barmondia (A) Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman
:
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, Union representative
For the Management of ECL
:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
06.02.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/47/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Barmondia (A) Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Barmondia (A)
Colliery (under Salanpur Area) in non-payment of the arrear wages in respect of Sundays and paid Holidays
to Shri Kalyan Prasad Tewari, Ex-Foreman Incharge, UM No. 545215, of Barmondia Colliery on his
reversion from Executive Cadre vide order dated 18/10/2013, is just and legal? if not, to what relief Shri
Kalyan Prasad Tewari is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/47/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 20 of 2022 was registered on
24.05.2022 / 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list
of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL is present. Industrial Dispute relates to claim of arrear of wages in
respect of Sundays and paid holidays of Kalyan Prasad Tewari, Ex-Foreman Incharge of Barmondia Colliery on his
reversion from Executive cadre to Non-Executive cadre. On repeated calls at 1.30 pm Kalyan Prasad Tewari,
aggrieved workman and Mr. Chandi Banerjee, union representative are not found available. This is the third
consecutive date on which both, the workman and union representative are found absent. The record reveals that
today is the fourth day fixed for evidence of workman witness but the concerned person is not inclined to proceed.
Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj झांझरा 1 और 2 इनक्लाइन और ईसीएल का एमआईसी झांझरा ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj
राम सुिार नुजन ा और 160
अन् dkexkj ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
सि -
आसनसोल ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS A
[la- ,y-22012/26/2009-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
1160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2024
S.O. 509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.22/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Jhanjra
1 & 2 Incline and MIC Jhanjra of ECL and Ram Sudhar Nunia and 160 Others worker.
[No. L-22012/26/2009–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 22 OF 2009
PARTIES: Ram Sudhar Nunia and 160 Others
Vs.
Management of Jhanjra 1 & 2 Incline and MIC Jhanjra of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workmen:
None
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
06.02.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/26/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 28.07.2009 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Jhanjra 1 and 2 Incline and MIC Jhanjra under Jhanjra Area of Eastern
Coalfields Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of Jhanjra 1 & 2 Incline & MIC Jhanjra under Jhanjra Area of
M/s. ECL, in denying payment of Special Piece Rate Allowances to Sri Ram Sudhar Nunia & 160 others (list
enclosed) from 01.07.1996 to 17.11.2006 is legal and justified? To what relief are the workmen concerned entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/26/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 28.07.2009 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 22 of 2009 was registered on
20.08.2009 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Case is
fixed up today for appearance of the aggrieved workman and awaiting Corrigendum of the Schedule.
3.
After registration of the case Notice was issued to parties. Union filed written statement on 05.11.2009 and
the management filed written statement on 12.01.2010. Rejoinder on behalf of the workman was filed on
25.03.2010. The case was fixed up for evidence on 28.05.2013. Shabe Alam (workman witness - 1) was examined
and cross-examined on 23.07.2013 and documents were marked as Exhibit 1 and 1/1. The case was then fixed up for
further evidence of workman witness on 19.09.2013. On 06.07.2015 Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative appeared
for the workmen and filed authorization but no evidence was adduced. On 28.11.2017 both parties submitted that
there was some error in the Schedule of the Reference case which required correction. Record reveals that since
24.09.2018 no step has been taken on behalf of the workman. No Corrigendum of the Schedule has been received. In
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1161
view of such non-representation of the workman for a prolonged period, of nearly five years I find no reasons to keep
the case pending. The Industrial Dispute referred is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ईसीएल की श् ामसुंिरृुर कोजल री ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िमिेि आलम अंसारी, dkexkj ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-सि-
आसनसोल ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS
[la- ,y-22012/73/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2024
S.O. 510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery of ECL and Jamshed Alam Ansari worker.
[No. L-22012/73/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 32 OF 2019
PARTIES: Jamshed Alam Ansari
Vs.
Management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
06.02.2024
1162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/73/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.09.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd by not
regularising Sri Jamshed Alam Ansari, General Mazdoor in surface job is justified or not. If, not what relief
the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/73/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.09.2019 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 32 of 2019 was registered on
18.09.2019 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Jamshed Alam Ansari, the workman appeared assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative. The case
is fixed up today for appearance of the Agent, Shyamsundarpur colliery for having filed a written statement on a letter
head of Eastern Coalfields Limited instead of addressing it to CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol. Written statement does not
bear the signature of employer company’s advocate.
3.
Jaynarayan Halder, Agent, Shyamsundarpur Colliery appeared in person and submitted an explanation that in
future he will be careful in filing a proper written statement. Same is kept with the record. Personal attendance of Mr.
Haldar is dispensed with. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to be
cautious and careful in future so that proper written statements are filed before the Tribunal and not on the letter head
of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Such conduct is unacceptable.
4.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar filed an application stating that the workman, Jamshed Alam Ansari who raised this
Industrial Dispute for non-regularisation as General Mazdoor in surface job is not inclined to proceed. Copy served
upon the learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited. In view of application the scheduled Industrial Dispute is
dismissed for non-prosecution. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANAND KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार मेससच
िेएसी ए र सर्वचसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; ए रृोटच अ ॉठरटी ऑफ़ इंजड ा; मेससच डा ल; मेससच िॉक कारगो सर्वचसेि प्राइवेट
जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री राविंिर कुमार एंड अन् , कॉन्रैक्ट मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में
जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-264/2011) को िैसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[la- एल -11011/1/2009-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 264/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.; Airport Authority of India; M/s Dial; M/s Hawk Cargo Services
Private Limited and Shri Rajinder Kumar and other contract labour union which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-11011/1/2009-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1163
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM
LABOUR COURT
DELHI NO.1 NEW DELHI.
ID NO. 264/2011
Sh. Rajinder Kumar and others through The Contract Mazdoor union, B-57, Gali No. 9, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi-110059
Claimants…
Versus
1.
M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
The General Manager,
International Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport,
New Delhi-110037
2.
The Chairman,
Airport Authority of India,
A-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi-110003
3.
M/s DIAL, IGI Airport,
New Delhi
4.
M/s HAWK Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.
IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037
Managements…
Sh. Vishwaranjan, A/R for the claimants.
Sh. Sanjog Verma alongwith Sh. B.S. Kaushik, A/R for M/s JAC.
Sh. Sunil Dutt, A/R for AAI.
Sh. Dig Vijay Rai alongwith Sh. Manish Sehrawat, A/R for DIAL.
Sh. Kunal Mehta, A/R for M/s HAWK.
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Reference of the Industrial Dispute
1.
This Industrial Dispute case (ID No. 264/2011) is referred by the appropriate government i.e. Government of
India/Ministry of Labour issued vide letter dated 18.08.2009, New Delhi under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-
Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) which shall hereinafter be called as “The
Act” only. The reference mooted the said dispute for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2
which had been transferred to this Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, New Delhi vide order no. Z-
22019/6/2007-IR(C-2) dated 30.03.2010 by the Government of India. The reference schedules the industrial dispute
in following terms-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s HAWK Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Services Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi & M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in terminating the services of the workmen (As per
annexure) w.e.f. the dates as mentioned against their names in the annexure is just, fair and legal? What
relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
2.
The Industrial Dispute is directed against the managements of :
1164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.,
2. M/s HAWK Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.,
3. M/s DIAL,
4. Air Authority of India,
Who are arrayed as opposite parties to the statement of claim in the industrial dispute in hand.
Factual Matrix
3.
The claimants Rajender Kumar and 12 other workers were terminated by the management of JAC Air
Services Pvt. Ltd. (shall hereinafter be addressed as the “JAC” only) are detailed and described with their date of
joining, employee number and date of termination in following chart which is carved out and reproduced from the
statement of claim submitted by the claimant. Likewise,10 others working under the management of HAWK Cargo
Services Pvt. Ltd. (shall hereinafter be addressed as “HAWK” only) are detailed in another chart as given in the
statement of claim, with their specific date of joining, employee number and the date of termination against their
names. For the purposes of easy references and convenience a list of claimants/workmen is being given hereunder
with their details as stated above in the following charts.
CHART ‘A’
JAC AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD.
IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 37
S. No.
Name
Father’s Name
Date of
Joining
E. No.
Date of
Termination
1
Rajender Kumar
Sh. Nihal Singh
1995
1213
27.12.2008
2
Mukesh Kumar
Sh. Dayaram
2004
1373
23.12.2008
3
Jagtar Singh
Sh. Rajender Singh
1997
1295
Dec 2008
4
Wazir Singh
Sh. Maha Singh
1986
T-450
27.12.2008
5
Ran Singh
Sh. Bansi Lal
2004
1384
23.12.2008
6
Raj Kumar
Sh. Harbu Lal
1997
1194
17.12.2008
7
Suresh Kumar
Sh. Mur Singh
1995
1237
20.12.2008
8
Surender
Sh. Attar Singh
1998
F-28
17.12.2008
9
Dalbir Singh
Sh. Dharam Pal Singh
2006
1578
24.12.2008
10
Vijay Pal
Sh. Hosayar Singh
2004
S-72
26.12.2008
11
Sanjay Kumar
Sh. Maha Singh
1998
S-59
26.12.2008
12
Manoj Kumar
Sh. Balu Ram
2003
T-19
27.12.2008
13
Sunil Kumar
Sh. Krishan
2004
1383
27.12.2008
CHART ‘B’
HAWK CARGO SERVICES PVT. LTD.
IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI – 37
S. No.
Name
Father’s Name
Date of
Joining
E. No.
Date of
Termination
14
Anjali Kumar
Sh. Khaman Singh
1986
0730
16.06.2008
15
Shiv Kumar
Sh. Sohan Singh
1990
6736
16.06.2008
16
Paras N. Yadav
Sh. Ram M. Yadav
1991
0759
16.06.2008
17
Takdir
Sh. Hari Singh
2005
0788
16.06.2008
18
Surjeet Singh
Sh.Raghubir Singh
1986
0259
16.06.2008
19
Rajender Prasad Sharma
Sh. Jagdish P. Sharma
1992
0183
16.06.2008
20
Dharmender
Sh. Jagdish Chander
1993
0297
16.06.2008
21
Sanjay
Shankar Chand
1995
442
16.06.2008
22
Surma Singh
Sh. Suraj Ban
1998
444
16.06.2008
23
Jagpal
Sh. Baram Parkash
2005
0800
16.06.2008
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1165
4.
Briefly stating the case as put forth by the claimants/workmen is that they were employed with M/s HAWK
Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. under the supervision and control of ‘Airport Authority of India’ shall be hereinafter
addressed as ‘AAI’ only, who earlier was carrying the work of loading, packing, driving and supervising itself, but
subsequently handover those works to ‘C-HAWK’ on contract, which changed its name as AAPL and continued
working for ‘AAI’ till 1996. The claimants/workmen had been continuously working with C-HAWK and AAPL since
the date of their joining. In the year 1997, the ‘AAI’ divided work into two parts namely, Export & Import. The ‘AAI’
invited tender for both the works separately. The export work was entrusted to ‘JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.’ and
import was entrusted to AIRGO. Both the companies worked for 5 years till 12.04.2002 and the claimants had also
worked for these companies continuously under the direction of ‘AAI’. The ‘AAI’ is made opposite party no. 4 in the
claim statement whereas the HAWK Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. as opposite party no. 2, the JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
is arrayed in the statement of claim as opposite party no. 1. Since 18.10.2007 the ‘HAWK’ was working in export
division and the claimants/workmen worked continuously with them without any interruption. The ‘AAI’ entered into
a contract for modernization of airport with the company ‘DIAL’. The ‘DIAL’ was to supervise the entire work at
airport. The ‘HAWK’ and ‘JAC’ terminated the services of claimants/workmen on the date of termination as shown in
the above charts. The workmen made complaint to the Divisional Labour Commissioner on 16.06.2008. The Assistant
Labour Commissioner directed the ‘JAC’ not to initiate enquiry against any of the workmen and the same direction
was also communicated to the management of ‘HAWK’ but instead of obeying the direction of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, both the opposite parties initiated enquiry against some of the workmen and thereafter terminated
them from their services. The management respondents had not paid the salaries of the workmen and banned them
from working.
JAC’s Defence
5.
Out of the opposite parties, the first management namely, M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd. in response to the
claim statement filed by the claimants put its defence, saying that it was engaged by the AAI /DIAL to provide cargo
handling services at the import facilities on the cargo terminal. The above engagement was for limited period and for
that very purpose of the engagement the answering management had also engaged some employees for a limited
period on contractual basis. The ‘JAC’ specifically mentioned in the appointment letter that “If the contract with the
‘AAI’ is terminated for whatsoever reason then, services of the workman also shall be terminated without any further
notice” The claimant workman Sh. Rajinder Kumar who was the contractual employee of the management during the
period between 01.04.2008 to 13.05.2008 with other workers of the union during the course of their duties at the
airport indulged in acts of gross misconduct thereby slowing down the cargo handling services and instigating other
workers to hamper the functions of the cargo terminal of the airport. Resultantly, there was substantial delay in
transfer of the cargo on account of which the cargo services at the airport were disturbed, the answering management
informed the police. The claimants/workmen Rajinder Kumar with other workers of the union disturbed the area of
the airport. He conducted demonstrations, dharna, attack, assault, gate meeting, raising slogans, etc. The security and
peace of the entire airport area were adversely affected by which the answering management and the Airport
Authority suffered a bit loss in crores. The FIR of assault has been lodged against the workers at police station ‘Indira
Gandhi International Airport’(IGIA) on 13.05.2008 vide FIR No. 180 under Sections 341/323/506/188/34 IPC. The
‘DIAL’ issued a warning letter to the answering management to take preventive actions against the faulty workers and
avoid such type of activities in future.
6.
The ‘DIAL’ filed a suit vide suit no. 893/2008 for perpetual injunction before the Hon’ble High court of
Delhi against the said workers. The High Court has also granted the stay against the workers from holding any
demonstrations, dharna, agitation, gate meeting, raising slogans in any manner in the premises of the airport. By
reasons of the above conducts of inciting workers by the present claimants/workmen, import cargo operations were
seriously disturbed which caused great inconvenience and tarnished company’s name. Therefore, he was suspended.
During the suspension, the management has paid him all allowances allowed in salary as per law.
7.
It is asserted by the answering management that its engagement by the AAI/DIAL was for a limited period to
provide cargo handling services at the import facility on cargo terminals and the employment of workers was for that
very limited period for providing the said services to the Airport Authority of India through contractual employees.
The answering management claims itself just a sub-contractor of the DIAL Company bound to follow the instructions
of DIAL whereas the DIAL had to follow the directions of AAI. It is explained by the answering management that the
activities which were earlier being performed by the AAI subsequently began to be performed by the DIAL, who is
responsible for operations, management, development of control of the IGI airport, therefore, any strike or dharna at
the IGI airport naturally to directly affect the DIAL.
8.
It is further stated that due to the conduct of the claimant/workman of inciting the workers, import cargo
operation were seriously disturbed, caused great inconvenience and tarnished the company’s name therefore, he was
suspended with effect from 20.06.2008 in the interest of industrial peace. Since he was a contractual employee and
nature of his employment was temporary but all the provisions of natural justice were followed before his termination
from service. The enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner in accordance with rules as well as the principle of
natural justice. The enquiry officer had given the present claimant/workman all opportunities but he could not bring
1166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
out anything in his support hence, the report of the enquiry is unambiguously a judicious report. The answering
management has lastly plead that since the claim is wrong against it, therefore, the same be dismissed with heavy,
special and compensatory cost in favour of the answering management.
HAWK’s Defence
9.
Management of the opposite party no. 2 the ‘HAWK’ states that it was granted for the first time a contract
for a period of one year with effect from 17.10.2007 and for this period it was directed to procure a license as required
under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The ‘DIAL’ provided a certificate issued by the Government in terms of Section
7(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Rules, 1971 along with a certificate in prescribed form under Rules 21(2) to enable the answering opposite
party ‘HAWK’ to obtain license under Section 12 of the said Act of 1970. On the basis of the said document issued
by the ‘DIAL’, the answering opposite party ‘HAWK’ applied the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central
Government of India, New Delhi) for issuing a license required in the Section 12 of the Act of 1970 and the Rules of
1971 aforesaid and thus it was granted a license on 23.01.2008 for a period of one year for operation of the contract
for which the job had been allotted to the answering opposite party, by the ‘DIAL’. On the basis of aforesaid facts
‘HAWK’ claims itself, a sub-contractor who has been given a license of providing service of export, cargo at cargo
station of IGI airport, New Delhi, to the establishment namely, ‘DIAL’. It is further stated by ‘HAWK’ that the
contract for providing the cargo services was initially granted for a period of one year but subsequently extended for
another one year which ultimately came to an end on 31.12.2009. After the completion of the contractual period on
31.12.2009 the principal employer (DIAL) issued a certificate certifying that the working of the answering respondent
had been completed on 31.12.2009 and the management of ‘DIAL’ has ceased to be a contractor thereafter at the
cargo section of the IGI airport, New Delhi. The ‘DIAL’ also issued a certificate dated 24.11.2010 that the contract of
the answering opposite party has expired and there are no dues against them as they ceased to have no work at the
cargo section of the IGI airport, New Delhi.
10.
On the basis of the narration made above, the answering opposite party ‘HAWK’ submits that the principal
employer had neither taken any of the employees involved in the present dispute as shown in the annexure attached to
the terms of reference nor it could terminate their services or even could reinstate them because it had ceased to exist
with effect from 31.12.2009. It is denied that the employees in the cargo section of the IGI airport, New Delhi were
not the employees of the answering opposite party no.4 (HAWK). The present claimants/workmen as well as their
union namely, Contract Mazdoor Union were knowing very well the above fact that the Union has submitted a charter
of demands on 03.08.2008 i.e. subsequent to the grant of contract to the answering opposite party ‘HAWK’ with
effect on 17.10.2008. The said charter of demands of Union was addressed to the opposite party, the ‘AAI’. They
clearly admitted that these employees had been employed by the ‘AAI’ who has been the employer of the workmen
working in the cargo section. The present claimant workman say, Rajender Prasad has also been a signatory of that
charter of demands in the capacity of President of the Employees’ Union therefore, according to his admission,
employees working in the cargo section at IGI airport, New Delhi were the employees of the ‘AAI’ and not of the
answering opposite party ‘HAWK’.
11.
The answering opposite party ‘HAWK’ has further impressed on the point that it is the admitted case of the
workmen that he was employed much prior to the existence of the answering opposite party and was not taken in
employment by it. Admittedly the ‘HAWK’ ceased to exist with effect from 31.12.2009. Therefore, neither the
‘HAWK’ was employer nor it existed to give any benefit including continuity of service. Such service cannot be
claimed against a non-existing organization.
12.
It is further submitted that in terms of the law laid down by the apex court of India reported in AIR 1997
Supreme Court 645, “All the employees working with a contractor at any stage of time on the cut-off date 06.12.1996
would be treated as employees of the principal employer”. Therefore, considering the above legal aspect, the
workmen involved in the present dispute were and continued to be employees of the AAI/DIAL and they were not the
employees of the ‘HAWK’ at any point of time.
DIAL’s Defence
13.
The management/opposite party no. 3 “Delhi International Airport Limited” which shall hereinafter be called
for the purpose of brevity and convenience as ‘DIAL’ only, has also filed its separate written statement claiming itself
an independent company incorporated under the Company’s Act, 1956 which is a separate legal entity. ‘DIAL’
submits that it is not an agent of the ‘AAI’ but merely a lessee in view of the work entrusted to it “the Operation
Maintenance and Development Agreement” for the purpose of which an agreement (OMDA) was executed between
the AAI & DIAL on 04.04.2006. Very importantly, the ‘DIAL’ has stated in the said written statement that the
workmen/claimants had been working with various contractors of ‘AAI’ till 2006 when ‘DIAL’ entered into the
agreement (OMDA) dated 04.04.2006. However, ‘DIAL’ is unaware about the employment history of the claimant
and who made the continuation of EPF under the EPF and MP Act, 1952. On the aforesaid ground the ‘DIAL’ has
denied the workmen to be its workman as per the provision of the Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The ‘DIAL’ has further denied the Alleged Domestic Enquiry conducted against the claimants at the instance of
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1167
‘DIAL’ as such denied the application of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 over ‘DIAL’. ‘DIAL’ has further denied
absolutely its status as principal employer of the claimant and also from the claimants working directly under them in
any manner whatsoever. As such, denied any legal relationship between the claimant and management of ‘DIAL’.
14.
Additionally, the ‘DIAL’ has pleaded in the written statement that ‘AAI’ had given an option of VRS to its
employees and in cases where the employees did not want to continue after the OMDA agreement, ‘DIAL’ had not
absorbed the same. Further it is submitted that ‘DIAL’ has recruited its own workforce on its own terms instead of
allowing the services of the erstwhile employees of ‘AAI’ to continue as alleged. It is assertingly stated by the ‘DIAL’
that it has not been performing the job of air transport services, accordingly, no license under the Aircraft rules was
required. The ‘AAI’ was having the same therefore, ‘DIAL’ has not stepped into the shoes of ‘AAI’ as alleged.
‘DIAL’ was LAC only under OMDA dated 04.04.2006 accordingly, the claim statement is not maintainable as per the
eye of law. On the ground of aforesaid basic facts, the ‘DIAL’ has also denied the applicability of CLRAA (Contract
Labour Revolution and Abolition Act, 1971).
AAI’s Defence
15.
The ‘AAI’ in its written statement of defence, claims itself an unnecessary party to the dispute as such no
cause of action shown against them and no relief has been sought against them. The ‘AAI’ assertingly has pleaded
that it did not ever employ the workmen who remained employed by the management no.1 (JAC). The answering
management (AAI) did not terminate their services and rather has nothing to do with workmen with whom there is no
privety of contract. It further pleads that the agreement which is entered by the answering management and ‘DIAL’
for operation on 04.04.2006. Transferred to ‘DIAL’ the management of airport at Delhi with effect from 03.05.2006.
The workmen have no locus standi to file the present case against the answering management. Since the workmen
have withheld relevant information from the court it has not been stated that the allotment of contract was by due
advertisement and tender and that subtle submission that workman has been continuously employed is incorrect.
Because the contract has been awarded from time to time to various qualifiers, contractors to file tender. It is stated by
the answering management that in view of the honourable Apex Court expressed in the Steel Authority of India
Limited v/s National Union Waterfront Workers that on abolition or prohibition of contract labour under Section
10 of the CL(R&A) Act, 1970, the workers engaged through the contractor will not automatically become the
employees of the principle employer.
16.
On the basis of the above pleadings the ‘AAI’, the present answering respondent has prayed to dismiss the
claim with heavy cost.
A Concise Narration of the Workmen’s Employment History
17.
On a bare perusal of the factual matrix given hereinabove, the cumulative effect of the narration of facts
giving rise to the Industrial Dispute in hand the status of claimants/workmen Rajinder Kumar and others working with
the ‘AAI’ since the year of their initial engagement mentioned in the 4th column of the Charts A&B appended in
preceding Para 3 was of contractual worker who kept continued uninterrupted in the services of ‘AAI’ at IGI airport
till the date of their termination from services as mentioned in the column 6 of the Charts A&B above. The said fact is
not rebutted, however, the ‘DIAL’ has expressed its unawareness about the employment history of the workmen,
which cannot be treated as specific denial of entry in services as well as continuation of the claimants as workmen
with the ‘AAI’. None of the managements/opposite parties namely, ‘JAC’, ‘HAWK’ or ‘DIAL’ has specifically
denied in their pleading that the workmen were employed by and working under the supervision and control of ‘AAI’
who earlier also were carrying the work of loading, packing, driving and supervising. The work was handover to
different contractors from time to time till 1996 using the same workforce of the claimants/workmen continued till
1996 from the date of their initial appointment with the ‘AAI’. The ‘DIAL’ in its written statement has explicitly
stated that it came into existence by entering into an agreement with ‘AAI’ on 04.04.2006 namely, the OMDA. Before
that, in 1996, the ‘AAI’ divided its work into two parts namely, export and import, invited tenders for both the above
works separately. The export work was entrusted to ‘JAC’ and import was entrusted to AIRGO. Both the companies
worked for 5 years till 12.04.2002 and the claimants had also worked for these companies continuously under the
direction of ‘AAI’. The ‘HAWK’ was working in export division since 18.10.2007 and the claimants/workmen
worked continuously with them without any interruption. This fact is not denied by ‘JAC’ and ‘HAWK’ in their
written statement. The ‘AAI’ which entered into the contract OMDA to supervise the entire work at airport with
‘DIAL’ is also not denied. The written statement of ‘DIAL’ and that of the ‘HAWK’ & ‘JAC’ unravel that they in
consensus with the ‘DIAL’, in the garb of domestic enquiry terminated the services of workers as the ‘DIAL’ wanted
to get rid of the present workmen/claimants and to make fresh recruitments on its own. This was complained to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner who issued direction not to initiate enquiry against any of the workmen of both the
managements of ‘JAC’ and ‘HAWK’.
AAI/DIAL and HAWK & JAC : Their co-relations
18.
The Para 2 of the above preferred letter of the IGI refers the notice given by the workmen/claimants and their
union as such the requirement of Section 22 of the Industrial Dispute Act which pre-requisite is found fulfilled in the
present case. In the aforesaid letter the another fact of subordination and internal co-relation of the ‘AAI’ with
1168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
opposite parties ‘HAWK’ & ‘JAC’ is also admitted that the export handling agency is ‘HAWK’ and the import
handling agency is ‘JAC’. Relating back the above stated things with regard to ‘HAWK’ & ‘JAC’ both the agencies
in subordination to ‘AAI’ with Para 3 of the judgement under the head “Factual Matrix”, this is to be reiterated that
both the above agencies terminated the services of workmen concerned on the ground of misconduct. At this juncture
this would be pertinent to mention that in between ‘AAI’ and two agencies ‘HAWK’ & ‘JAC’ there is ‘DIAL’ which
is proved to be an appendage to do the administration of affairs at IGI on behalf of IGI. The MW5 Sh. Vishwani Dev,
Manager HR of DIAL in his oral statement in the course of cross examination has stated on oath on July, 2019 before
the tribunal, “I am aware of the contents of the OMDA signed by Delhi International Airport Ltd. and Airport
Authority of India.” … OMDA says about operation, administration, management and development at IGI. Another
management witness MW6 Sh. Ravi Anupam Baa, Manager HR, AAI states on oath, “I know about OMDA. It is
correct that Delhi International Airport Ltd. (DIAL) has been entrusted in a contract for supervision, operation,
management, development and administration of the work carried on the airport by the IGI.” As such the management
witnesses have admitted the internal relation of the opposite parties with each other and proved IGI is the principal
employer DIAL is in contract with IGI under OMDA for all purposes i.e. supervision, operation, management and
administration and for the purpose to facilitate the export and import activities of cargo it had entered into contract
with sub-contractors ‘HAWK’ & ‘JAC’ who in turn have engaged the workmen who were working since earlier
aforesaid works of IGI & DIAL. The IGI is therefore established as the principal employer of all the workmen
concerned in the present case. The IGI, who through DIAL administered the business of a public utility services at the
airport namely export and import of cargo which was being done by the present workmen/claimants concerned. In the
present case, they had notified their grievances and warning for staging a dharna in this regard at IGI.
19.
All the workmen with regard to whom the reference by the appropriate government is received to this
Tribunal have separately filed their statement of claim. On going through all such statement of claims the tribunal has
found almost similar version of pleadings with mutatis mutandis changes as to their entry in services with the opposite
parties, termination from services by the opposite parties ‘JAC’ or ‘HAWK’ as the case may be. Needless to state and
reiterate all the material pleadings separately for each one of the claimants in view of the above similar basic facts of
the claims and defence set forth against them. The Tribunal has gone through the written statements filed by the four
managements/opposite parties as against each one of the separate claims of the workmen in the present Industrial
Dispute and reference, none found with different versions than others.
Issues settled by the Tribunal for Adjudication on 22.08.2012
(1) Whether enquiry conducted by M/s JAC Air Services or other managements as the case may be, against the
claimants was just fair and proper?
(2) Whether action initiated by M/s JAC Air Services or other managements, as the case may be, against the
claimants amount to punishment for alleged misconduct, which ought to have been preceded by a domestic
enquiry?
(3) Whether the claims, filed by the claimants, are bad for misjoinder of parties? If yes, its effects.
(4) Whether punishment awarded to the claimants commensurate their misconduct?
(5) As in terms of reference.
The Tribunal held the Issue No. 1 as preliminary issue and called evidence of the parties thereon from the
managements/opposite parties. After taking evidence at large the issue was decided.
Domestic enquiry, the Tribunal held vitiated
The Tribunal vide its order dated 25.01.2019 considered the entire facts pleaded by the parties to the Industrial
Dispute in hand and the evidences led before it by the claimants and management opposite parties with regard to the
alleged domestic enquiry. The relevant paras of the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the then Presiding Officer on
preliminary issues are being reproduced hereunder for the purpose of easy reference-
“4. As per the record and submissions made by the A/R for the claimants, separate
charge-sheets were issued by the Management M/s JAC Air Services against 13
Nos. of workmen Sh. Rajender Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Jagtar Singh, Wazir Singh,
Ran Singh, Raj Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Surender, Dalbir Singh, Vijay Pal, Sanjay
Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Sunil Kumar. The charge-sheets so served upon the
workmen/claimants recite that on 02.04.2008 they deserted their duty point
unauthorizedly, & found roaming around Import Section up & down and inciting
workers to stop work. On 21.10.2005 they deserted their place of duty point
unauthorizedly, took 5-6 workers alongwith them to meet GM(Cargo) who due to
his pre-occupation, could not grant permission but they had forcefully tried to
entered GM’s room and shouted unnecessarily and created a scene in front of
GM’s office. Also instigated workers to stop work without any valid reason.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1169
(a) On 11.07.2007, Sh. Raj Kumar had an altercation with Sh. Ram Chander, Loader
No. 1193. Sh. Raj Kumar had abused him and used words against his caste etc.
(b) On 12.10.2007 Sh. Raj Kumar alongwith Sh. Rajender Prasad Sharma had an
altercation with Sh. Satish Kumar, Driver & Sh. Sunil, Supervisor.
5. Both the parties were granted opportunity to adduce evidence and the workmen in
support of their case, examined themselves as WW1. Management, in order to prove the
charges examined Sh. K.J. Rawtani as MW1. He has also proved enquiry report
Ex.MW1/56 and other documents on record.
6. It is clear from evidence on record that charge sheet Ex.MW1/50 was served on the
workman herein. Sh. A. Rajesh was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the said
enquiry. His report is Ex.MW1/56. On the basis of the above report, order of dismissal
Ex.MW1/57 was passed against the workman herein.
7. It is evident from perusal of the record as well as statement of MW1, Sh. K.J. Rawtani
that no opportunity was given to the workman herein to adduce evidence so as to rebut
the various charges contained in the charge-sheet. When management, in its wisdom
had decided to hold regular enquiry against the workmen herein, in that eventuality it
was incumbent on the management to have afforded an opportunity to the workmen
herein to adduce evidence on the various charges made against them. It is also
admitted that no preliminary enquiry was conducted against these claimants/workmen.
Not only this, the workmen herein were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine
any witness of the Management. Rather, separate statements of the workmen herein
were recorded during the course of domestic enquiry. There is nothing on record to
prove that the workmen herein were supplied with all the relevant documents alongwith
charge-sheet. There is a long line of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that at the
same time service of charge-sheet, management is required to provide to the charged
officials all the documents alongwith list of witnesses who are sought to be examined
during the course of domestic enquiry. Purpose of filing/providing of these documents is
that fair opportunity is required to be afforded to the employee/workmen in a domestic
enquiry. Since entire proceedings were admittedly conducted in a single day without
affording opportunity to the workman to adduce evidence, as such, it has dealt a
crippling blow to the principles of natural justice which are imperative part of enquiry.
There is also a long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court that every quasi-judicial or
administrative authority is required to adhere to principles of natural justice while
holding enquiry or passing any adverse order against an employee. Rules of natural
justice are not codified nor they are unvarying in all circumstances. They may be
summarized in one word as ‘fairness’.
8. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings which clearly shows that the entire
proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a single day and no opportunity
was given to the witness to cross-examine the witness examined by the management
during the course of above enquiry. There is nothing on record to show that any
opportunity was granted to the workman to adduce evidence in defence nor statement
was recorded that the workmen herein does not want to adduce any evidence. There is
no merit in the contention of the management that in view of admission of misconduct by
the workman, there is no need to grant any opportunity to the workman to adduce
evidence. It is well settled position in law that if opportunity has not been granted to the
workman to cross-examine the witness examined by the department during the course of
domestic enquiry, same would amount to serious lapse on the part of the department,
which would vitiate the enquiry. Such an act could also be termed to be totally unfair
and in violation of principles of natural justice.
9. In the case of Sanjay Gupta Vs State of UP AIR 2014 SC 2982 Hon’ble Supreme
Court while considering the question of validity of domestic enquiry, held that
opportunity to cross-examine the witness is an imperative component of natural justice
or fair enquiry and denial of the same would result in setting aside the report.
10. Further, in case of Union of India Vs Prakash Kumar (AIR 2009 SC 1375), it was
held that if the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly, presumption could
be drawn that same caused prejudice to the charge-sheeted employee. In the case in
hand also, as is clear from the facts discussed above, entire proceedings were
1170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conducted with tearing hurry by the management with a view to sack the workmen
herein.
11. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is held that in the case in hand, enquiry
against the workmen/claimants whose names found mentioned in para 4 above, was not
conducted by the management in a fair & proper manner and principles of natural
justice were not followed. As such, Issue no.1 is answered in favour of the workmen and
against the management.”
20.
The order reproduced hereinabove from the order-sheets of the present I.D. case is not challenged in any
superior court of law as such remains on record as binding order over the parties of the dispute the same shall be
treated as part of the award.
21.
In the present matter workmen concerned were terminated from their services solely on the charge of
misconduct labelled against them for the reason their participation in strike Hon’ble judges of the apex court,
Justice Krishna Iyer with Justice Desai in the case titled as ‘Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd And Others V. Gujrat Steel
Tubes Mazdoor Sabha And Others’ (1980) 2 SCC 593, held: “The effect of the omission to hold enquiry is that the
tribunal would have to consider not only whether there is a prima facie case but would have to decide for itself on the
evidence adduced whether the charges have been made out. A defective enquiry in this connection stands on the same
footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the entire matter and the
employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on the facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.
Therefore, the tribunal had full jurisdiction to adjudge de novo both guilt and punishment.” Accordingly tribunal
called the management to prove the charge of misconduct by its fresh evidences.
21.
The rest of the issues settled by this tribunal on 22.08.2012 are now open to be adjudicated on merit.
Testimonies of the witnesses of managements opposite parties were recorded. The managements produced following
witnesses to prove the charges of misconduct in the second round of evidence in the year 2019-
a) On behalf of JAC the witnesses in oral evidence produced were namely, Sh. K.J.Rawtani, Sh. Babu Ram,
Sh. Naresh and Sh. Bijender Singh.
b) On behalf of HAWK the witness in oral evidence produced was Sh. Subhash Chandra Bakshi.
c) On behalf of DIAL the witness in oral evidence produced was Sh. Vishwani Dev.
d) On behalf of AAI the witness in oral evidence produced was Sh. Ravi Anupam Baa.
22.
Before going through the statements recorded in oral evidence of witness of the management it would be
pertinent and relevant to mention the documentary evidences produced before the tribunal by the respective
managements or opposite parties number 1, 2, 3 and 4 with the filing of the written statement as well as the fresh
affidavits in second round of evidences produced by them after the decision by the tribunal over preliminary issue on
25.01.2019. On 13.07.2010 the management of opposite party-1 'JAC' produced a list of documentary evidence
containing-
1) Copy of FIR dated 13.05.2008 against the workers,
2) Copy of letter dated 08.04.2008 from DIAL to the management no. 1
3) Email from DIAL to the management no. 1
4) Copy of order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the High Court in Civil Suit no. 839 of 2008 filed by DIAL against the
workers of management no. 1
5) Copy of order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the High Court in Civil Suit no. 839 of 2008 above,
6) Copy of order dated 05.03.2010 by the High Court in writ petition (Criminal nom 158/2010) filed by workers for
question of above FIR
The evidences documentary and oral both shall be appreciated and discussed where ever require.
ARGUMENTS
23.
Heard the arguments of learned Counsels representing their respective parties to the industrial dispute as
‘Authorised Representatives’. Perused the pleadings of the parties, corresponding evidences and materials available
on record, thrust of the arguments submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Kumar, Advocate on behalf of
workmen/claimants was upon termination of services illegally and improperly with a view to get rid of the workmen
in vengeance of their demand of permanence in service and regularisation through their labour union. The services of
concerned workmen was having been utilised without interruption since their initial engagement at IGI by the AAI
and they were kept as contractual labour for an extraordinary long period of over a decade or more in case of several
workmen. Though no incident of misconduct ever reported against them they were victimized only on joining strike
called on by labour union pursuing demand of regularization of contractual labours learned Counsel drew attention of
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1171
the tribunal towards the FIR placed in evidence by the JAC that the same is concerned with mutual scuffling amongst
two employees which was not connected with strike but charged as misconduct for termination of service. The
workmen who were parties to the incident mutually settled their differences and FIR was quashed by the court. The
order of the court is perused by the tribunal with the contents of FIR. This is noted that management witness of JAC
did not support the complaint against his colleague in cross examination, even the incident under the FIR is not
entered into log book which is maintained and preserved by the management for entering the serious incident of
misconduct. He illustrated charge sheets issued against the other claimants also which prominently consist of incident
of joining strike and other incidents seem ornamental only as they are not shown entered in the log book. Moreover
no log book is produced before the tribunal to prove charge of misconduct. Oral evidence of management wherein
they did not support the allegations of misconduct made by the management against workmen witnesses is shown.
Learned Counsel argued in context of the enquiry preceding the termination of service held by the tribunal vitiated
and improper the termination order is illegal and baseless while the workmen concerned or blame less. They are
entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and litigation cost with compensation. Learned Counsel for
the opposite party the managements ‘HAWK’ and ‘JAC’ put vehemence on the fact the concerned workmen though
were working directly under them but they did not recruit them. In their pleadings they have stated the workmen to
be employees of ‘DIAL’ and ‘AAI’. The action taken against the workmen for their alleged misconduct during strike
was on the instructions of ‘DIAL’. The email trial of the DIAL sent to the management of JAC is evidencing the said
fact.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the witness K J Rawtani as mw1 has produced the log book to
prove the participation of several workmen out of the claimant have participated in illegal strike, dharna and other
activities like instigating other workmen also to join the strike and dharna. It is also argued that Sanjay Singh being
appointed and worked as supervisor not workman under section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Some of the claimants are
denied to be workman of the management but his is to be noted that no muster roll or attendance register is plead in
support of the said plea.
24.
Argument is done that if a workman is terminated even without enquiry or enquiry held is found defective, it
is open to the employer to adduce evidence even for the first time before the tribunal to prove the charges. Reliance is
placed on Mohd. Azim V. Sarv UP Gramin Bank 2015 LLR 464 Delhi. This is also to be noted that opposite
parties have ben given the said opportunity already, they availed and exhausted that.
In addition to the oral arguments, written argument is also submitted by the opposite parties wherein they relying on
several judgements of High Courts and Supreme Court are cited in reliance. I gone through the judgements. Some of
the workmen to whom they denied to be workmen as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act but therein arguing so
they ignored that those workmen are terminated from service by them only. Likewise the workman Sanjay Singh is
denied to be workmen being supervisor but they ignore that section 2 (s) includes person involved in supervising
work also and it is the nature of work than the nomenclature which attracts the employee within the definition of
workmen. It is argued citing case laws that if termination is not found legal the terminated employee may be
compensated in terms of money than reinstatement in services. This point of argument shall find discussion under the
head reinstatement in succeeding paras.
DISCUSSIONS
25.
Before going through the facts of the case in hand and the evidence adduced before the tribunal on the aspect
of the mass order of dismissal of workmen, their guilt and punishment awarded to them it would be pertinent to keep
into mind the object of legislating the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 and provisions of the Act relevant thereto.
Legislatives Aim of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to maintain peaceful industrial relation
26.
There are two institutions for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes provided in the Act namely
the Works Committees consisting of representatives of employees and workmen, and Industrial Tribunal. Appropriate
Government is empowered to require Work Committees to be constituted in every industrial establishment employing
100 workmen, or more and their duties will be to remove causes of friction between the employer and workmen in
their day -to- day working of the establishment and to promote measures for securing amity and good relation
between them. Industrial peace will be more enduring where it is founded on the voluntary settlement, and it is hoped
that the works committees will render recourse to the remaining machinery provided for in the Act for the settlement
of disputes infrequent. A reference to an Industrial Tribunal will lie where both the parties to an industrial dispute
apply for it and also where the Appropriate Government considers it expedient to do so.
27.
Another machinery to fulfil the above prime object of the Act is the provision of Conciliation Proceeding
which is made compulsory in all dispute in the public utility services and optional in the case of other industrial
establishments. The time limit for expeditious disposal is prescribed. The settlement if any arrived at in conciliation
proceeding is made binding over the parties to the dispute for a period agreed between them or for one year if not
agreed unless revoked.
1172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
28.
There are some special provisions in the Act relating to prohibition of Strikes and Lock outs in the
establishment during the pendency of conciliation or adjudicatory proceedings which are section 22 and 23 in the Act.
Strike is defined in section 2(q) of the Act, which runs as follows-
Strike
Section 2 (q) “Strike” means a cessation of works by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in
combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under a common understanding of any number of persons who are
or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment.”
The apex court in Gujrat Steel Case (supra) observed in para 129, relevant portion of the para are quoted herein
below-
“129:
A selective study of the case law is proper at this place. Before we do this, a few words on the basis
of the right to strike and progressive legal thinking led by constitutional guidelines is necessitous.
The right to unionise, the right to strike as part of the collective bargaining and subject to the
legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the
stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial
jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence,
may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised
norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent handlooms industry, represented by intransigent
managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequel or
wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made.
The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to
better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikes are no more conspiracies than
professions and political parties are, and, being far weaker, need succour. Part IV of the
Constitution, read with Article 19, sows the seeds of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian
quote at the beginning of this judgement sets the tone of economic equity in industry of course,
adventurist, extremist, extraneously and puerile strikes, absurdly insane persistence and violent or
scorched earth policies boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right
to strike is integral to collective bargaining.”
Further para 133 of the Gujrat Steel ‘judgement (ibid) is also important to be read for understanding justification of a
strike. Para 133 is reproduced here in below-
“133:
I Swadeshi Industries Ltd. Vs Workmen, the management, after holding that the strike was illegal,
terminated the services of 230 workmen without framing any charge-sheet or holding any enquiry.
It was contended that the strike was not legal. The Court observed that collective bargaining for
securing improvement on matters like basic pay, dearness allowance, bonus, provident fund and
gratuity leave and holidays was the primary object of trade union and when demands like these
were put forward and thereafter a strike was resorted to in an attempt to induce the company to
agree to the demands or at least to open negotiations the strike must prima facie be considered
justified. As the order of the termination was found to be illegal it was held that reinstatement with
back wages must follow as a matter of course, not necessarily because new hands had not been
inducted”.
Evidence as to the demand of regularization and permanence in service
29.
The management/opposite party no. 2 'HAWK's witness Sh. Subhash Chandra Bakshi submitted his affidavit
in evidence in examination-in-chief as the authorised representative in the second round of evidence after the decision
over preliminary issue on 14.11.2022. He deposed that the ‘HAWK’ was neither in existence in the year 1992 nor had
taken the workmen into its employment at any point of time. The witness further states that ‘HAWK’ has informed
termination of the services of the claimants/workmen concerned. The witness firmly states on oath that the
claimants/workmen were well aware that their employer was AAI/DIAL and that is why their labour union vide
charter of demands dated 10.03.2008 and 11.03.2008 had approached to them i.e. ‘DIAL’ have received of their
demands. The said demand letter annexed and marked at Ex MW1/3 & Ex MW1/4. It is further deposed that the
workmen concerned approached the ‘AAI’ ‘their employer’, with charter of demands seeking regularization of their
services dated 31.03.2008 which is annexed and marked as Ex MW1/5. The witness further states that ‘HAWK’
informed the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) that it had stopped working as ground handling contractor at
IGI Airport with effect from 01.01.2010 therefore need not any security passes. The said letter is annexed and marked
as Ex MW1/6 in the evidence. The ‘HAWK’ was a contractor during the period from Oct 2007 till 31.12.2009 and is
not in existence at present. The witness lastly impressed on the point, “the workmen concerned are employees of
‘AAI’ and still continue to be in service with the said authority.”
30.
In march with the aim and object of the Act to endure peaceful industrial relation sections 10(3) and 10 A (4
A) of the act provide that the Appropriate Government in case, has referred an industrial dispute for adjudication to
industrial tribunal, may by order prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1173
which may be in existence on the date of the reference. Further there is provisions regarding the circumstances in
which a strike may be declared illegal. Section 22, 23 and 24 of the Act are quoted here under-
Section “22. Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs-.
(1) No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract-
(a) without giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six
weeks before striking; or
(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and
seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
(2) No employer carrying on any public utility service shall lock-out any of his workmen-
(a) without giving them notice of lock-out as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before
locking-out; or
(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c) before the expiry of the date of lock-out specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and
seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
(3) The notice of lock-out or strike under this section shall not be necessary where there is already
in existence a strike or, as the case may be, lock-out in the public utility service, but the employer
shall send intimation of such lock-out or strike on the day on which it is declared, to such authority
as may be specified by the appropriate Government either generally or for a particular area or for
a particular class of public utility services.
(4) The notice of strike referred to in sub-section (1) shall be given by such number of persons to
such person or persons and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) The notice of lock-out referred to in sub-section (2) shall be given in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(6) If on any day an employer receives from any person employed by him any such notices as are
referred to in sub-section (1) or gives to any persons employed by him any such notices as are
referred to in sub-section (2), he shall within five days thereof report to the appropriate
Government or to such authority as that Government may prescribe, the number of such notices
received or given on that day.”
Section “23. General prohibition of strikes and lock-outs.- No workman who is employed in any
industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such
workman shall declare a lock-out-
(a) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days after
the conclusion of such proceedings;
(b) during the pendency of proceedings before 1[a Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal] and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings; 2[***]
3[(bb) during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and two
months after the conclusion of such proceedings, where a notification has been issued
under subsection (3-A) of Section 10-A; or]
(c) during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation in respect of any of
the matters covered by the settlement or award.”
Section “24. Illegal strikes and lock-outs.- (1) A strike or a lock-out shall be illegal if-
(i) it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or Section 23; or
(ii) it is continued in contravention of an order made under subsection (3) of Section 10
4[or sub-section (4-A) of Section 10-A]
(2) Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already commenced and is
in existence at the time of the reference of the dispute to a Board, 5[an arbitrator,] 6[a Labour
1174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], the continuance of such strike or lock-out shall not be
deemed to be illegal, provided that such strike or lock-out was not at its commencement in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the continuance thereof was not prohibited under
subsection (3) of Sec.10 7[or sub- section 4(A) of Section 10-A].
(3) A lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike declared in consequence of an
illegal lock-out shall not be deemed to be illegal.”
Public utility services: whether cargo facility service on an Airport is public utility service
31.
Public utility services generally are facilities provided by the Government, which are essential to a citizen’s
needs. For instance, these services include the supply of water, electricity, the postal system, the banking, railways,
etc. Such services are enumerated in the Industrial Dispute Act to control the affairs of workmen involved in
providing such services. Section 2(n) of the act defines-
2(n):“public utility service” means-
(i) any railway service 5[or any transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air;]
[(ia) any service in, or in connection with the working of, any major port or dock;]
(ii) any section of an industrial establishment, on the working of which the safety of the establishment or the
workmen employed therein depends;
(iii) any postal, telegraph or telephone service;
(iv) any industry which supplies power, light or water to the public;
(v) any system of public conservancy or sanitation;
(vi) any industry specified in the 7[First Schedule] which the appropriate Government may, if satisfied that
public emergency or public interest so requires, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a
public utility service for the purposes of this Act, for such period as may be specified in the notification:
Provided that the period so specified shall not, in the first instance, exceed six months but may, by a like
notification, be extended from time to time, by any period not exceeding six months, at any one time, if in
the opinion of the appropriate Government, public emergency or public interest requires such extension.
32.
In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. V. The U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam Sanyukt Karmchari Sangh
(2004) 4 SCC 268, the apex court held that under section 22 of the Act a notice of strike is required only in the case
of any public utility service, Lifting and carrying the goods in air transportation at all airports is an essential service
for passengers and comes within the ambit of “public utility service “as defined and enumerated in the Industrial
Dispute Act. In the present case before this tribunal, it is admitted that the workmen/claimants concerned and their
union namely, ‘Contract Mazdoor Union’ had served notice to the management with regard to their grievances and to
hold a dharna at cargo terminal of the IGI. The letter dated 07.05.2008 authored by Captain Dharmender Yadav,
Associate General Manager (Security) of the IGI. The said letter (reference no. IGIA/CGO/SEC/1417/294 dated
07.05.2008) placed on record is admitted and unrebutted by the opposition parties. The second para of the said letter
is reproduced hereunder:
“It has been learnt that some of the workers of the handling agencies in Export & Import affiliated
to “Contract Mazdoor Union” shall be holding a dharna at Cargo Terminal (copy of the notice by
Contract Mazdoor Union is enclosed). Very limited number of workers of handling agencies in
export & import workers are affiliated to “Contract Mazdoor Union” and this percentage must be
7-8 per cent only. Most of the workers are affiliated to CITU. The Export handling agency is M/s
HAWK Cargo Services & the Import handling agency is M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.”
Fact of strike at the airport and evidence as to the mass strike, it’s legality and justification-
33.
First of all the tribunal is of the opinion that it should be probed on the facts and evidences on record that
the answering managements were handling the work of cargo lifting, loading and unloading of them to and from
aircrafts at both the spot meant for export and import in the airport premises through workmen in a manner as
prescribed in the Industrial Dispute Act? The statement of claim when assert and pleads that the workmen were duly
selected and engaged in the airport premises more than decade of years ago on contractual basis paying them wages at
the rate of Minimum Wages Act by then existing competent authority which transformed itself subsequently as the
Airport Authority of India and kept continued as such through various contractors of their choice even since before
the coming into existence of answering contractors the managements of JAC, HAWK or DIAL. All answering
managements have filed written statements of their defence but none of them have denied the above stated facts
pleaded in the claim of the workmen. However, they have shirked off their role in engaging the workmen on their
own and asserted the continued engagement of the claimants/workmen since entering into contract with ‘DIAL’ and
utilization of the services of those workmen as they were doing since before.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1175
34.
The workmen were eager of their regularization and permanence in service with the management. It also
comes out from the pleading of ‘DIAL’ and ‘AAI’ also that the work of managing total affairs of the IGI Airport was
completely entrusted by ‘AAI’ to the ‘DIAL’. Managements of ‘JAC’ and ‘HAWK’ plead that they were working
under the instructions of ‘DIAL’. ‘AAI’ and ‘DIAL’ both were to face applicability of CLRA Act, 1971 over the
establishment and issue of sham contracts in respect of the contractual workmen engaged in cargo facility services in
the premises of IGI Airport through the contractors ‘JAC’ and ‘HAWK’. All the answering management were
planning to get rid of the claimants/workmen which sounds from the pleading of ‘DIAL’ which discloses that they
wanted to recruit new workers for their business of cargo facility on their own and to appoint them in the airport.
These circumstances seem to had caused unrest in workmen and in apprehension of losing their job they became
insisting regularization and permanency in service to secure their source of livelihood.
35.
It further comes out from the facts and evidence that the management had deliberately employed the
claimants/ workmen on contract basis for performing the regular nature of jab solely for the purpose of denying them
the status and salary of regular and permanent employee. The management witness had admitted that their job was
perennial in nature and continuing regularly.
36.
Undoubtedly in the above situation keeping the workmen as contractual labour in service of the airport for a
considerable length of time of more than decades amounted UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE as defined in the
section 2( ra )of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 read with item no. 10 of the 5th schedule. In the case titled as Chief
Conservator of Forest & Others V. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & Others, (1996) 2 SCC 293, the apex court
has held:
“22 :
We have given our due thought to the aforesaid rival contentions and, according to us, the
object of the State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same
would be thwarted or get frustrated if such a burden is placed on a workman which he cannot
reasonably discharge, in our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to
draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries
are continued as such for years. We further state that the present was such a case inasmuch as
form the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to the industrial
Court of Pune (15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long
years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent employees inasmuch
as giving of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher
than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no possible object as, it may
be remembered, that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational
and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but par
excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of
Ahmednagar, whose need is on the increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency is
thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If even in such projects, persons are kept
in jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. We,
therefore, answer the second question also against the appellants.”
37.
The nature of engagement of the workmen/claimants concerned in the establishment of IGI for the work of
export and import of cargo at the airport is contractual. Their status as such contractual workmen is establish to have
commenced from the year stated in the Column 4 of the Charts A & B appended with Para 3 of the judgement. Some
of the workmen were continuing since 1995,1997,1998 whereas some like Anjali Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Paras Nath
Yadav,
Surjeet
Singh,
R.P.
Sharma,
Dharmender,
Sanjay,
Surma
Singh
were
continuing
since
1986,1990,1991,1986,1992,1993,1995,1998 respectively. Their termination in the year 2008 as shown in Column 6 of
the aforesaid charts A & B of Para 3 itself show that such workers were kept continued as contractual workers
unreasonably without regularization or permanency in service for more or less 20 years from the date of their initial
engagement. This is quiet unlawful in view of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act whereas a workman who
has completed a continuous service for about 240 days or more in a calendar year is entitled to be regularized in
service subject to the service rules.
38.
In the present case the management of all the 4 opposite parties has nowhere stated in their pleadings that
they have service rules approved by the competent authority. Therefore, they had to be governed by the Industrial
Dispute Act and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Non regularization of service of such workmen
have caused them loss of regular pay-scale. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules also provides
the responsibility of employer for maintenance of service record confirmation of the workmen and fixation of the age
of retirement alongwith medical aid and other allowances payable to the workmen in their service tenure. It also
provides the rules as to termination of employment and disciplinary action for misconduct. In the absence of any draft
standing order/service rules approved by the competent authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1946 the workmen concerned in the present case naturally had living in the apprehension of insecurity with
regard to their services and therefore they were aspirant since a long for their regularization and permanency in
service. If they notified their grievances to the management and demanded for their permanency and requisition in
1176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
services with other facilities and expecting suitable amends to be done by the management they were fully justified to
notify their intention to go on strike/staging dharna in their workplace to draw the attention of the
management/employer. Such an intent on the part of the workmen concerned may not be taken as illegal or
unjustified.
39.
It also does not come out form the pleadings and evidence of the opposite parties/managements that whether
they had taken ever any step to regularize those contractual workmen who were engaged by them for a permanent and
perennial nature of work in their establishment whether they had any scheme for their requisition. Even this has also
not been stated that the management ever had regularized any number of their contractual workmen who were
working for the last 20 years or more regularly in the same nature of work in their establishment. Therefore, it is
established fact that the establishment of the opposite parties IGI & others did not heed to the genuine grievances of
their contractual workmen and when they raised voice against such an inaction, negligence or non-compliance of the
legal provisions under the Industrial Dispute Act, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, Contract Labour
(Abolition and Regularization) Act, 1971 etc. To the contrary, they opted to suspend such employees against which
the workmen and their union came in protest in mass which is evident from the letter dated 07.05.2008 of Captain
Dharmender Yadav, Associate General Manager (Security) of IGI already discussed hereinabove.
The grievance of the workmen concerned why not fulfilled by the management? “not answered” and the
lightening call of strike
40.
The management took a harsh action of the notice sent by the Mazdoor Union and took harsh steps on taking
the help of police requesting the Station House Officer Police Station, IGI Airport Terminal them to conciliate the
matter with the aggrieved workmen and their Mazdoor Union. On the record of tribunal there is a First Information
Report (FIR) lodged before the management of JAC of an incident of a fracas in the premises of IGI Airport at cargo
Gate No. 2 with driver of a vehicle owned by JAC namely, Sh. Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh with some of the
workmen concerned. The witness of the IGI and DIAL MW3 Sh. Naresh, Assistant Manager, JAC has not owned
during his cross examination the said FIR. He states, “no police complaint was made or FIR filed”. This statement
dated 05.07.2019 is recorded in second turn of recording evidence after the enquiry was vitiated and set aside by this
tribunal calling management to prove the charges against the workmen concerned. He further states, “I was present
when strike was called and the work was halted. I don’t know what action was taken against the three persons in the
crowd namely, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh. Kishan Chand”.
41.
In pleadings of the opposite parties/managements 1-4 of this industrial dispute case nowhere none of them
has stated about the reason or impediments in not regularizing or benefitting the workmen with permanence in service
though they were continuously, regularly and without any interruption in their service utilized the services of those
workmen. There is no evidence of this effect that when on charge of strike the concerned workmen were suspended
and a dispute arose in the establishment the management had averred made efforts to solve the dispute by means of
conciliation. When the matter was raised as industrial dispute by the workmen through their union the management
did not take steps for redressal. The oral/documentary evidence produced before the tribunal further shows that the
management pretended to institute an enquiry against workmen and proceed it further irregularly by reason of which
when workmen raised industrial dispute before the Labour Officers process of conciliation was called for and the
managements were restrained from proceeding with the enquiry. They did not cooperate and participate in the
conciliation proceeding and ultimately terminated the services of workmen. This would be pertinent to state at this
stage that in the present industrial dispute case the tribunal after framing the issue of aforesaid enquiry whether
vitiated as vide order dated 05.07.2019 held the enquiry vitiated. From the evidence on record considered by the
tribunal it is found established that:-
1. The managements/opposite parties had not heeded to the grievances of workmen concerned prior to the
industrial dispute is raised and kept them in unfair labour practice as contractual labour for extraordinary
long period of time, say more or less two decades.
2. When notice of staging dharna was given by the workmen the management did not heed to address the
grievance and fulfilled the demands but against the spirit of Industrial Dispute Act went into litigation
unnecessarily in the course so as to make them unapproachable and irreconcilable to the workmen.
3. When industrial dispute was raised with regard to the suspension and termination of the workmen on the
charge of strike the management did not cooperate and concede to the direction of conciliation officer.
The facts and evidence brought on record by the parties tend to prove and establish that on the one hand when the so
called lightening call of strike and notice to staging dharna with regard to the grievance raised before the management
seems to be just and rightful as well as in accordance with Section 22, 23 and 24 of the Industrial Dispute Act the
reaction of the management seems to have been harsh, non-compromising, irreconcilable and unjust. The
management did not notify any restraint over strike, staging dharna etc. by the workmen as per the provisions of
Section 22, 23 and 24 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1177
Participation in strike whether MISCONDUCT per se
42.
The workmen Suresh, Dalbir Singh, Ran Singh are charged of inciting other workmen to join the strike.
Workmen Vijay Pal, Sanjay Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Mukesh Kumar are charged to have deserted from duty to sat
on dharna and incited the other workmen also to join the strike. Workman Wazer Singh is charged of absconding
from duty on 31.03. 2008 and indulged in misrepresenting and inciting the other workmen to join the strike On
1.4.2008 despite the request of JAC management refused to report on duty which is a gross misconduct. Likewise
workman Jagtar Singh is charged with deserting the duty on 01.04.2008, 02.04.2008, 17.04.2008 without permission
and on when deserted duty on 08.05.2008 he sat on dharna till 13.05.2008 and despite appeal of the management did
not heed to report on duty which amounts to serious misconduct. The workman Raj Kumar is charged of deserting
duty on 02.04.2008 roamed here and there at import terminal inciting other workmen also to join the strike. Charge of
some other incident of fracas with Satish Kumar(driver) and Sunil (supervisor). He is charged of abusing and uttering
cast related abusive words to loader Ramchander. He is further charged with other incident of forcibly entering the
office of GM with 5-6 other workmen in an attempt to misbehave with him om 21.10.2005. Likewise workman
Manoj Kumar is accused of distorting of facts and indulging in falsehood, com accident by fast driving of forklift and
causing thereby damage. He is charged with mainly absconding from duty and joining the strike on 08.05.2008 and of
enticing other workmen to join the strike.
43.
The incidents which are made basis of charges labelled against workmen concerned were stated by the
management to amount serious and gross misconduct which if proved by evidence in the enquiry shall be sufficient to
ensue punishment of termination of service. Enquiry is held vitiated and struck off by the tribunal. The management
was required to prove the charges before the tribunal. In evidence the management failed to produce before the
tribunal muster roll or attendance register which they were duty bound to maintain and preserve under the provisions
of model standing order in accordance with the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946, Management
witnesses refused to have any such document. In the absence of muster roll or attendance register the allegation of
absconding from or deserting duty is not found proved.
44.
MW3 Naresh an assistant manager of JAC on having been confronted in cross examination told about
workmen Jai Bhagwan, Rajender Singh and Krishan Chand that they were present in the crowd of strike. He has not
assigned to them active role in sabotaging or other kind of violence in strike. Though he denied the suggestion that he
deposed in affidavit of examination in chief falsely to make the management’ case good against the workmen and
defeat the interest of the workmen but has not supported the contents pf paras 8, 9, and 10 of the said affidavit which
alleges act of misconduct He told that action against the above workmen was initiated on receiving the complaint
from ‘DIAL’ relating the incident of which he is not aware.
45.
MW1 K J Rawtani in the capacity of executive director when produced in cross examination before the
tribunal as a witness of misconduct labelled against workmen, when confronted, answered on 10.04.2019 that entries
in the log book are made only in respect of serious matter and not in respect of petty matters. He further stated that
there is no entry of incident dated 08.05.2008 and of date 13.05.2008 in the log book. This witness admits that he is
not witness of those incidents nor he was interrogated by the police about them. I he further states that FIR of that
incident is quashed by the court but expresses his un awareness about compromise if any arrived between the parties
to the incident. With regard to the same incident amounting to misconduct another management witness MW2 namely
Baboo Ram and MW3 Naresh though assert that the said incident of 13.05.2008 was entered in the log book but copy
of that is not brought on record in evidence before the tribunal because the same was not available as such the
witnesses remained un successful in proving that charge of misconduct. It would be noted that above incidents are
said by the management serious misconduct but in their turn to prove the same before the tribunal they failed to do so.
Mostly, witnesses of management stated the role of concerned workmen to have been seen in the crowd of strike or
joining the dharna but none of them assigned them role of masterminding strike or actively involved in sabotage or
other kind of violence on their part.
46.
Even if the strike is illegal, it cannot be castigated as unjustified unless the reason for it are entirely perverse
or unreasonable. If misconduct was basic to the dismissal and no enquiry precedent to the dismissal was made the
story did not end there in favour of the workmen. The law is well settled that the management may still satisfy the
tribunal about the misconduct.
47.
Mere failure to report on duty when a strike is going on does not per se amount misconduct many a workman
may under the fear of mob’s ire and fury remain absent. In the absence of active and violent participation in strike one
cannot be held guilty of misconduct merely for remaining absent from duty during strike. Punishment of dismissal
from service for passive participation even in illegal or unjustified strike by not reporting on duty is improper. In the
present case the tribunal has already held that the strike for which the present workmen were arraigned with the
charge of misconduct was not illegal and unjustified. Hon’ble the apex court in Gujrat Steels Case (supra) has “there
must be active individual excess such as master minding the unjustified aspects of the strike, e.g., violence, sabotage
or other reprehensible role. In the absence of such gravamen in the accusation, the extreme economic penalty of
discharge from service is wrong”
1178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
48.
The issue number 2 is answered that since the termination of services of the claimant workmen concerned is
not simpliciter discharge from services but punitive in nature on charges of misconduct in relation to strike allegedly
called by them illegally, unauthorised absence from duty, instigating other workmen to follow the strike and incident
of violent fracas etc. as their charges labelled against them show, there needed a full-fledged proper domestic enquiry
which was found not done by this tribunal in its order dated 25.01.2019. This tribunal has found in its discussions on
facts and evidences brought on record that domestic enquiry done by the management was not proper and vitiated. As
such there is no enquiry prior to punishment of termination from service of the concerned workmen.
49.
A defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry, even then the tribunal provided the
management to prove before it whether the charge of misconduct and other guilts labelled against the workmen
claimants are made out. The management witnesses absolutely failed to prove the charges and therefore tribunal
satisfied and reached at conclusion that on facts the order terminating the services of workmen is bad and liable to be
set aside and struck off. The issue number 3 is decided accordingly.
Reinstatement in service and payment of full back wages
50.
Since the termination of service is found bad and illegal the rule is simple that discretion to deny
reinstatement or pare down the quantum of back wages is absent save for exceptional reasons. In Hindustan Tin
Works Vs. Employees. (1979) 2 SCC 80 the Hon’ble apex court’s view is relied in the case of Gujrat Steel (supra)
is found reliance in para 150 quoted here under-
“150: Another facet of the relief turns on the demand for full back wages. Certainly, the normal rule, on
reinstatement, is full back wages since the order of termination is non est. even so, the industrial
court may well slice off a part if the workmen are not wholly blameless or the strike is illegal and
unjustified. To what extent wages for the long interregnum should be paid is, therefore, a variable
dependent on a complex of circumstances.
51.
In the present case it is neither pleaded nor proved by evidence of management that the workmen concerned
were engaged at any point of time after their termination of service in any other gainful employment. Any charge of
misconduct is not proved in the proceeding before the tribunal by the management witnesses therefore they are
proved blameless more over their strike is not held by this tribunal illegal and unjustified which entitles them to be
reinstated with full back wages without slicing any portion thereof or without paring down the quantum of total back
wages. In this regard the tribunal placed reliance on the view taken by the apex court in Gujrat Steel case(supra)para
143 of the judgement is quoted hereunder with due regard-
“143: Dealing with the complex of considerations bearing on payment of back wages the new perspective
emerging form Article 43-A cannot be missed, as explained in Hindustan Tin Works. Labour is no
more a mere factor in production but a partner in industry, conceptually speaking, and less than
full back wages is a sacrifice by those who cannot best afford and cannot be demanded by those,
who at least sacrifice their large “wages” though can best afford, if financial constraint is the
ground urged by the latter (Management) as inability to pay fullback pay to the former. The
morality of law and the constitutional mutation implied in Article 43-A bring about a new equation
in industrial relations. Anyway, in Hindustan Tin Works case, 75% of the past wages was directed
to be paid. Travelling over the same ground by going through every precedent is supererogatory
and we hold the rule is simple that the discretion to deny reinstatement or pare down the quantum
of back wages is absent save for exceptional reasons.
In the case of the Gujrat steel (supra) the apex court discussed the view propounded in the case of Hindustan Tin
Works (supra) as below-
“142: The recent case of Hindustan Tin Works v. Its Employees (1) sets out the rule on reinstatement and
back wages when the order of this Court, et al, deal with this subject:
"It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given
that the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service. The spectre of
common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced or the
doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt this branch of law. The relief of reinstatement
with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It
would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to
the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings.
If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be
reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the workmen
has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer. Speaking realistically, where
termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the
gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such
an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when law's proverbial delay has become
stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which period the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1179
workman just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he will
be denied the back wages which would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of
penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily therefore, a workman whose
service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he
was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would
be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the
service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case, viz., to resist the workmen's
demand for revision of wages, the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such
circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule it should be followed with full back
wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the Constitution would assist us in reaching a just conclusion in this
respect.............. In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding
relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a
motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and
the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the
Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances.
ENTITLEMENT FOR FULL BACK WAGES
52.
It has been elaborated and explained by the apex court in Gujrat Steel’s case (supra) why in case where mis
conduct could not be proved and termination from services is held illegal the workmen is entitled to be reinstated in
service with full back wages. Paras 149 and 150 are quoted here under-
“149: Even so, during the several years of the pendency of the dispute, surely some workmen would have
secured employment elsewhere as was conceded by counsel at a certain stage, and it is not
equitable to recall them merely to vindicate the law especially when new workmen already in
precarious service may have to be evicted to accommodate them. In the course of the debate at the
Bar we gained the impression that somewhere around a hundred workmen are likely to be
alternatively employed. Hopefully, there is no hazard in this guess.
“150: Another facet of the relief turns on the demand for full back wages. Certainly, the normal rule, on
reinstatement, is full back wages since the order of termination is non est. even so, the industrial
court may well slice off a part if the workmen are not wholly blameless or the strike is illegal and
unjustified. To what extent wages for the long interregnum should be paid is, therefore, a variable
dependent on a complex of circumstances.
53.
All the managements who are made parties in the statement of claim are necessary parties for the
adjudication of the industrial dispute referred to this tribunal. On facts and evidence this has been conclusively held in
preceding paras that ‘AAI’ is the principal employer in connection with the claimants/workmen concerned and the
‘DIAL’ though independently incorporated and registered as company but has no other business than to work as
necessary appendages of the ‘AAI’ under OMDA, it is none the less principal employer with ‘AAI’. ‘DIAL’ and
‘AAI’ for the purpose of administration, governance of all the affairs of IGI airport have the same and in severable
interest and liability jointly and severally. ‘HAWK’ and ‘JAC’ are their sub-contractors bound to work under their
instruction. The issue number 3 therefore answered that the claim is not suffering with defect of misjoinder of party.
54.
In the words of Justice V R Krishna Iyer spoken in the case of Gujrat Steel (supra) every litigation has a
moral and the foremost being that the economics of law is the essence of labour jurisprudence.
Before that, I depart discussions and proclaim award in conclusion would like to cite para 5 of the judgement in
Gujrat Steel Case (supra) authored by Justice Krishna Iyer:
“5:
Gandhiji, to whom the Arbitrator has adverted in passing in his award, way back in March 1946,
wrote on Capitalism and Strikes in the Harijan:
“How should capital behave when labour strikes? This question is in the air and has great
importance at the present moment. One way is that of suppression named or nicknamed ‘American’.
It consists in suppression of labour through organized goondaism. Everybody would consider this
as wrong and destructive. The other way, right and honourable, consists in considering every strike
on its merits and giving labour its due – not what capital considers as due, but what labour itself
would so consider and enlightened public opinion acclaims as just-…
In my opinion, employers and employed are equal partners even if employees are not considered
superior. But what we see today is the reverse. The reason is that the employers harness
intelligence on their side. They have the superior advantage which concentration of capital brings
with it, and they know how to make use of it…Whilst capital in India is fairly organized, labour is
still in a more or less disorganized condition in spite of Unions and Federation. Therefore, it lacks
the power that true combination gives.
1180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence, my advice to the employers would be that they should willingly regard workers as the real
owners of the concerns which they fancy, they have created.”
AWARD
Reaching at conclusion arrived on the basis of discussions made herein above the reference of industrial dispute is
adjudicated and answered that the ‘AAI’ and ‘DIAL’ are jointly and severally liable for illegal termination of services
of the workmen claimants and consequent thereupon they are made bound with the following terms and direction
under the AWARD that-
(a)
The termination of services of all the 23 workmen/claimants detailed and described in the charts A & B
appended with para 3 of the judgement done by the management of the opposite parties 1 to 4 on dates shown in
column. 6 of the above charts are held here by bad in law and illegal consequent thereupon the same are set aside and
struck off.
(b)
All the claimants/workmen are held hereby entitled to be reinstated forthwith in services by the ‘AAI’ and
‘DIAL’ with all consequential benefits of seniority, wages/salary and other emoluments payable under law to
workmen of the ‘AAI’.
(c)
The claimants/ workmen shall be entitled to full back wages without slicing or pare down it’ quantum. the
‘AAI’ and ‘DIAL’ are directed to pay off the entire arrear of back wages as awarded above to each and every
claimant/workman within 30 days from the date of award otherwise in case of failure to pay of the same within
aforesaid prescribed they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of their accrual. And
in case of failure to comply with the award the same shall be recoverable as land revenue.
(d)
The ‘AAI’ and ‘DIAL’ are directed to reinstate all the 23 claimants/workmen detailed and described in the
chart A & B appended with para 3 of the judgement with all consequential benefits forthwith within 30 days from the
date of order otherwise they shall be jointly and severally would be liable to pay each and every claimant/workmen
compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per day till date of their reinstatement in service is done. In case of failure to pay
the compensation as directed above the same shall be recoverable as land revenue with interest at the rate 6% per
annum.
(e)
The opposite parties ‘HAWK’ and ‘JAC’ for their illegal act of termination of services of claimants/
workmen in collusion with ‘DIAL’ and ‘AAI’ shall also be liable to pay compensatory cost along with ‘AAI’ and
‘DIAL’ as the workmen concerned were forced by them to face illegal loss of employment for no fault of them and
were pushed in unwanted litigation causing thereby mental agony and harassment. All the four opposite parties ‘AAI’,
‘DIAL’, ‘HAWK’ and ‘JACK’ are directed to pay compensatory cost severally and separately to all the concerned
workmen individually a lump sum amount of Rs.10 thousand for the 12 years of litigation in the tribunal since the
year 2011 within 30 days from the date of AWARD. In case of failure to pay the same within aforesaid prescribed
time the said amount shall be recoverable as land revenue with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
(f)
Office is directed to send the AWARD forthwith to the appropriate government in due course of procedure
under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947 for implementation and execution in accordance with law.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Dated : 28.02.2024
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच भारत ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; र ेग्लास जसक् ोठरटी एिेंसी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िलवीर
वसंि र्ािर द्वारा आल इंजड ा िनरल मज़िूर रेड ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण
एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-131/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- िेड -16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-33]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 131/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1181
relation to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; Rayglass Security Agency and Shri Dalveer Singh
Chahar through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-33]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.131/2015
Shri Dalveer Singh Chahar S/o Late Sh. Mangal Singh,
Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (regd.),
Village – Asavata, Post – Asavata,
Thana – Palwal, Tehsil- Palwal,
District- Palwal (Haryana)
Claimant…
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Address-17, Guest House,
Aurangjeb Road,
New Delhi-110011
2. Ryeglass Security Agency,
Commercial Unit No. 101/2,
Ist Floor, Aggarwal Shopping Square,
Plot No. C.S.C./O.C.F.-1,
Sector 19, Rohini, New Delhi-110085
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
1. This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his
termination from the service on 29.08.2014 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and
he be reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with
the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through Ryeglass Security Agency. He has not been provided any
legal facilities. When the workman went to join his job he was illegally terminated form his service on
29.08.2014 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry by the management.
He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the present claim petition.
2. Management No.1 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. However, the
management no.2 has appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, rejoinder filed by the claimant
and issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on 13.09.2017. After that, claimant evidence
also not filed. Despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his
claim.
3. Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant award. No disputant
award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the
appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 06.02.2024
1182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच इंिरप्रस्ट् गैस जलजमटेड; मेससच एसआईएस जसक् ोठरटी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मोिम्मि
आठरफ के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट
(ठरफरेन्स न.-39/2023) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी
के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- िेड -16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-32]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Inderprastha Gas Limited; M/s SIS Security Limited and Mohammad Arif which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-32]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.39/2023
Md. Arif S/o Md. Nasim,
D-326, Gali No. 8, Shri Ram Colony,
Rajeev Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi-110094.
Claimant…
Versus
1. M/s Inderprastha Gas Limited,
178, Kaka Nagar, India Gate, New Delhi-110003
2. M/s SIS Security Limited,
T-2341 3rd Floor, Ashok Nagar, Faiz Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.ND.96(18)/ID(2A)2023-DY.CLC dated 25.01.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s SIS Security Limited in terminating the services of Md. Arif S/o
Md. Nasim, Security Guard, w.e.f. 08.04.2021 is legal, Just, and proper? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1183
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 06.02.2024
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 514.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री रािा राम ृाल द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 60/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती
िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/22/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 60/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Raja Ram Pal through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/22/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.60/2022
Sh. Raja Ram Pal S/o Sh. Ram Sanehi Pal,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
1184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-
42011/22/2022-IR(M) dated 04.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Raja Ram Pal S/o Sh. Ram Sanehi Pal, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 515.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री राम प् ारे ृाल द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-61/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती
िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/23/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1185
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 61/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Ram Pyare Pal through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/23/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.61/2022
Sh. Ram Pyare Pal S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Pal,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/23/2022-IR(M) dated 04.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Ram Pyare Pal S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Pal, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 516.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार मेससच
सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री
मुकेि कश् ृ द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-63/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/13/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 63/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Mukesh Kashap through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/13/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 63/2022
Sh. Mukesh Kasyap S/o Sh. Ram Lal,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1187
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
Shri Om Prakash Singh, AR for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-42011/13/2022-IR(M) dated 02.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Mukesh Kasyap S/o Sh. Ram Lal, for the period form 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Central Warehousing Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 517.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री राम सुिील ृटेल द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण
एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-64/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/15/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
1188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 64/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Ram Sushil Patel through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/15/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.64/2022
Sh. Ram Sushil Patel S/o Sh. Ram Khelawan Patel,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-
42011/15/2022-IR(M) dated 02.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Ram Sushil Patel S/o Sh. Ram Khelawan Patel, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and
01.04.2020 to 31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central
Warehousing Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1189
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 518.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री िीर वसंि द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-66/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/10/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 66/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Dheer Singh through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/10/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.66/2022
Sh. Dheer Singh S/o Sh. Dhani Ram,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
1190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/10/2022-IR(M) dated 31.01.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Dheer Singh S/o Sh. Dhani Ram, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 519.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री ज्ञानेंर जमश्रा द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-67/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल -42011/17/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1191
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 67/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Gyanedra Mishra through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/17/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 67/2022
Sh. Gyanedra Mishra S/o Sh. Sheshmani Mishra,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/17/2022-IR(M) dated 02.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Gyanedra Mishra S/o Sh. Sheshmani Mishra, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020
1192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to 31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central
Warehousing Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 520.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री मनोि कुमार द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-71/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती
िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल -42011/16/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 71/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Manoj Kumar through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/16/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.71/2022
Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Bishambhar Pal,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1193
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-42011/16/2022-IR(M) dated 02.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Bishambhar Pal, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 521.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री छोटे लाल द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स नं.-72/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल -42011/07/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
1194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 72/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Chote Lal through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/07/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 72/2022
Sh. Chote Lal S/o Sh. Mata Fer,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/07/2022-IR(M) dated 31.01.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Chota Lal S/o Sh. Mata Fer, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 31.12.2020
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1195
from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 522.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री डी. आई. र्ंडोक, िनरल सेक्रेटरी, फेडरेिन
ऑफ़ सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन एम्प्लाइि ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण
एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-77/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/01/2021-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 77/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation and Shri D. I. Chandok, General Secretary, Federation of
Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/01/2021-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
ID No.77/2021
Sh. D.I. Chandhok, General Secretary,
Federation of Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union,
WZ-677, Shiv Nagar Ext.,
Jail Road
Delhi-110058
Claimant…
Versus
The Group General Manager (Personal),
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
4/1, Shri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
Management…
1196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
None for the claimant
Sh. Phool Singh, A/R for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/1/2021-IR(M) dated 11.03.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi while issuing the
circular dated 15.03.2018 and 20.03.2018 vide which additional duties have been assigned to the Junior
Technical Assistants is against the MOU dated 02.09.2019 arrived between the management and the workmen
represented by the Federation of Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union is amounts to unfair
labour practice and falls under the clause 14 of Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If yes,
what necessary directions are necessary in this regard?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 523.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री िीरा लाल ृटेल द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स नं.-31/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती
िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-421011/05/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and
Shri Heera Lal Patel through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/05/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1197
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
ID No. 31/2022
Sh. Heera Lal Patel S/o Sh. Jagy P`atel,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/05/2022-IR(M) dated 27.01.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Heera Lal Patel S/o Sh. Jagy Patel, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under the Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
1198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 524.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच सेंरल वे रिाउवसंग कॉृोरेिन; मेससच सुमन फॉरवार्डिंग एिेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री उमन वसंि द्वारा िनरल मज़िूर ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स नं.-94/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/02/2022-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 94/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and Shri
Uman Singh through General Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/02/2022-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 94/2022
Sh. Umang Singh S/o Sh. Bhuwan Singh,
Through General Mazdoor Union (Regd)
B-1/A Nathu Colony East, 100 Foota Road, Shahdra
Delhi-110093
Claimant…
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
M/s Central Warehousing Corporation,
Scope Minar, First Floor, CORE-3,
Laxmi Nagar, Distt.-Centre
New Delhi-110092.
2. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1199
Registered Office-76, G. T. Road(South),
Howrah-711101.
3. The Manager,
M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
ICD, Near Ghazipur Village, Patparganj,
Delhi-110096.
Management…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/02/2022-IR(M) dated 24.01.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for payment of bonus in respect of Workman
Sh. Umang Singh S/o Sh. Bhuwan Singh, for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to
31.12.2020 from the Management of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. under Central Warehousing
Corporation, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 525.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमचकार/ ूजन न के बीर् अनुबंि में
जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, र्ंडीगढ़, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स नं.- 32/2017) को िैसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[la- एल-30011/57/2017-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
1200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Their Workmen/Union which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-30011/57/2017-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 32/2017
Registered On: 20.02.2018
Indian Oil Panipat Refinery Employees Union, C/o Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery,
Baholi, Panipat, Haryana-132140, through The General Secretary.
...........Workman
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery & Petrochemical Complex, Panipat, Haryana-132140,
through the Executive Director (In-Charge).
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On: 16.02.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30011/57/2017-IR(M) dated 04.01.2018 under clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the demand of the Union Indian Oil Panipat Refinery Employees Union in respect of
removal of income celing Rs.9000/- for dependent parents for medical purposes is legal & justified? If
yes, what relief the union/ workmen of IOCL Panipat Refinery is/ are entitled to and from which
dated?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by
workman but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the management that
workman is not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.
2.
Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true.
Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for filing replication but of no use. Which denotes that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice
except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution
of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 526.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
भारत ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रोजि राम वसंि अजल ास के बीर् अनुबंि में
जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, र्ंडीगढ़, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 18/2020) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[la- िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम) 30]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 18/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1201
cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Shri Rohi Ram Singh Alias which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M) 30]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 18/2020
Registered On:-29.12.2020
Rohi Ram Singh alias Rohi Singh S/o Sh. Ghicher Singh R/o VPO Bhindran, Tehsil & District Sangrur.
...........Workman
Versus
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Marketing Division Kandla, Jind Road, Jind Road, Sangrur, Punjab 148001
through its Depot. Manager.
2. Harpinder Pal Singh Security Agency, Office: Cabin No.1, 2nd Floor, SCO 830, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh
(U.T.)-160101 through its Managing Director.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-16.02.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Rohi Ram Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for giving correct address of
respondent No.2 by the Workman but workman is not responding from several dates which denotes that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits. It is submitted by the Ld. AR of Workman that the Workman
is not in his contact.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 527.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच श्री सीमेंट जलजमटेड; मेससच टीमलीि सर्वचसेि जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री राि कुमार के बीर्
अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , र्ंडीगढ़, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स नं.- 155/2018)
को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-29011/17/2018-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 155/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
1202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Shree Cement Limited; M/s Teamlease Services Limited and Shri Raj Kumar which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-29011/17/2018-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 155/2018
Registered On: 25.02.2019
Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Jodha Ram R/o Village Ram Nagar, P.O. & Distt. Jind.
Second Address:
Karan Singh Rana, Legal Adviser, C/o Cement Karamchari Sangh Affiliated BMS, Lal Bati Chowk, G.T. Road,
Panipat.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
M/s Shree Cement Limited, Village Khukhrana, Post-Aasan, District Panipat (Haryana)-132103.
2.
The Manager, M/s Teamlease Services Limited C/o Shree Cement Limited, Village Khukhrana, Post-Aasan,
District Panipat (Haryana)-132103.
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On: 01.02.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-29011/17/2018-IR(M) dated 29.01.2019, under clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the Management No.2 i.e. Team Lease Services Ltd. by transferring the
Workman Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Jodha Ram during the conciliation proceedings from the location of
Management No.1 Shree Cement, Panipat to Shree Cement, Karnataka on the basis of terms and
conditions of 2 (ix) indicated the appointment letter dated 01.02.2016 issued by the Tem Lease Services
Ltd. is covered under Section 33(1)(n) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and if yes, whether the action is
also permissible under Section 33(1)(n) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? If not permissible, what relief
the Workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by
Workman but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the management that
workman is not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.
2.
Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true.
Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file the replication i.e. from 08.07.2021 till today. It
shows that workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no
choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-
prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1203
नई दिल् ली, 15 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 528.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससच स्ट्टोन इंटरनेिनल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रमेि र्न्ि, िनरल सेक्रेटरी, ृत् र ान कामगार ूजन न
के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कोटा, ृंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- (केंरी )-
3/2009(सीआईएस)-90/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल -29012/84/2008-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central)-3/2009(CIS-90/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s Stone International and Shri Ramesh Chand, General Secretary, Stone Mine Workers Union which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-29012/84/2008-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
U;k;k/kh’k] vkS~|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk ¼jkt½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vpZuk vxzoky] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&3@2009¼lhvkbZ,l&90@2014½
fnukad LFkkfir%07@01@2009
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k
dza-,y&29012@84@2008&vkbZvkj¼,e½@
fnukad 15@10@2008
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
jes'k pUn iq= /kUuk yky }kjk tujy lsdzsV~zh] iRFkj [kku dkexkj ;wfu;u] caxkyh dksyksuh] Nkouh] dksVkA
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
tujy eSustj] eS- LVksu bUVjus'kuy] pspV]
rglhy jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk¼jkt-½A
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
,di{kh; dk;Zokgh
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fnukad%21@09@2021
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 15@10@2008 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&
"Whether the action of the management of M/s Stone International Pvt. Ltd., Chechat in terminating the
services of Shri Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Dhannalal w.e.f. 12/9/2007 is just and legal? To what relief the
workman is entitled and from which date?"
1204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2&mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ
Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
LVksu bUVjus'kuy izk-fy- ekbZUl] pspV] ftyk dksVk ds izcU/kd us fn-01@04@89 ls nSfud osru ij gsYij ds in ij lsok esa fu;qDr fd;k Fkk
rFkk i= fn-20@07@94 ds }kjk mls fn-01@07@94 ls lhfu;j gsYij bysfDV~zf'k;u ds in ij inksUur dj fn;k Fkk ftls fn-19@07@2003
ls voS/kkfud ukSdjh ls gVk fn;s tkus ds fookn esa vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½ t;iqj }kjk fn-26@07@2005 dks fiNys 50 izfr'kr osru o lsok dh
fujUrjrk lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ mDr vokMZ dh ikyuk esa fu;kstd ds ;gkW fn-08@11@2005 dks
mifLFkfr fjiksVZ ds lkFk mifLFkr gqvk rks dsoy mldh mifLFkfr fjiksVZ ys yh] fdUrq mls M~;wVh ij ugha fy;k x;k] ckn esa fu;kstd dks
izkslhD;wV djus ds izkFkZuk&i= ij fn-20@06@2007 dks M~;wVh ij fy;k x;k] fdUrq vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk tc pkgs rc mldh mifLFkfr ;k
vuqifLFkfr ntZ dh tkdj mls fn-12@09@2007 dks daiuh lsokvksa ls eqfDr ckcr i= nsdj lsok eqDr dj fn;k x;kA bl i= esa izkFkhZ dks
fiNys 12 fnu ls o fiNys nks ekg esa Hkh vuqifLFkr crkrs gq, LFkk;h&vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 15¼ts½¼1½ ds rgr viuh lsokvksa ls eqDr ekurs gq, lsok
ls gVkuk of.kZr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ vuqifLFkfr ckcr dksbZ vkjksi&i= ugha fn;k] uk Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk o uk dksbZ
foHkkxh; tkWp dh tksfd U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)karksa dh vogsyuk gSA dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us fn-01@04@89 ls 11@09@2007 rd fujUrj
dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ls Hkh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS rFkkfi mls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk esa dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl
osru o NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k ftl dkj.k mldh NaVuh voS/k gSA blds vfrfjDr mls gVkrs le; mlls dfu"B Jfed pUnzHkku o clUr
dqekj dks fu;kstu esa cuk;s j[kk x;k tksfd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&th dk mYya?ku gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ
osru] ykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3&;gkW ;g mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk lehphu gksxk fd vknsf'kdk fnukafdr 12@11@2010 esa of.kZrkuqlkj vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls ckotwn rkehy
uksfVl ds fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ls mlds fo:) dk;Zokgh ,di{kh; vey esa yk;h x;hA
4&lk{; ,di{kh; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ jes'k pUn us viuk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k rFkk nLrkosth lk{; esa izn'kZ McY;w-1 yxk;r McY;w-9 izLrqr dj
iznf'kZr djok;s gSaA
5&cgl ,drjQk izkFkhZ i{k dh lquh x;hA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k ds }kjk cgl djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k x;k fd igys Hkh izkFkhZ dks ,d ckj lsok ls
i`Fkd fd;k x;k Fkk ftl ckcr mlds }kjk Je U;k;ky; esa Dyse is'k djds lsok cgkyh dk vkns'k izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj fQj U;k;kf/kdj.k
ds vkns'k ls gh mls lsok esa fy;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq fQj iqu% fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k vkSj fdlh Hkh izdkj dk
dksbZ Hkqxrku Hkh vizkFkhZ ds }kjk ugha fd;k tkrk gSA Lo;a dks iqu% ukSdjh ij fy;s tkus ds ckcr izn'kZ McY;w-4 i= Hkh izkFkhZ ds }kjk vizkFkhZ
dks fn;k x;k Fkk ftldh jftLVMZ ,Mh Hkh izn'kZ McY;w-5 izkFkhZ us is'k dh gS ysfdu mlds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ij ugha fy;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZ ds }kjk fn-01@04@1989 ls 11@09@2007 rd yxkrkj vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dk;Z fd;k x;k gS blfy, fn-12@09@2007 dks fcuk vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk fd;s izkFkhZ dks gVk;k tkuk vuqfpr o voS/k gS] vr% izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ dh lsok esa iqu% vkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA
6&lquk x;kA izn'kZ McY;w-1 fnukafdr 31@03@93 ds fu;qfDr vkns'k ls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fn-01@04@93 ls gsYij ds in ij
fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izn'kZ McY;w-2 fn-20@07@94 dk vizkFkhZ dk izkFkhZ dks gsYij ls lhfu;j gsYij¼bysfDV~zf'k;u½ ds in ij inksUur fd;s
tkus dk vkns'k gSA izn'kZ McY;w-3 dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds }kjk fn-26@07@2005 dks ikfjr vokMZ dh
izfr gS ftlls ;g irk pyrk gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds fo:) U;k;kf/kdj.k esa Dyse izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZ us
is'k fd;k Fkk vkSj bl fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh 50 izfr'kr iwoZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh ds vkns'k fn;s x;s FksA izkFkhZ ds }kjk mls iqu% fn-
12@09@2007 dks izn'kZ McY;w-6 vkns'k ls gVk;k tkuk dgk x;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w-6 vkns'k dks ns[kk tk; rks blesa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd
vki] vFkkZr izkFkhZ fiNys 12 fnu ls vuqifLFkr gaS vkSj tqykbZ esa Hkh fHkUu&fHkUu frfFk;ksa ij 12 fnu rd izkFkhZ fcuk lwpuk vkSj vuqefr ds
vuqifLFkr jgk gS vkSj mlh vuq:i vxLr o flrEcj esa Hkh vuqifLFkr jgk gS vkSj bu vuqifLFkfr;ksa ds pyrs bl izn'kZ McY;w-6 vkns'k ls izkFkhZ
dh lsok;sa lekIr dh x;h gSaA ;g ns[kus ;ksX; gS fd vizkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr pyrs bl izn'kZ McY;w-6 vkns'k esa tks izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr dk
vadu fd;k x;k gS] ml ckcr fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ lk{; vizkFkhZ dh i=koyh ij miyc/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds lsok esa vuqifLFkr jgus ij
dksbZ ?kjsyq tkWp dh x;h gks] dksbZ vkjksi&i= fn;k x;k gks] bl lEcU/k esa Hkh dksbZ ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA
izn'kZ McY;w-9 fnukafdr 05@06@2008 ds vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu esa Hkh vafdr gS fd vizkFkhZ dk;Zokfg;ksa esa mifLFkr ugha vk;kA rkRi;Z ;g gS
fd izkFkhZ dks gVk;s tkus ds lUnHkZ esa tks dkj.k izn'kZ McY;w-6 esa vafdr fd;s x;s gSa] ml ckcr dksbZ vkjksi&i= mls fn;k x;k gks vFkok mu
dkj.kksa dh oS/krk ds ckcr vizkFkhZ dk dksbZ tokc] dksbZ lk{;] dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA [k.Mu ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd
o nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g fl) gS fd izkFkhZ us fn-01@04@89 ls 11@09@2007 rd vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW yxkrkj dke fd;k gS vkSj gVk;s tkus ls
iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds rgr dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru o NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k gSA
7&vius Dyse izkFkZuk&i= esa izkFkhZ us /kkjk 25&th dh ikyuk Hkh ugha fd;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gS vkSj vafdr fd;k gS fd mlls dfu"B Jfed
pUnzHkku o clUr dqekj vHkh Hkh dk;Z dj jgs gSa] ijUrq bl ckcr fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh x;h gSA ysfdu tSlk fd Åij
vafdr fd;k x;k gS] izkFkhZ dk fn-01@04@89 ls 11@09@2007 rd yxkrkj vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dke djuk vkSj vizkFkhZ ds }kjk fn-12@09@2007
ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk ugha fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gSA fygktk izkFkhZ lsok esa cgkyh dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj
mldk ;g Dyse izkFkZuk&i= blh vuq:i fuEukuqlkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 15@10@2008 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl
fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd tujy eSustj] eS- LVksu bUVjus'kuy] pspV] rglhy jkexate.Mh] ftyk
dksVk }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed jes'k pUn dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk fd;s fcuk fnukad 12@09@2007 ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk
mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gS] Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed fiNys 50 izfr'kr osru o lsok dh fujUrjrk lfgr iqu% lsok esa cgky gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA
Jherh vpZuk vxzoky] U;k;k/kh'k
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1205
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
डाकघर अिीक्षक, मु् डाकघर, न ाृुरा, कोटा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री जवश्वना वसंि,
कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण कोटा,
औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण कोटा,
ृंर्ाट आई टी (केंरी )-2
को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 14/03/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 40012/54/2007-vkbZvkj (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2024
S.O. 529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award I.T. (Central)-02/2008 (CIS-42/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal Kota, as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Superintendent of Post
Offices, Main Post Office, Nayapura, Kota, and Shri Vishwanath Singh, Worker, Junction, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/03/2024.
[No. L- 40012/54/2007- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh egs'k iqusBk] vkj-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k -¼dsUnzh;½& 2@2008¼lhvkbZ,l&42@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001512008½
fnukad LFkkfir% 02-04-2008
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz- ,y&40012@54@2007 [IR(DU)]@
fn- 27-11-2007
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
fo'oukFk flag iq= eksgu flag] fuoklh&txnh'k gksVy ds uhps] guqeku psru efUnj ds ikl] ykM+iqjk]
dksVkA
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
v/kh{kd] iksLV vkWfQl] eSu iksLV vkWfQl] u;kiqjk] dksVk
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh fnyhi flag
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh lh-ch- lksjy
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fn-% 05-12-2023
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad fn-27-11-2007 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&
1206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"Whether the action of the management of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Main Post
Office, Nayapura, Kota in terminating the services of their workman Shri Vishwanath Singh
w.e.f. 20.10.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2- mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa
izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mls
vizkFkhZ us loZizFke o"kZ 1996 esa nSfud etnwjh ij jkeiqjk Mkd?kj esa dk;Z djus gsrq yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds ;gka o"kZ
1996 ls fnukad 20-10-2006 rd yxkrkj jkeiqjk Mkd?kj esa pkSdhnkj] fVfdV forj.k ,oa LihM iksLV vkfn dk dk;Z fd;k gSA
fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds fnukad 20-10-2006 ls ekSf[kd vkns'k nsdj lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k] lsok ls i`Fkd djrs
le; mldks 2150@&:- izfrekg ds fglkc ls osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ ds leLr lsok fjdkWMZ fu;kstd ds ikl gSA
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkus ls iwoZ uksfVl o uksfVl osru uk nsdj] izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa dks fu;kstu esa j[kdj
,oa izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkdj mlds LFkku u, Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ds izko/kkuksa dh vogsyuk dh gSA
izkFkhZ ls fn- 05-12-2000 ls yxkrkj Mkd?kj jkeiqjk dksVk esa vf/kdkjh Jherh ek/kqjh tks'kh ds vkns'k vuqlkj pkSdhnkj dk dk;Z
djok;k x;kA fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ ls LihM iksLV dk dk;Z Hkh fy;k x;k gS ftlds ckcr~ fnukad 02-08-2001 dks mi Mkdiky dksVk
flVh ds }kjk mlds dk;Z fy;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gS ftlds vuqlkj mlds }kjk fu;kstd ds ;gka LihM iksLV fidvi
dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fu;kstd ds ;gka 10 o"kZ rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;s tkus ds ckn LFkk;h fd;s tkus fd ekax djus ij
fu;kstd }kjk mldks dk;Z ls gVk fn;k x;k] fu;kstd dk d`R; voS/k o vuqfpr gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ
osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k x;k gSA
3- vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks miMkdiky dksVk flVh }kjk
ikuh Hkjus ds dk;Z ij dUVhtsUV isM ds :i esa vLFkk;h :i ls yxk;k x;k Fkk ;g dksbZ Lohd`r in ugha gS bls QqVdj HkRrs ij
ikuh Hkjus ds fy, yxk;k x;k FkkA ;g deZpkjh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrkA izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh muds foHkkx esa fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k gS
,oa muds ;gka nSfud etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr nsus dk dksbZ Lohd`r in ugha gSA dksVk flVh miMkd?kj esa is;ty Hkjus dh
O;oLFkk gsrq miMkdiky dks ikuh HkRrk Lohd`r gS ftldk og mi;ksx blh dk;Z ds fy, djrk gS] ftldk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha j[kk
tkrk gSA ;g dk;Z miMkdiky }kjk fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vkdfLed :i ls QwVdj O;; ij djk;k tk ldrk gS vkSj mlh dks ikuh
Hkjus dh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dks uk rks fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh vkSj uk gh ekSf[kd vkns'k ls gVk;k x;k gS cfYd
;g laHko gS fd miMkdiky }kjk izkFkhZ ls Lohd`r HkRrs dk Hkqxrku dj ikuh Hkjokus dk dke fy;k x;k gks] ijUrq bldk dksbZ
vfHkys[k vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; esa ugha gS D;ksafd bldk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha j[kk tkrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk vLFkk;h :i ls dqN fnuksa rd crkSj
vkmVlkbZMj pkSdhnkj dk dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk ftldk mls fu;ekuqlkj HkRrk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ
fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
4- lk{; esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a dk ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ujsUnz dqekj egs'ojh dk ‘kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftu ij
,d&nwljs i{k }kjk ijLij ftjg dh xbZ gSA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k
fd;k tkosxkA
5- mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ tks mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA
6- gLrxr izdj.k esa U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ }kjk of.kZr lsok i`Fkd fnukad 20-10-2006 ls iwoZ ds ,d
dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vFkok ugha\
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a dk ‘kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlus LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh gSa vkSj ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd mls izfri{kh us dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vkSj lsok ls gVkus dk
vkns'k ugha fn;k Fkk mls rks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dke ij j[kk FkkA ;g ckr xyr gS fd mls fu;kstd ikuh Hkjus dk HkRrk
nsrs gks cfYd mls osru feyrk FkkA izn'kZ ,e&1 dh mls tkudkjh ugha gSA mls ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd iksLVekLVj dks ;g
vf/kdkj izkIr gks fd og fdlh dks Hkh ikuh Hkjus dk HkRrk ns ldrk gSA iksLVekLVj lkgc mls Hkqxrku djrs FksA ;g ckr xyr gS
fd mldh gktjh jftLVj esa ugha gksrh gksA og jftLVj izfri{kh ds ikl gSA mlus mldh ukSdjh ls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkost
U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa is'k fd, gSA pkSdhnkjh dk dk;Z ijekusaV pijklh Qk:[k eksgEen xqzi Mh okyk djrk Fkk] mlds fjVk;jesaUV
ds ckn mlus pkSdhnkjh dk dke fd;k gS mlds fjVk;jesUV ls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkost U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;s x;s gS og lc
vkWfQl esa gSA LihMiksLV dk dke og vkSj ijekusUV iksLVeSu nksuksa djrs Fks] ogka cgqr ls iksLVeSu FksA iksLVekLVj ek/kqjh tks'kh]
vkuUnhyky] eksrhyky] vkSj Hkxoku nkl FksA
lk{; esa vizkFkhZ dh vkSj ls ujsUnz dqekj egs'ojh dk ‘kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mUgksus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ
Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh gS vkSj ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og fnukad 18-02-2017 ls igys miMkdiky dksVk
flVh ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA og Qkby ns[kdj crk ldrk gWwa fd izkFkhZ dks o"kZ 1996 ls fnukad 20-10-2006 rd ikuh fiykus ds
fy, j[kk FkkA rRdkyhu miMkdiky Jherh ek/kqjh tks'kh fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fu;qDr djus ds fy, vf/kd`r ugha gSA izkFkhZ us o"kZ
1996 ls 2006 rd dc&dc vkSj fdrus fdrus fnu dke fd;k mldk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha j[kk tkrk] vko';drk iM+us ij izkFkhZ dks
dke ds fy, cqyk fy;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ us dHkh muds ;gka gktjh ugha Hkjh] uk gh blus Mkd foHkkx esa dHkh dke fd;k gSA izkFkhZ
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1207
dks dsoy ikuh fiykus ds fy, j[kk Fkk bldks daVUtsUlh isM odZ ds fy, j[kk x;kA mldks pSd }kjk Hkqxrku ugha gksrk Fkk bldks
okmpj }kjk Hkqxrku gksrk FkkA ftl ij jsosU;q fVfdV yxrs Fks ;k ugha mls ugha irkA ikuh HkRrs dh jkf'k dh Lohd`fr ofj"B
v/kh{kd Mkd?kj ds LVkQ ds vuqlkj dh tkrh FkhA izkFkhZ dk dksbZ ,fj;j ugha dVrk FkkA ;g ckr xyr gS fd mldh NBs osru
vk;ksx dh jkf'k vkt Hkh muds foHkkx esa cdk;k gks vkSj ;fn jkf'k cdk;k gS rks izkFkhZ Dyse dj ldrk gSA izn'kZ MCY;w&4 yxk;r
izn'kZ MCY;w&33 muds foHkkx ds nLrkost gS rFkk izn'kZ MCY;w 3 jsQsazl gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ 24 ?k.Vs dh lsok muds
foHkkx dks nsrk gks ;fn izkFkhZ ls ikuh fiykus ds vfrfjDr pkSdhnkjh] Mkd fVdV cspus vkSj LihM iksLV fMyhojh gsrq lsok yh xbZ gks
rks mldk Hkqxrku vkmVlkbZVj ds :i esa vfrfjDr fd;k x;k gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 02-08-2001 ls
miMkdiky dksVk flVh ds }kjk dk;Z ij yxk;k gksA fdlh Hkh daVtsUlh isM dk;Z djus okys dk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha gksrk blfy,
U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa is'k ugha fd;kA gktjh dk dksbZ jftLVj ugh gksrk Mkdiky viuh lqfo/kk ds fy, dPpk jftLVj esa uke
fy[kdj fdlus fdrus fnu dke fd;k mlds vuqlkj mldk Hkqxrku djrk gSA ;g mldh tkudkjh esa ugh gS fd miMkdiky Jh
eksrhyky th ds ikl ,slk dksbZ i= vk;k gks ftles fy[kk gks dh daVtsUlh isM dk;Z djus okys dh gktjh Hkjh tkosA ;g mls ugha
irk fd izkFkhZ us lu~ 1996 ls lu~ 2006 rd dk;Z fd;k gS vFkok ughaA daVtsUlh isM dk;Z djus okys dk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha j[kk
tkrk blfy, izkFkhZ dh gktjh ls lacaf/kr fjdkWMZ U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa is'k ugha fd;k A
i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ekSf[kd lk{; ds vfrfjDr nLrkosth lk{; Hkh is'k dh xbZ ftuesa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izn'kZ MCY;w
1 izkFkhZ }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izkFkZuk i=] izn'kZ MCY;w 2 izn'kZ 1 tokc izkFkZuk i=] izn'kZ MCY;w 3 Je ea=ky; dk vkns'k
fn- 27-11-2007] izn'kZ MCY;w 4 vizkFkhZ dk i= dzekad 85@LFkkiuk@dksVk flVh fnukad 18-08-09 gS ftlesa of.kZr gS fd fn- 07-12-
2000 ls 18-12-2000 rd 10 dk Hkqxrku 1160@&:- fn- 19-02-2001 dks dj fn;k x;k gSA izn'kZ MCY;w 5 vizkFkhZ dk i= dzekad&ch-
,u-ih-,y-@2001&2002@dksVk fn- 01-08-2001 ftlesa izkFkhZ dks jkst lka; 5 cts LihM iksLV fidvi djus dk dk;Z fn;k x;k gSA
izn'kZ MCY;w 6 izkFkhZ dh pktZ fjiksVZ fn- 27-04-2001] izn'kZ MCY;w 7 izkFkhZ dh pktZ fjiksVZ fn- 11-05-2001] izn'kZ MCY;w 8 izkFkhZ dh
pktZ fjiksVZ fn- 30-06-2001] izn'kZ MCY;w 9 izkFkhZ dh pktZ fjiksVZ fn- 14-08-2001] izn'kZ MCY;w 10 jlhn@okmpj la- 220 fn-10-12-
2000 ls izkFkhZ dks 50@&:- pk;@uk'rk@[kkus dk [kpkZ] izn'kZ MCY;w 11 jlhn@okmpj la- 217 fn-16-12-2000 ls izkFkhZ dks
25@&:- pk;@uk'rk@[kkus dk [kpkZ] izn'kZ MCY;w 12 jlhn@okmpj la- 225 fn-17-12-2000 ls izkFkhZ dks 50@&:-
pk;@uk'rk@[kkus dk [kpkZ] izn'kZ MCY;w 13 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-12-2000 ls izkFkhZ dks 1775@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 14
jlhn@okmpj fn-01-01-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks 1775@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 15 jlhn@okmpj fn-019-04-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks
147@&:- Mh-,- ,fj;j] izn'kZ MCY;w 16 jlhn@okmpj fn 01-05-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks 1824@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 17
jlhn@okmpj fn-02-06-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks 1860@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 18 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-07-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks
1824@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 19 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-02-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks 1824@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 20
jlhn@okmpj fn-02-12-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks 1824@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 21 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-02-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks
1824@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 22 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-03-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks 1860@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 23
jlhn@okmpj fn-03-05-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks 1860@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 24 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-08-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks
1897@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 25 jlhn@okmpj fn01-09-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks 1897@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 26
jlhn@okmpj fn-01-10-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks 1897@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 27 jlhn@okmpj fn-06-10-2003 ls izkFkhZ dks
147@&:- Mh-,- ,fj;j] izn'kZ MCY;w 28 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-01-2004 ls izkFkhZ dks 1946@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 29
jlhn@okmpj fn-03-02-2004 ls izkFkhZ dks 1946@&:-] izn'kZ MCY;w 30 jlhn@okmpj fnukad 01-05-2004 ls izkFkhZ dks 2046@&:-
ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 31 jlhn@okmpj fn-30-09-2004 ls izkFkhZ dks 1971@&:-] izn'kZ MCY;w 32 jlhn@okmpj fn-01-12-2004 ls
izkFkhZ dks 2007@&:- ikuh HkRrk] izn'kZ MCY;w 33 jlhn@okmpj fn-02-05-2005 ls izkFkhZ dks 2007@&:- ikuh HkRrs dk Hkqxrku fd;k
x;k gSA mijksDr nLrkostksa ls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fdlh in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks vkSj uk gh
;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds v/khu mlds }kjk of.kZr vof/k esa fujarj dk;Z fd;k gksA
7- lk{; ds mijksDr foospu ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlus o"kZ 1996 ls vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fn-
20-10-2006 rd yxkrkj 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS ysfdu vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds mDr dFkuksa dk [k.Mu dj
;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS miMkdiky dksVk }kjk tc&tc t:jr gks vkSj izkFkhZ miyC/k jgk gks] vYidky ds fy, vLFkkbZ rkSj ij
izkFkhZ dks dUVhtsaV isM ds :i esa yxk;k x;k Fkk vkSj mls mDr dk;Z ds fy, QqVdj O;; en ls mldk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA
flVh miMkd?kj esa is;ty Hkjus dh O;oLFkk gsrq miMkdiky dks ikuh HkRrk Lohd`r gS ftldk og mi;ksx blh dk;Z ds fy, djrk
gS ftldk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha j[kk tkrk gS ;g dk;Z miMkdiky }kjk fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vkdfLed :i ls QqVdj O;; ij djk;k
tk ldrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Hkh ftjg eas ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vkSj lsok ls gVkus dk vkns'k
ugha fn;k og rks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dke ij FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk bruh yEch vof/k rd vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa dke djuk
crk;k gS ysfdu ckotwn blds mldh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls dh izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks cy feyrk gksA
izkFkhZ }kjk tks Hkh nLrkost is'k fd, x, gS muls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk izkFkhZ dks fdlh in ij fu;qfDr nh
xbZ gks cfYd mDr nLrkostksa ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd le;≤ ij vLFkk;h :i ls izkFkhZ dks miMkdiky dksVk }kjk ikuh Hkjus
ds dk;Z gsrq Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA ;gh ugha izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1996 ls fn- 20-10-2006 rd vizkFkhZ ds v/khu dk;Z djuk crk;k gS ysfdu
mlds }kjk tks nLrkost is'k fd, x, gS muls mlds dFkuksa dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gS D;ksafd tks Hkh nLrkost mlds }kjk is'k fd, x,
1208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gS og mlds }kjk mDr vof/k rd vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fujarj dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk lsok i`Fkd fd, tkus ds le;
2150@&:- osru dk Hkqxrku vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk fd;k tkuk crk;k gS ysfdu mlds }kjk bl laca/k esa dksbZ osru fLyi bR;kfn
izLrqr ugha dh gS uk gh izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ foHkkx ls mlls lacaf/kr nLrkostkas dks ryc djokus gsrq dksbZ izkFkZuk i= U;k;ky; esa is'k
fd;k gSA Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ls Hkh vizkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks cy feyrk gS D;ksafd tks nLrksot izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd, x,
gS muesa vf/kdrj mlds }kjk le;≤ ij ikuh Hkjus ds dk;Z gsrq mldks fd, x, Hkqxrku ds okmplZ gS uk dh osru fLyiA
izkFkhZ dks okafNr vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds fy, ;g izekf.kr djuk vko';d gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr fnukad 20-10-2006
ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dyS.Mj ekg esa mlds }kjk vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dh
vksj ls tks lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS] mlls mlds dFkuksa dh fdlh Hkh izdkj ls iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed ij 240 fnu yxkrkj
dke djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS] mlesa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g fy[k nsuk fd mlus
240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke fd;k] i;kZIr ugha gksxk] vfirq mls fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh;@nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks
lkfcr djuk gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF; lEiq"V gks lds] ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls izkFkhZ ;g rF; lkfcr
djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gS fd mlds }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr dh fnukad ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dyS.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa
mlus vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa
esa bl laca/k esa le;≤ ij ;gh fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gSA
Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore-IX(2007) SLT 805 SC esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar
izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd LABOUR LAW- 240 days completion of service- Burden of proof lies on workman to show he
worked continuously for 240 days in preceding one year - It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from examining
himself to prove factum of being in employment of employer.
Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. v(2004) LST
686=2004(8)SCC161, ¼iSjk 6½ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "It was the case of the workman that he
had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the
claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his termination. He
has filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a
year. These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC 25. No Proof of
receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere Non-production of the
muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court to hold that the workman had worked for
240 days as claimed."
Manager Reserve Bank of India Bangalore Vs S. Mani and Others 2005 (5) SCC page 100 esa ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd The Initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he
had compledted 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was held to be erroneous.
R.M. Yellatti Vs The Asst. Executive Engineer (2006 (1) SCC 1006) 2005 AIR SCW 6103 esa ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "Analysing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the
provisions of the Evidence Act. in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that this court has
repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a
given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box, workman adducing cogent
evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter
of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman
(claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period,
the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse
inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that
mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of
the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above
judgements further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the
claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.
Lastly, the above judgements lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are
perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case."
8- bl izdkj mijksDr foospu o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ
ds ;gkW mlds }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr fnukad 20-10-2006 ls Bhd iwoZ ds ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ] vFkkZr 12 dyS.Mj ekg esa fujUrj
240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj jsQjsal Hkh
blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1209
ifj.kker% jktLFkku ljdkj] Je foHkkx }kjk viuh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fn- 27-11-2007 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@fookn
dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ fo'oukFk flag viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlus
vizkFkhZ v/kh{kd] iksLV vkWfQl] u;kiqjk dksVk ds fu;kstu esa mlds }kjk of.kZr lsok lekfIr fn- 20-10-2006 ls Bhd iwoZ ds ,d
dys.Mj o"kZ esa fujarj 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
egs'k iqusBk] U;k;k/kh'k
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ूको बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; भुवनेश्वर ds iapkV (a90/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- एल-12012/45/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.90/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/45/2012- IR(B.II]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 90/2012
Date of Passing Award – 08th September, 2023
Between:
1. The Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, Jaleswar Branch,
At./Po. Jaleswar, Dist. Balasore, Orissa.
2. The Assistant General Manager,
UCO Bank, Regional Office,
KanikaChhaka, Tulasipur,
P.O. & Dist. Cuttack, Orissa – 08.
…
1st Party-Managements.
(And)
Sri Suresh Chandra Jena,
S/o. Late Sanyasi Chharan Jena,
At./Po. Dhansikulia, Dist. Balasore, Orissa.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
1210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
Sri BibhutiBhusan Swain…
For the 1st Party-
Advocate.
Managements
Sri S.N. Panda,
…
For the 2nd Party-
Advocate.
Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour& Employment in exercising its power conferred under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
have referred a dispute between the Management of UCO Bank, Jaleswar Branch and allegedly its workmen vide
letter No. L-12012/45/2012 – IR(B-II), dated 12.12.2012 for its adjudication and the schedule of the reference is as
follows:-
“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Jaleswar Branch in terminating the services of Sri
Suresh Chandra Jena, w.e.f. 21.08.2010 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
legal and justified? What relief Sri Jena is entitled to?”
2. It is required to mention here that the reference has already been decided by this Tribunal vide Award dated
28.02.2018 but the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide judgement dated 23.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.
12550/2018 has been pleased to set aside the Award passed by this Tribunal and remanded the case for final disposal.
3. The claims of the concerned workman, in brief, as per his statement of claim is as follows:-
That he was engaged as a daily wage worker at Jaleswar Branch of the UCO Bank by its Manager to perform
the job of Peon and allied services and he had worked in the said branch from 9.30 A.M to 5.30 P.M. everyday. He
had worked for six days from 05.01.2009 to 10.01.2009, six days from 12.01.2009 to 17.01.2009, 276 days from
27.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 and 55 days from 01.01.2010 to 20.03.2010. He had continuously worked for 276 days
from 27.01.2009 to 31.12.2009. He was being paid Rs. 70/- per day and payment was made on weekly basis from the
Bank’s voucher after getting his signature on back of it. But the Management all of a sudden disengaged him with
effect from 21.03.2010 without any notice. He is the only earning male member of his family and sudden
disengagement from the job put him in mental agony as well as financial constraints. He is physically handicapped
and visual disabled of 40% as per the Certificate issued by the District Headquarter Hospital, Balasore.
The Management of UCO Bank had regularized large number of daily wage workers in phased manner in
different branches but his case was not considered. He had submitted a representation before the Management on
01.11.2010 to consider his case and allow him to work in the branch but his request was not allowed.
Prayer has been made to allow him to work as Peon in the branch or in any other branch in the state of
Odisha.
4. On the other hand the case of the 1st Party-Management of UCO Bank in brief as per its written statement is as
follows:-
That, in the instant case the reference made by the Central Government is not maintainable in the eyes of law
as there was no “employer and employee” relationship between the concerned workman and the Management. The
concerned workman was never appointed under the recruitment rules, policy and procedure existed in the Bank and
the invalid engagement can never constitute any termination of service in accordance with the law. The concerned
workman was temporarily engaged like simple contract of casual nature by the local official on need basis. The
concerned workman was engaged by the Branch Manager of the UCO Bank in his personal capacity without any
sanction, approval of the competent authority. So he cannot claim or entitled for considering him as an employee of
the Management-Bank. So the disengagement was also cannot amount to termination of services by the Management-
Bank. The concerned workman was engaged by the Branch Manager of Jaleswar branch of UCO Bank from the
month of January, 2009 intermittently for cleaning and sweeping and also he was paid consolidated amount purely on
casual, temporary basis. Also the concerned workman was not in regular pay roll of the Bank and his deployment was
temporary and casual in nature which was never concurred through proper selection process as recognized by the
relevant rules and procedures.
The Management has further stated that the fact stated in Para-1 of the statement of claim is misleading, facts
stated in Para-2 and 3 of the Statement of claim are completely fallacious and the facts mentioned in the Para-4 of the
statement of claim is not true and the averments made in Para-5 & 6 are denied. The averments made in Para-7 of the
statement of claim is incomplete and misleading. The averments made in Para-8 and 9 are beyond knowledge of the
Management-Bank. A prayer has been made to pass an award in favour of the Management.
6. The second party-workman has filed his rejoinder denying all the averments made in the written statement by the
Management.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1211
7. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for effective adjudication of
the dispute.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Jaleswar Branch in terminating the services of Sri
Suresh Chandra Jena w.e.f. 21.08.2010 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is legal and justified?
2. What relief Sri Jena is entitled to?
8. The 2nd Party-Workman has examined only one witness. He is W.W.-1 Sri Suresh Chandra Jena, the workman.
9. The 2nd Party-workman has proved following documents which are marked as follows:-
(i) Ext.-1 -Photocopy of a chart towards payment made by the Branch Manager to the 2nd Party-workman.
(ii) Ext.-2 to Ext.-60 - Photocopies of the branch voucher under heading (miscellaneous) from dated
05.01.2009 to 20.03.2010.
(iii) Ext.-61 - Photocopy of the settlement on the Industrial Dispute between certain Banking Companies and
their workman dated 19.10.1966.
10. The 1st Party-Management has examined only one witness. He is Ashis Kumar Pattnaik.
11. The 1st Party-Management have not proved/exhibited any documents in their support.
FINDINGS
12. The Tribunal for the sake of convenience thinks it proper to discuss first of all on the Issue No. 1.
ISSUE NO. 1
13. It is the pleadings of the concerned workman that he was engaged as a daily wage worker at Jaleswar Branch of
UCO Bank by the Branch Manager to perform the job of Peon and he had continuously worked in the Branch from
9.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. everyday from 5.01.2009 till 31.12.2009 for 276 days on payment of Rs. 70/- per day for
every working days, but he was disengaged from job with effect from 21.08.2010.
14. On the other hand it is the pleadings in the written statement of the 1st Party-Management that the concerned
workman was not appointed on regular basis and there was no relationship between him and the Branch Manager as
“employee and employer”. However, the 1st Party-Management has admitted that the concerned workman was
engaged by the then Branch Manager in his personal capacity without any sanction or approval of the competent
authority for some job on temporary basis.
15. Now coming to the oral evidence of the Management Witness No. 1 Sri A.K. Pattnaik, it appears that he has
deposed that the then Branch Manager of the Bank had got the disputant engaged casually and temporarily in respect
of some menial job against payment made through voucher intermittently but he was neither engaged against any
vacant post nor created any relationship of master and servant with the Branch Manager. He has also deposed that as
per the records the disputant has not rendered continuous service of 240 days in a year. However, in the cross
examination he has admitted that Ext.-2 series appear to be the payment vouchers of the Bank. He has also admitted
that the disputant was paid Rs. 70/- per day for sweeping the branch, but he had not worked 240 days in the branch in
a year.
16. However, the W.W.-1, Sri Suresh Chandra Jena has categorically deposed that he had worked as daily wager
with effect from 05.01.2000 in the Jaleswar Branch of UCO Bank and he had discharged his work from 9.30 A.M. to
5.30 P.M. whereas he was paid Rs. 70/- per day on weekly basis by the Bank. He has also deposed that he had worked
with effect from 05.01.2009 till 31.12.2009 continuously without any break for 276 days. He has proved a chart
towards payments made by the Branch Manager as Ext.-1, vouchers dated 10.01.2009 to 30.03.2010 as Ext.-2 to Ext.-
60. In the cross examination he has admitted that no written letter of appointment was issued to him for discharging
the work in the Bank. He has also deposed that he was paid wages through vouchers by the Bank. He has also
admitted that he had receive Rs. 40,000/- as compensation amount in terms of the Award passed in this case.
17. Now coming to the documentary evidence it appears that the Management has not produced any documents in
support of its case. However, the workman has produced a chart showing payment since 05.01.2009 till 20.03.2010.
Now, after going through the chart it appears that since 05.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 the concerned workman had
discharged the duty of 276 days. Further Ext.-2 to Ext.-60 which are the photocopies of the vouchers for payment
since 10.01.2019 to 30.01.2010 also show that the concerned workman has been paid as per the number of days
worked.
1212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18. Now after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence it is quite apparent that the concerned workman had
discharged his duties from 05.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 in (one calendar year) for more than 240 days and he was paid
remuneration of Rs. 70/- per day for that period.
19. At this stage, it is important to mention here that the definition of workman as defined U/s 2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) reads as follows:-
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or
the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature
20. At this stage it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case as reported in 2011
LAB. I. C. 2799 (S.C) has been pleased to observe as follows:-
“14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between
full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain
language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a
person employed for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part-time
or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman.
15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability ground that the employee is not a workman
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to
consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled,
skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment for hire or
reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of
‘workman”.
21. It is required to mention here that the concerned workmen namely Sri Suresh Chandra Jena had worked in the
UCO Bank of Jaleswar Branch as daily wager as Sweeper so he was employed in the Bank on hire and
consequently he a workman and there was a relationship between the Management with him as employer and
employee, so there is an Industrial Dispute.
22. It is also relevant to mention here that the word retrenchment has been defined U/s. 2(oo) of the I.D. Act,
Definition of Continuous service has been mentioned u/s 25-B of I.D. Act and the Condition Precedent to
Retrenchment have been mentioned U/s 25-F of I.D. Act.
Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act reads as follows:-
Section 2(oo)-“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does
not include-
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.
25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose of this Chapter,-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized
leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due
to any fault on the part of the workman;
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1213
(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-
(a) for a period one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less
than –
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b)…………………………………..
Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows:-
25-F Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen- No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by
that employer until-
(a)
The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,
wages for the period of the notice:
(b)
The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay (for Every completed year of continuous service) or any part
thereof in excess of six months; and
(c)
Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as
may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
23. Now in this case there is categorical evidence that the concerned workman had worked in Jaleswar Branch of
UCO Bank for more than 240 days in a Calendar Year, so the concerned workman was in continuous service in the
Bank as defined U/s 25-B of I.D’ Act. Moreover there is also evidence that the concerned workmen was removed
from his service w.e.f 02/06/2007. Further there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the concerned workman
had been given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for his retrenchment/ removal or had been paid
compensation equivalent to 15 days of average pay as per provision of 25-F of the I.D. Act.
24. Hence, in view of the above discussion this Tribunal finds and holds that Sri Suresh Chandra Jena had worked
in Jaleswar Branch of UCO Bank as Sweeper and he had been terminated from service w.e.f. 28.03.2010. Further
the action of the management in terminating the services of the concerned workmen w.e.f. 28.03.2010 is not legal
and justified. Hence the concerned workmen is entitled for relief. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the 2nd
Party-Workman.
25. Now the Tribunal will discuss Issue No. II.
ISSUE NO. II
26. It is the submission of the leaned lawyer of the workman that as per Clause 20.8 & 20.12 of the first Bipartite
Settlement there is a provision that a temporary workman may also be appointed to fill up permanent vacancy
provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed for the period of three months during which the Bank
shall make arrangement for filling up the vacancy permanently and if selected they may have to undergo probation
period. It is the further submission of the learned lawyer of the workman that the concerned workman has worked for
more than three months in a permanent vacancy of Peon /Sweeperat Jaleswar Branch of UCO Bank, so he is entitled
for regularization of his service in the permanent vacancy of the Bank. It is also submitted by the learned lawyer of
the concerned workman that the Management had violated the provisions of the Section 25-G and 25-H of the
I.D. Act.
27. On the other-hand the learned lawyer for the Management has submitted that the concerned workman was not
working against any sanctioned post of Peon/Sweeper in the UCO Bank of Jaleswar Branch, so the provisions as cited
by the learned lawyer of the workman are not applicable in this case.
28. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that there is no such pleadings of the workman that he was engaged as
daily wage worker in Jaleswar Branch of UCO Bank against any sanctioned post and there was any sanctioned post
vacant in that period. Moreover, the W.W.-1 Suresh Chandra Jena in his evidence has also not mentioned that he was
working against any vacant/sanctioned post in Jaleswar Branch of UCO Bank for the period from 05.01.2009 to
20.03.2010.
29. It is also relevant to mention here that in the statement of claim the concerned workman has not mentioned that
after his disengagement any other daily wage worker were appointed in his place rather he has mentioned that the
Bank had regularized a good number of daily wage workers in recent past in a phased manner at different branches.
1214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further in his evidence he has also not mentioned that after his disengagement any other person was engaged in his
place and he had been denied the opportunity of engagement.
30. In view of the above discussions the provisions of Clause 20.8 & 20.12 of the Bipartite Settlement and the
provisions under section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable in this case.
31. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decision have been
pleased to observe that the completion of 240 days work doesn’t under the law import the right to regularization and it
merely imposed certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of service.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh,
as reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, especially in Paragraph No. 18 as under:-
“18. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year
confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularization in service. In
MadhyamikShikshaParishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days’ work
does not confer the right to regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain
obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj
Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is well
settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any
legal right to be regularized in service. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai vs. Siemens
Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an employee working
in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen and paras 34 and 35 of
the report are being reproduced below: (SCC p.426)
“Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularization.
Regularization can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case of E.
Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularization dehors the rules.
The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v.
BishamberDutt. The direction issued by the services Tribunal for regularizing the services of persons
who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the
petitioner had been working regularly for a long time.
In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not
give any right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules.””
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to observe in L.P.A No. 268/2012 which is
as under:-
“(xiv) Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more
than 240 days in couple of years, then also, his services cannot be regularized. 240 days’ working is not
a magic bond which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact, 240 days working
has nothing to do with the regularization at all. 240 days working has got reference under Section 25-B
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of continuous years of service and nothing beyond
that. Unnecessarily several times the Labour Court or the Industrial Courts are committing an error
that if any worker has completed 240 days, their services should be regularized. In fact, there is no
casual connection at all between the working of 240 days and right of regularization. Illegality in the
appointment cannot be diluted by the working of 240 days. Illegality in the appointment continues, even
if, the worker has worked for 240 days.”
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as follows:-
“Whenever any employment is given unauthorizedly, in the respondent-UCO Bank, Hirapur,
Dhanbad, such type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are
rules for regularization or scheme for regularization. In the facts of the present case, there are no rules
of regularization nor there is any scheme of regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In absence of such
type of law, the charity shown by the Court will be cruelty to others. If such type regularization is
allowed by the Courts, it will provide encouragement to those who are adorning high-ranking
administrative position to give illegal appointment and later on, to get them regularized by the orders of
the Courts. A thing which cannot be done directly, can never be done indirectly. If no employment can
be given without there being any advertisement and without there being any recruitment process, the
Court cannot be a party to illegal regularization of such employee.”
32. In view of such fact and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jharkhand
High Court it is settled that the concerned workman is not entitled for regularization of his job for
working 240 days in a calendar year inUCO Bank, Jaleswar Branch.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1215
33. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal as
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
The Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that
when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and
notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after
reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying
him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even
after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi
(2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a
daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can
be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after
reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation
and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would
not serve any purpose.
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of District Development Officer Vs. Satish KantilalAmrelia as
reported in (2018) 12 SCC 29 B has been pleased to hold as follows:-
“In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and
reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction
of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers
under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
case (supra)”.
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in an another case between the Deputy Executive Engineer Vs
KuberbhaiKanjhibhaias reported in 2019 (160) FLR 651 has reiterated the same principle.
37. Now, in this case the concerned workman had been working as Sweeper on daily wages in the UCO Bank of
Jaleswar Branch since his engagement on different dates and he was terminated from the service w.e.f. 28.03.2010
without being given any notice of termination or the notice pay in lieu of termination.
38. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above it would be proper, just and reasonable
to grant lump-sum monetary compensation of Rupees Two lakhs to the concerned workman.
39. Hence, the Issue No. II is partly decided in favour of the 2nd Party-workman.
40. After considering all the facts and circumstances this Tribunal renders the following order:-
ORDER
41. “The action of Management of UCO Bank of Jaleswar Branch in terminating the services of Sri Suresh
Chandra Jena is not legal and justified.
42. Hence, the concerned workman is entitled for relief which is as under:-
The UCO Bank of Jaleswar Branch is directed to pay a sum of Rs. Two Lakhs to the concerned workman
as lump-sum compensation after deducting Rs. 40,000/- already paid to him within one month after publication of
this award in Official Gazette.
43. This is the Award of the Tribunal
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Presiding Officer.
Presiding Officer
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, BBSR. CGIT-cum-Labour Court, BBSR.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (a14/2023) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2024-vkbZvkj (ch-II)-13]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
1216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B.II)-13]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.14/2023
Registered on:-01.12.2023
Pawan Kumar, Budhakhera District Kaithal.
……Workman
Versus
Canara Bank, Budhakhera, District Kaithal.
……Management
ORDER
Passed On:-01.02.2024
1. The present case is referred from ALC on Samadhan Portal on 01.12.2023.
2. Today Workman has appeared in Court and produced photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and made a
statement that he withdraw the present case. Which is recorded separately. Workman is identified as per
his Aadhaar Card.
3. In view of the statement made by the workman, the present application deserves to be dismissed as
withdrawn. Accordingly, the instant application stand dismissed as withdrawn. File after completion be
consigned in the record room.
4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
ईसीएल की लार्ीृुर कोजल रीds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj स्ट्वगी मोजमन से के आजश्रत dkexkj ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि -
आसनसोल ds iapkV
(
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS
[la-
-22012/48/2008-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S. O. 532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Lachipur Colliery of ECL and Dependents of Late Momin Sekh worker.
[No. L-22012/48/2008– IR (CM-II]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1217
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 49 OF 2008
PARTIES:
Dependents of Late Momin Sekh
Vs.
Management of Lachipur Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
14.02.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/48/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 13.08.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL in denying employment to dependent of Late Shri
Momin Sheikh is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/48/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 13.08.2008 from the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 49 of 2008 was registered on 27.08.2008 /
13.04.2009 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed a written statement on 09.09.2015 on behalf of the
dependents of the deceased workman. Facts of the case according to the petitioner is that Momin Sekh, a workman of
Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) died in harness on
31.03.2000. According to the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI (hereinafter
referred to as NCWA-VI) a dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to get employment under the employer
company. Initially the elder son of Late Momin Sekh applied for employment and submitted necessary documents in
support of his claim. The employment proposal was processed by the management and sent to the Area Office but
there was delay on the part of the Area Office in processing the employment proposal. In the meantime, the elder son
Abdul Motakabbar Sekh started his own business and opened a shop. Mst. Sabera Bibi, the wife of Late Momin Sekh
then changed the nomination in favour of Rafikul Sekh, her younger son for providing employment. The management
of the colliery and the area did not process the proposal for employment on the ground that the claim for employment
was belated. It is the case of the union that the claim for employment was made within time and only the nomination
was changed subsequently. The competent authority of the company after a long period permitted processing of the
proposal in favour of Rafikul Sekh. The proposal was forwarded to the Headquarters of ECL but the same was
returned seeking police verification relating to the relationship of Rafikul Sekh with Late Momin Sekh. Police
verification was conducted and report was submitted in favour of Rafikul Sekh but the employment proposal is still
pending. The family of the deceased employee is facing starvation and is in need of an employment of the dependent
son immediately. It has been averred in the written statement that Rafikul Sekh is the son of Late Momin Sekh, has
1218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitted all the documents to fulfill the requirement of the management. It is urged that the management of ECL
should be directed to provide employment to Rafikul Sekh and also pay monetary compensation to the wife of Late
Momin Sekh for their livelihood.
3. The management of Lachipur Colliery submitted written statement on 24.02.2016 and contested the Industrial
Dispute raised by the union. The specific case of the management is that the name of Rafikul Sekh did not appear in
the Service Record Excerpt (hereinafter referred to as SRE) of the deceased employee and during his lifetime Momin
Sekh did not seek any approval for inclusion of name of Rafikul Sekh in the Service Record. It is claimed that the
relationship of the nominee with the deceased employee has not been established and the claimant is not entitled to
get any relief as per terms of reference of the Industrial Dispute.
4. On 06.05.2017 a rejoinder was submitted by Koyala Mazdoor Congress wherein it is submitted that the
management of Colliery had sent the proposal of Rafikul Sekh to the Area Office after proper screening at the
Colliery level and all family members appeared before the Area Screening Committee and submitted their no
objection in favour of Rafikul Sekh for providing employment to him in place of Late Momin Sekh. Medical
examination was held by the Initial Medical Examination Board and after finding him fit a proposal for employment
was sent to the Headquarters of ECL. The relationship between Rafikul Sekh and Late Momin Sekh was verified.
Voter Identity Card, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, and Relationship Certificate were submitted as proof. Late Momin
Sekh had availed LTC/LLTC during his lifetime where the name of Rafikul Sekh and other family members are
recorded. It is denied that the name of Rafikul Sekh was not entered in the Service Record of Late Momin Sekh. The
management of ECL also paid Coal Mine Provident Fund refund claim and Gratuity amount to the wife of Late
Momin Sekh admitting the relationship of Mst. Sabera Bibi with Late Momin Sekh. It is claimed that the General
Manager of the Area recommended the employment proposal of Rafikul Sekh after verifying records, documents and
statements of the family members. Indemnity Bond was submitted by Rafikul Sekh reaffirming his relationship with
deceased employee. It is contended that the management is harassing the dependent family members of Late Momin
Sekh by delaying the employment of the dependent son without any valid reason.
5. It is asserted that there was no delay in submitting their claim for employment as dependent of Late Momin Sekh.
Accordingly, Rafikul Sekh should get employment and the wife of Late Momin Sekh should get monetary
compensation from the date of death of Late Momin Sekh till employment is provided to the dependent son.
6. In support of the case of the petitioner Rafikul Sekh, has been examined as workman witness – 1. An affidavit-in-
chief has been filed wherein he has reiterated his relationship with Late Momin Sekh, claimed employment as
dependent on the death of his father on 31.03.2000 while he was in the service of the company. WW-1 stated that his
mother applied for employment of his elder brother, Abdul Motakabbar Sekh and thereafter she changed the
nomination in favour of WW-1, the younger son. It is stated that the Colliery management processed the employment
proposal of Rafikul Sekh. Medical examinations were held at the Area and the same was forwarded to the
Headquarters for approval. Management also verified the relationship between Rafikul Sekh and Late Momin Sekh by
way of Police Verification. Therefore, he is entitled to get employment in place of his father. It is stated that the
management of ECL has deliberately delayed granting employment without justification. The witness has also
demanded monetary compensation for his mother from the date of death of his father till employment is provided to
him. The workman witness has produced the following documents which have been admitted in evidence :
(i)
Photocopy of the Identity Card of Late Momin Sekh is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Photocopy of the SRE, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Photocopy of the Death Certificate of Late Momin Sekh, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Photocopy of the letter dated 07.09.2000 of Mst. Sabera Bibi addressed to the Agent of Lachipur
Colliery claiming employment for her elder son, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Photocopy of the letter dated 11.09.2000 of the Manager of Lachipur Colliery calling for relevant
documents, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Photocopy of the letter dated 25.07.2005 of Mst. Sabera Bibi seeking employment for Rafikul Sekh,
as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Photocopy of the letter dated 18.01.2006 of the Manager of Lachipur Colliery seeking explanation
from Mst. Sabera Bibi regarding change of nomination, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
Photocopy of the letter dated 21.02.2006 of the Manager of Lachipur Colliery addressed to the Dy.
CPM, Kajora Area relating to cause of delay in submitting the claim for employment cited by the
wife of Late Momin Sekh, as Exhibit W-8.
(ix)
Photocopy of the letter dated 07.04.2006 issued by the Dy. CPM, Kajora Area addressed to the
Agent, Lachipur Colliery regretting the claim for employment of Rafikul Sekh on the ground of
delay, as Exhibit W-9.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1219
(x)
Photocopy of the letter dated 26/30.10.2007 of the Agent of Lachipur Colliery addressed to Mst.
Sabera Bibi seeking explanation for delay, as Exhibit W-10.
(xi)
Photocopy of the Minutes of Meeting dated 29/30.05.2007 where decision was adopted for
processing the proposal of employment, as Exhibit W-11.
(xii)
Photocopy of the letter dated 01.08.2008 and 29.09.2008 whereby competent authorities were
advised to process the proposal of employment, as Exhibit W-12 and W-13 respectively.
(xiii)
Photocopy of the application submitted by Rafikul Sekh and Mst. Sabera Bibi, as Exhibit W-14 and
W-15 respectively.
(xiv)
Photocopy of the letter dated 13.05.2010 of Dy. CPM of Kajora Area addressed to the Agent of
Lachipur Colliery seeking clarification, as Exhibit W-16.
(xv)
Photocopy of the letter dated 31.07.2012 seeking an affidavit from 1st Class Judicial Magistrate to
reconcile the difference in spelling of the name of Rafikul Sekh, as Exhibit W-17.
(xvi)
Photocopy of the Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H dated 13.06.2014, as Exhibit W-18.
(xvii)
Photocopy of the representation dated 21.09.2018 submitted against refusal to process the
employment proposal, as Exhibit W-19.
(xviii)
Photocopy of the Police Verification and other communications made by the management, as Exhibit
W-20 series (W-20 to W-20/12).
In cross-examination witness denied that he is not the son of Late Momin Sekh or that he is not entitled to get
any employment in place of Late Momin Sekh due to delay in placing the claim.
7. Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel) at Lachipur Colliery under ECL has filed his affidavit-in-chief and
deposed on behalf of the management of ECL as management witness – 1. In his affidavit-in-chief he stated that Mst.
Sabera Bibi at the first instance applied for employment of her elder son Abdul Motakabbar Sekh on 09.02.2001, then
she changed her mind and submitted another application claiming employment for her younger son Rafikul Sekh. The
employment of the dependent of Late Momin Sekh was regretted by the competent authority which was
communicated vide letter no. KAJ/Pers./C-6/35/18/485 dated 21.07.2018 on the ground that the claim for
employment has been made after more than eight years from the cause of action. The management of ECL has
produced the following documents in support of their case which have been admitted in evidence :
(i)
Photocopy of the application submitted by the wife of Late Momin Sekh claiming employment for Rafikul
Sekh produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Photocopy of the SRE of Late Momin Sekh, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii) Photocopy of the letter dated 08.01.2013 for providing employment to Rafikul Sekh against the death of his
father, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv) Photocopy of the letter dated 21.07.2018 issued by the Area Personnel Manager of Kajora Area addressed
to the Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery Group of Mines for issuing a formal rejection letter against the claim
for employment of Rafikul Sekh., as Exhibit M-4.
In course of cross-examination management witness deposed that in 2008 the wife of Late Momin Sekh changed
her nomination for employment in favour of her younger son Rafikul Sekh. It is admitted that no employment was
provided to the elder son for the period from 2001 to 2008. The witness admitted that after settlement dated
13.06.2014 (Exhibit W-18) documents of the dependent of Late Momin Sekh were verified on 10.10.2017 and the
proposal for employment was regretted on the ground of delay.
8. The point for consideration at this stage is whether the action of management of ECL in denying employment to the
dependent of Late Momin Sekh is legal and justified and to what relief the claimant is entitled to.
9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative arguing the case for Rafikul Sekh submitted that Late Momin Sekh died
on 31.03.2000 while he was in employment of the company at Lachipur Colliery. He died an accidental death and
Mst. Sabera Bibi, the wife of the deceased employee submitted an application before the management of the company
claiming employment for Abdul Motakabbar Sekh, her elder son as per provisions of NCWA-VI, which came into
effect from 01.07.1996. Referring to Exhibit W-4, the application submitted by Mst. Sabera Bibi on 07.09.2000 it is
argued that the application claiming employment for the dependent of the deceased employee was made at the earliest
point of time but the management of company did not process the proposal for employment. After waiting for a
considerable period, the elder son started a business of his own due to which the wife of the deceased employee
changed the nomination for employment in favour of Rafikul Sekh, her younger son. The change in nomination
was made in favour of Rafikul Sekh on 25.07.2005, photocopy of the letter has been produced as Exhibit W-6. After
1220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the nomination was changed the management of the company issued a letter dated 18.01.2006 (Exhibit W-7),
informing Mst. Sabera Bibi that due to abnormal delay in filing the claim by her after the lapse of five years, she was
required to explain why the nomination has been changed after such a long period and only then the competent
authority would consider the matter. On the basis of her reply dated 02.02.2006 the management of the company
informed that since the claim for employment was made by Mst. Sabera Bibi after lapse of five years and eleven
months, the same could not be considered. Mr. Rakesh Kumar submitted that the management by regretting the claim
for employment of the dependent son has acted arbitrarily, contrary to the scheme in NCWA for employment to the
dependent of the worker who dies while in service. The union representative asserted that the proposal for
employment in favour of Rafikul Sekh should be processed without further delay. He also prayed for necessary order
to grant monetary compensation to Mst. Sabera Bibi, the wife of the deceased workman.
10. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL in reply argued that Mst. Sabera Bibi changed the
nomination in favour of Rafikul Sekh in her letter dated 25.07.2005 (Exhibit W-6) but the name of Rafikul Sekh did
not appear in the SRE of Late Momin Sekh. It is further argued that the Area Screening Committee found discrepancy
in the name of the dependent of Late Momin Sekh and the Senior Manager (Personnel) of Kajora Area asked for an
affidavit to be sworn before the Judicial Magistrate since the name of the nominee differed from the name appearing
in the service record. Learned advocate argued that in the Service Record Excerpt of Late Momin Sekh, produced as
Exhibit M-2, the columns related to the details of family members were found blank. Referring to the letter dated
21.07.2018 issued by the Area Personnel Manager of Kajora Area addressed to the Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery
Group of Mines, Kajora Area which has been produced as Exhibit M-4, learned advocate submitted that it was
informed that the claim for employment for Rafikul Sekh was made after more than eight years from the cause of
action and as there were several discrepancies, the case was regretted. Relying upon the decision of order dated
20.03.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta passed in the case of Nimai Kumar vs Coal India Limited and
Others [W.P. 19645(W) of 2013 with C.A.N. 1225 of 2015], it is argued that as per guidelines of the company
belated case of compassionate employment cannot be considered. Learned advocate submitted that compassionate
appointment is intended to assuage the hardship the family of a deceased employee may face upon untimely death
while in service.
11. It is urged that there can be no doubt that there is no right to such compassionate appointment but it only gives rise
to an entitlement, where a scheme or rules envisaging it exists. Learned advocate submitted that the elder son whose
name was at first nominated for employment started his own business by opening a shop. The mother relinquished the
claim for employment of Abdul Motakabbar Sekh and made a fresh nomination claiming employment for Rafikul
Sekh only in the year 2005. It is argued that the financial condition of the family of the deceased had improved and
the family was not solely depended upon the employment of one family member in place of the deceased employee.
Furthermore, the nomination was changed in favour of Rafikul Sekh after long lapse of time, which was not
acceptable to the management of the company. Referring to the guidelines of Director (Personnel), ECL Headquarters
vide Memorandum No. ECL/D(P)/47/16249 dated 07.06.2001, it is submitted that according to the guidelines the
application claiming employment was required to be made within six (6) months. In the instant case delay in claiming
employment for the second son has defeated the purpose and the management is under no obligation to provide any
employment. Learned advocate submitted that the dispute is not related to claim for monetary compensation and
prayed for dismissing the Industrial Dispute.
12. I have considered the Industrial Dispute raised, the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced on behalf of the
union and the employer and arguments advanced on behalf of parties. Delay in seeking employment for the second
son is conspicuous from the available material. The claim for employment of Rafikul Sekh has been made more than
five years after the death of his father. The provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA-VI provides that one dependent of
the worker, who dies while in service, will be entitled to employment. Admittedly, Late Momin Sekh died while he
was in service of the company and such incident made his dependent family members eligible to be considered for
employment in terms of the provision of Clause 9.3.4. To avail such opportunity the application is required to be
made within a reasonable time so that the management of the company is convinced that the dependent family
member is in need of such employment. The first claim for employment was made by Mst. Sabera Bibi on 07.09.2000
(Exhibit W-4) and the management responded to such application by their letter date 11.09.2000 (Exhibit W-5) in
which they called for some documents and asked resubmission of the claims. In her subsequent letter dated
25.07.2005 (Exhibit W-6) Mst. Sabera Bibi informed the management that her elder son has opened one Grocery
Shop and is not interested to accept the employment against the death of his father, as such she nominated her
younger son, Rafikul Sekh. The management of the company in their letter dated 26/30.10.2007 (Exhibit W-10) stated
that the second claim has been made after lapse of four years and eight months and unless a satisfactory answer
regarding such abnormal delay is received no further action would be taken. The management of the company had
initiated a Police verification to ascertain the relationship of Rafikul Sekh with Late Momin Sekh, which was
answered in the positive. The claim was regretted by the competent authority only on the ground of delay. Thereafter,
a meeting was held between the Director (Personnel), ECL and representatives of Koyala Mazdoor Congress (HMS)
on 23.10.2019 (Exhibit W-20/11) where the management agreed to re-examine the case of Rafikul Sekh. The
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1221
management thereafter did not communicate their final decision to the dependents though in this proceeding they
specified that due to delay the proposal could not be accepted.
13. In a decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Nimai Kumar vs Coal India Limited and
Others [W.P. 19645(W) of 2013 with C.A.N. 1225 of 2015] it was observed that :
“ In view of the judicial pronouncements that mandate that an application for appointment on compassionate
grounds cannot be pursued more than five years after the death of the concerned employee, since the petitioner
has been able to survive without an appointment for more than ten years now, the petitioner’s application for
compassionate appointment cannot be carried forward any further.” In the instant case Rafikul Sekh was
nominated for employment more than 5 years after the death of his father. The first choice for dependent’s
employment was the elder son. The family of the deceased employee was able to relocate the elder son with an
alternate employment by way of opening a Grocery Shop. The family of deceased has made provision for its
subsistence during these twenty-three years. It is to be borne in mind that the employment of dependent under
NCWA is not an inheritable right but only creates an entitlement under a scheme, making a person eligible for
consideration. However, such eligibility does not condense into any irrefutable right.
14. The management in their Memorandum No. ECL/D(P)/47/16249 dated 07.06.2001 stipulated the period within
which the application has to be submitted. Therefore, such claim cannot be accepted after long lapse of time. The
management of ECL in Exhibit M-4, a letter dated 21.07.2018 has rejected the claim for employment due to delay. I
do not find any arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the management in refusing the prayer for employment. So far
as the other reliefs are concerned, I find that the wife of deceased was not paid any monetary compensation at any
point of time. When the alternative relief of employment is not extended to the dependents, the wife becomes
entitled to monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI.
15.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the claim for employment of Rafikul Sekh as
dependent is defeated due to delay. Mst. Sabera Bibi, the wife of the deceased employee however, is entitled to the
relief of monetary compensation from the date of death of Momin Sekh i.e. 31.03.2000 till she attains the age of sixty
(60) years. The management of ECL is directed to pay the monetary compensation to the dependent wife of the
deceased within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Notification.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Industrial Dispute challenging the refusal of employment of the dependent of Late Momin Sekh is
allowed in part on contest. The management of the company is directed to disburse monetary compensation to Mst.
Sabera Bibi, the widow of the deceased workman for the period from 31.03.2000 till she attains sixty (60) years of
age. The monetary compensation be paid within two (2) months from the date of communication of this Notification.
An Award be drawn up in light of the above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
ईसीएल की मोिनृुर कोजल री ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj जसबाराम जतवारी dkexkj ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
आसनसोल ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS
[la-
22012/29/2010-vkbZvkj- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S. O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.20/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Mohanpur
Colliery of ECL and Sibaram Tewary worker.
[No. L-22012/29/2010– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
1222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 20 OF 2010
PARTIES: Sibaram Tewary
Vs.
Management of Mohanpur Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Ganesh Roy, Adv.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
20.02.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/29/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Mohanpur Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Mohanpur Colliery of M/s. ECL (Salanpur Area) by
superannuating Sri Sibaram Tewary, Attendance Clerk on 30.06.2008 is legal and justified? To what relief is the
workman concerned entitled for? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/29/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2010 from the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 20 of 2010 was registered on 12.11.2010 /
09.12.2011 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2. Sibaram Tewary, the retired workman appeared and filed his written statement on 23.04.2012. Fact of the case as
disclosed in the written statement of the ex-workman is that Sibaram Tewary was a permanent employee under
Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and posted as an Attendance Clerk bearing U.M. No.
172051 at Mohanpur Colliery under Salanpur Area. He was appointed in his service in the year 1969. The workman
passed his School Final Examination in the year 1976 and his date of birth appears as 08.02.1956 in the School Final
Examination Certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as
WBBSE). The management considered his School Final Examination Certificate and issued his Identity Card wherein
his date of birth is recorded as 08.02.1956. The management of ECL thereafter issued an Office Order dated
23.06.1989 wherein the Age Assessment Committee as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 (hereinafter referred to
as II No. 76) of Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry assessed the age of Sibaram Tewary as 08.02.1956 as
per School Final Certificate. It is contended that the management without considering documents relating to proof of
age has superannuated the workman w.e.f. 30.06.2008 which is illegal. Being highly dissatisfied with such illegal act
of the management, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute challenging his premature superannuation and the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol failed to settle the dispute. The workman claimed that he has been
victimized by the management and prayed for his reinstatement and payment of back wages and their dues for the
period from 30.06.2008 to 07.02.2016.
3. The Agent of Mohanpur Colliery under Salanpur Area of ECL on receiving Notice of the reference case filed his
written statement on 21.01.2015. The specific case of the management of ECL is that the date of birth of Sibaram
Tewary is 08.02.1956 as per School Final Supplementary Examination Certificate of the year 1976. Sibaram Tewary
was appointed in service on 01.07.1969 and the said certificate was obtained by him in the year 1976, after a passage
of seven years from his year of appointment. According to the respondent Sibaram Tewary has already superannuated
from his service as such the Industrial Dispute has become infructuous and he is entitled to no relief. It is
claimed that superannuation of Sibaram Tewary on 30.06.2008 is lawful and the dispute relating to his age cannot be
entertained at this belated stage. The management has prayed for dismissal of this Industrial Dispute.
4. After filing of written statements the case was fixed up for evidence of workman witness. Sibaram Tewary filed his
affidavit-in-chief. It is admitted that he joined his service as workman under the management of ECL in the year
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1223
1969. He was posted as Attendance Clerk at Mohanpur Colliery. The workman passed the School Final Examination
in the year 1976 and in the Certificate issued was by WBBSE his date of birth has been mentioned as 8th day of
February, 1956, which has been verified and considered by the management and the same has been referred in the
Office Order dated 23.06.1989. It is his case that management had wrongly superannuated him from service on
30.06.2008 without considering his School Final Examination Certificate, terms of agreement and Notification
applicable to him. It is further stated in his affidavit-in-chief that the management be directed to reinstate him in
service and pay him his back wages and other benefits and dues for the period from 30.06.2008, the date on which he
was wrongly superannuated till 07.02.2016, the date of his actual superannuation. In cross-examination the witness
(workman witness – 1) deposed that he passed his Madhyamik examination in the year 1976 as a private candidate. It
also emerged from his cross-examination that the Service Identity Card he relied upon was issued in the year 1984, in
which his date of birth is recorded as 08.02.1956. At the time of examination of the workman witness no document
was admitted in evidence by way of his identification.
5. The management of ECL did not file any affidavit-in-chief in support of their case. Mr. Bidhan Mukherjee, Senior
Officer (Personnel) at Mohanpur Colliery under ECL was examined as Management Witness – 1. The witness
deposed that Sibaram Tewary was superannuated from his service on 30.06.2008 and his date of birth was recorded as
08.02.1956 in the Form ‘B’ Register of the employer company. The relevant extract of Form ‘B’ Register was
admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-1. A photocopy of the School Final Examination Certificate of Sibaram Tewary
has been admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-2, where his year of birth appeared as 1956. Management Witness -1
deposed that he cannot produce any copy of letter informing the change of date of birth of the workman from
08.02.1956 to 01.07.1948. In cross-examination the witness deposed that he cannot produce any report of medical
examination by which the year of birth of Sibaram Tewary was assessed as 1948 in place of 1956. The witness
admitted that no medical examination of workman was held for determination of his age. Witness reiterated in his
cross-examination that the year of birth of the workman was recorded as 1956 in the Form ‘B’ Register of the
company.
6. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate arguing the case on behalf of the management submitted that Sibaram
Tewary, the aggrieved workman was appointed in service in the year 1969 and his year of birth was recorded as 1948
in the Form ‘B’ Register. Subsequently, without seeking any permission from the management the workman obtained
a School Final Examination Certificate where his date of birth was recorded as 08.02.1956. The workman had no
document in support of his age at the time of his appointment and he appears to have been appointed at the age of 18
years and could not have been a minor. It is argued that the workman claimed to have passed his School final
examination in May, 1976 where his date of birth was recorded as 08.02.1956, but there is no foundation or basis of
such date of birth and it was entered in the school register only on the basis of an affidavit. Learned advocate claimed
that the workman has been rightly superannuated on 30.06.2008 treating his year of birth as 1948 which originally
appeared in Form ‘B’ Register of the company. It is contended that if the year of birth of workman was treated as
08.02.1956, then in the year 1969, at the time of his appointment he was only thirteen (13) years of age, which is
contrary to the provisions of Mines Act., as no child can be appointed in the mines. Learned advocate referred to the
provisions of II No. 76, relating to procedure for determination and verification of age of employees. In paragraph (B)
relating to review / determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees where it is provided that
Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle
Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by
the
aforesaid
bodies
should
be
treated
as
correct
provided
they
were
issued
by
the
said
Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. Learned advocate argued that the workman cannot
derive advantage of getting a longer period of service on the basis of a date of birth appearing in a subsequently
obtained educational certificate, which did not exist at the time of his appointment. It is urged that the workman was
superannuated on 30.06.2008 on the basis of his year of birth, 1948 and his claim for back wages for the period from
30.06.2008 to 07.02.2016 is liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Ganesh Roy, learned advocate for the workman argued that the date of birth of the workman is recorded as
08.02.1956 in the School Final Examination Certificate (Exhibit M-2) and Form ‘B’ Register (Exhibit M-1) and it
also finds reflection in the Identity Card issued to him at Mohanpur Colliery and the Office Order dated 23.06.1989.
Learned advocate claimed that workman has been illegally superannuated from his service eight years prior to his
actual date of superannuation for which the workman has suffered immense loss. Learned advocate argued that
according to II No. 76 the date of birth of a workman and his age should be determined on the basis of his
Matriculation Certificate which cannot be altered under any circumstance. In support of his claim learned advocate
relied upon the decisions report in (i) [(2011) 3 WBLR (SC) 369], (ii) Sukumar Dawn vs Coal India Limited and
Others [(2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 605], and a decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Radha
Kanta Banerjee vs Coal India Limited and Others [WP No. 163 of 2012].
8. Learned Advocate citing the decision of the Hon’ble High Court submitted that in the case of Sukumar Dawn vs
Coal India Limited and Others [(2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 605], the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta held that the age
determined by the Colliery Medical Officer cannot be considered as sacrosanct and the Age Dispute Committee
cannot defeat the petitioner’s right in the absence of any proof of service of Notice of the said committee upon the
petitioner and that even if the petitioner failed to produce any proof relating to his date of birth, respondent authority
1224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cannot in derogation of the certificate issued by the authorities fix a date of birth unsupported by any reason for the
conclusion reached by the Colliery Medical Officer determining age of the petitioner and retire him prior to the date
of his retirement.
9. The point for consideration at this stage is whether the superannuation of Sibaram Tewary, Attendance Clerk on
30.06.2008 is legal and justified and what relief the workman concerned is entitled to, if any.
10. I have considered the pleadings of the workman and employer and evidence brought on record by the parties. I
have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates in support of their respective case. The
aggrieved workman admittedly joined his service as Attendance Clerk in the year 1969. He passed the school final
examination in the year 1976 under WBBSE, where his date of birth was recorded as 8th February, 1956. In his
written statement as well as in the affidavit-in-chief of WW-1, the workman stated that the management’s Age
Assessment Committee has admitted his date of birth as 08.02.1956 according to the School Final Examination
Certificate and also issued his service Identity Card. The workman is aggrieved for being superannuated from service
on 30.06.2008, which is not consistent with his date of birth entered in the Service Records as 08.02.1956. From the
excerpt of Form ‘B’ Register, produced as Exhibit M-1, it appears that initially the year of birth of Sibaram Tewary
was recorded as “1948” and later on his date of birth was recorded as 08.02.1956 on the basis of a letter bearing No.
C-6/120/P-1410 dated 03/09.06.1989 of the Personnel Manager of Salanpur Area. Subsequently, the date of birth
08.02.1956 was cancelled and the previous date of birth recorded as 01.07.1948 was revived as per HQ’s letter No.
ECL/CMD/C-6/WBE-30/675 dated 15/20.04.1999 and Area’s Letter No. C-6/120/P-1193 dated 03.05.1999 of the
Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Salanpur Area.
11. This Industrial Dispute has been raised in the year 2010, after superannuation of Sibaram Tewary on 30.06.2008.
The main contention of the management is that the concerned workman was appointed much later in service on
01.07.1969 and the School Final Examination Certificate was obtained much later on the basis of examination held in
May, 1976. It is their case that at the time of appointment no such certificate was produced and the same cannot be
considered in the light of provision of NCWA.
12. On a close reading of the pleading submitted by the management, I find that it does not refer to any date of birth
on which the management has relied upon for the purpose of superannuation. The management has submitted no
affidavit-in-chief MW-1 this case and in his evidence-in-chief he has admitted that the date of birth of Sibaram
Tewary was recorded as 08.02.1956 in the Form ‘B’ Register. He also admitted that copy of School Final
Examination Certificate bears his year of birth as 1956. The witness failed to produce copy of any office letter by
which the date of birth of the workman was changed from 08.02.1956 to 01.07.1948 i.e. the earlier date of birth
recorded. It transpires from the cross-examination of the management witness that no medical examination was held
for determination of age of the workman. The year of birth of the workman recorded as 1948 at the time of his
appointment therefore has no basis. It is contrary to the pleading that the year of birth of Sibaram Tewary was 1948,
on the basis of which he has been superannuated from his service. It is true that the workman has passed his school
final examination from WBBSE in May, 1976, which is nearly seven years after his appointment. The management of
ECL having accepted his date of birth appearing in the School Final Examination Certificate had altered the date of
birth in the ‘B’ Form Register from 01.07.1948 to 08.02.1956. In the year 1987 at the time of supplying SRE of
employees to verify the particulars and age, no age-related dispute was raised by the management and in the Office
Order bearing no. 1730/C-6/89/80/613 dated 23.06.1989 issued by the Manager of Mohanpur Colliery under Salanpur
Area, the age in respect of several worker including Sibaram Tewary were stated to have been assessed by the Age
Assessment Committee as per II No. 76 of JBCCI and it would appear from serial no. 13, that the age of Sibaram
Tewary was assessed as 08.02.1956, as per School Final Certificate. The management having kept the workman in the
dark has superannuated him on the basis of the date of birth in the Form ‘B’ Register later on altered to 01.07.1948.
No opportunity was given to the workman to raise any dispute to such change in the date of birth. The workman had
no occasion to raise dispute in relation to his age as the management had created the impression that his date of birth
was accepted as 08.02.1956. If for argument’s sake it is assumed that at the time of appointment the date of birth of
the workman was recorded as 01.07.1948 and the management of the employer company was not satisfied with
subsequently produced School Final Examination Certificate, bearing his date of birth as 08.02.1956 then under the
provisions of II No. 76 the date of birth should be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer, keeping in view any
documentary or other relevant material as produced by the appointee and the date of birth as determined shall be
treated as correct and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In the present case the management of the
company ought to have referred Sibaram Tewary to get his age determined by the Colliery Medical Officer or by any
Age Assessment Committee. The Office Order dated 23.06.1989 referred earlier supports the case of workman that
the Age Assessment Committee, as per II No. 76 of JBCCI has determined the age of Sibaram Tewary as 08.02.1956,
accepting his School Final Examination Certificate. The management of the company therefore did not have the right
to retract its findings to the disadvantage of the workman by superannuating him eight (8) years prior to his actual
date of superannuation. At this stage it is inconsequential to deal with the question as to whether the workman was
appointed in his service at the age of thirteen years in the year 1969. It was incumbent upon the management to record
the proper date of birth at the time of appointment in service. In failure thereof, it is only appropriate to take into
consideration the available materials and the conduct of the parties in deciding the date of birth for the purpose of
superannuation.
13. Learned advocate for the workman relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of
Sukumar Dawn vs Coal India Limited and Others [(2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 605], wherein it was held that even if
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1225
the petitioner failed to produce any proof relating to his date of birth, the respondents authorities cannot in derogation
of the certificate issued by the authorities fix a date of birth unsupported by any reason for the conclusion reached by
the Colliery Medical Officer determining the age of the petitioner and retire him prior to the date of his retirement
according to the certificate of the school.
14. In another decision relied on behalf of the workman in the case of Radha Kanta Banerjee vs Coal India
Limited and Others [WP No. 163 of 2012], the dispute which came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High
Court is that the petitioner workman was superannuated in February, 2012, treating his date of birth as 22.02.1952. It
was the contention of the workman that his date of birth is 22.04.1954, on the basis of the certificate issued by
WBBSE which should be treated as his actual date of birth for the purpose of his superannuation. The Hon’ble High
Court revoked the order of superannuation, treating the date of superannuation of the workman as 30.04.2012.
15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to me that the management of ECL has
committed gross illegality by superannuating Sibaram Tewary by reverting to his earlier date of birth recorded in the
Service Record, which was done away with after recording the age to 1956 as his year of birth as per his School Final
Examination Certificate. The management having accepted the date of birth at one point of time, should not have
superannuated the workman in a premature manner without any further medical examination. In my view the
management has violated the terms of II No. 76 by not following its own order dated 23.06.1989 produced as
Annexure-C of the workman’s written statement, which was not denied. The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the
workman squarely applies to this case. There could not have been a better document then the School Final
Examination Certificate, in absence of any other document relating to determination of age of the workman by any
Medical Board. I therefore, hold that the order of superannuation of the workman w.e.f. 30.06.2008 is bad in law and
the same shall not have any force. The workman having completed his age of superannuation during pendency of this
proceeding cannot be reinstated in his service. However, the management of ECL is liable to compensate his losses by
paying his back wages from 01.07.2008 till 29.02.2016 the date on which he should have been superannuated. The
Industrial Dispute is accordingly decided in favour of the workman on contest. The management of ECL shall treat
Sibaram Tewary to be in service until 29.02.2016 and pay him his back wages and consequential dues within two (2)
months from the date of communication of this Notification.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the workman on contest. the letter of superannuation
bearing no. 1730/C-6/80/63/28 dated 16.01.2008 issued by the management of ECL for superannuation of Sibaram
Tewary w.e.f. 30.06.2008 is revoked. The workman shall be treated to be in service till 29.02.2016. Management of
ECL is directed to pay him back wages from 01.07.2008 till 29.02.2016 along with consequential benefits within two
(2) months from the date of communication of the Notification. An Award be drawn up in favour of Sibaram Tewary
in the light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government
of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक,बी.िी.के. जिके कंस्ट्रक्िन टेक्नोलॉिी प्रा. जलजमटेड,नरेला, नई दिल्ली; बी.िी. जिके (कंस्ट्रक्िन टेक्नोलॉिी
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड), रजि. बंि एवं फैक्टरी: 72-76, मुडवा, ृुणे, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री समारेआलम/
संिभच सं् ा.228/2021, श्री मोिम्मि इस्राइल/संिभच सं् ा.229/2021, श्री जन ाज़ अिमि / संिभच सं् ा.230/2021,
कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली ृंर्ाट(संिभच
सं् ा.228/2021, संिभच सं् ा. 229/2021,संिभच सं् ा. 230/2021, को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै,
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-39 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No.228/2021]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-39आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No.229/ 2021]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-39 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No.230/2021]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
1226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.ID No.228/2021, -ID No.229/2021, ID No.230/2021,), of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, B.G.K. Shirke Construction
Technology Pvt. Ltd., Narela, New Delhi; B.G. Shirke (Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.), Regd. Off. &
Factory: 72-76, Mudwa, Pune, and Sh. Samare Alam/ID No.228/2021,Shri Md. Israil,/ ID No. 229/2021,
Shri Niyaz Ahmed / ID No.230/2021, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-39-IR (DU) ID No. 228/2021]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-39-IR (DU)ID No. 229/2021]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-39-IR (DU)ID No. 230/2021]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 228/2021
Sh. SamareAlam, S/o Sh. VasiAlam,
R/o 976, J.J. Colony, Block –D, Bawana, Delhi–110039.
I.D. No.229/2021
Md. Israil, S/o Sh. Abdul Barik,
R/o 1019, J.J. Colony, Block –D, Bawana, Delhi–110039
I.D. No.230/2021
Sh. Niyaz Ahmed, S/o Sh. Matin Ahmed,
R/o E–2944, J.J. Colony, Block –D, Bawana, Delhi -110039.
VERSUS
1. The General Manager,
B.G.K. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
H.O. G–09/1333, DDA Flat, Narela, New Delhi–110040.
2. B.G. Shirke (Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.),
Regd. Off. & Factory: 72-76, Mudwa, Pune–411036.
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose off the claims of the above said workmen U/S 2A of the I.D Act.
Claimants have stated in their statement that they have been working with the management on 01.02.2013, 13.01.2013
and 22.03.2013 at the post of masons at the last drawn salary of Rs. 10,000 per month. Since beginning they did their
work with honesty and sincerity and did not give any chance to the managements for complaining. Management took
the work from 8AM to 8 PM and had not been providing the legal facilities to them i.e. minimum pay, appointment
letter, bonus, ESI etc. Management had obtained their signature on blank paper while they were in service.
Management had paid last their salary on March in April 2020 and thereafter, had not paid the salary despite being
asked for that. Ultimately their services have been terminated on 30.07.2020. They have exhausted all the legal
remedy i.e. sending demand notice, moving the conciliation officer but no result had been yielded. Hence, they filed
the present claim after conciliation become failure.
After receiving the said claim notices were issued to both the managements. Management had appeared
and filed the WS. Management submits that claim is bald misrepresentation. Claim is liable to be dismissed in
limine as the claimant has not come forward with clean hand. He submits that the claimants have been employed
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1227
through contractor. Suddenly the lock down was imposed and construction activity had been stopped. Therefore, he
is not liable to pay anything.
Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant rebutting the plea of the management. Issues have been framed
in the present cases.
Issues have also been framed in the present cases.
During the course of proceedings when the matter has come up for workmen evidence, this tribunal had
asked the claimant AR how this tribunal’s jurisdiction has been invoked, while none of the party has come with the
definition of Central Government. On 06.11.2023 this tribunal had called the Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant
Commissioner Labour (Central Delhi) for explaining the fact as to why they had entertained the present claims
before him and issuing the certificate of failure to the claimants because none of the respondents, is the central
government which is mandatory for entertaining any Industrial Dispute in three other cases where the B.G.K Shirke
is also the respondents. However, Sh. Santosh Kumar had not appeared despite, the notice being given to this effect.
Therefore, this tribunal has taken it for disposal.
Counsel for the claimants has stated that he has appeared before this tribunal because the notices were sent
by this tribunal and the conciliation had been failed and Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Labour,
(Central) had issued the failure report.
Appropriate government is the central government in relation to any industrial dispute which pertained to
any industry carried on by all under the authority of central government.
Section-2(a)(1) of the Act give the detail expression of covering the industry which falls under the
definition of central government controlled industry. It is reproduced
‘in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority
of the Central Government, or by a railway company [or concerning any such controlled industry as
may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] or in relation to an industrial dispute
concerning [a Dock Labor Board established under Section 5A of the Dock workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 (9 0f 1948), or [the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed
and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 19560] or the Employees State Insurance Act,
1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the
State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance
Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of
1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the companies Act, 1956 (1 of
1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation establish under section 3 of the
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central
Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58
of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52
of 1963), or the Food Corporations of India established under section 3, or a Board of Management
established for two or more contiguous States under section 16, of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37
of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of
India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit
and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited], [the
National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of
1987)], or [[an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company,] a mine, an oil field,] [a
cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid-
up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation
referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by parliament, or the Central
public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and
autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and]
Ld. AR of the workman is unable to tell how this tribunal has the jurisdiction to try their claim particularly
when the appropriate government is not the central government in respect of the respondent herein. Ld. AR has
only stated that the Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Labour Commisioner (Central) Delhi had given the failure
report U/s 2 A of the Act and for this reason he had filed his claim. He further asserted that this tribunal has the
jurisdiction in view of the failure report given by the Assistant Commissioner (Central).
Section-2 A have been inserted by Act 35 of 1965 in the Act and provide that the dismissal, discharge,
retrenchment and termination of individual employee/workman shall be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute and
give an option to the workmen to file the claim directly by filing an application to the labour court or tribunal
1228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for adjudication. However, it is subject to the condition that first, he will make an application to the conciliation
officer of the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute. However, the application has to be made
before the tribunal after expiry of the Forty-five days of moving the application before the conciliation officer.
Section-2 A of the Act is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience
‘[2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman
to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. [(1)]
where any employer discharges, dismisses,
retrenches or otherwise terminates the services
of an individual workman, any dispute or
difference between that workman and his
employer connected with, or arising out of,
such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination shall be deemed to be an industrial
dispute
notwithstanding
that
no
other
workman nor any union of workmen is a party
to the dispute]’
Section 2 A (2) which has been inserted by Act 24 of 2010 has categorically mentioned that the application
has to be made to the conciliation officer of the appropriate government. However, the Assistant Commissioner
(Central) Delhi is not the conciliation officer of the appropriate government herein because none of the respondent
has come within the definition of the Central Government. He has exercised the jurisdiction which has not been
vested upon him.
In these circumstances, this tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to try the claim of the workmen.
Hence, the claim of the workmen stand dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of
this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. A copy of this award is
also sent to the Central Labour Commissioner for information and action. A Copy of this award is placed in each of
the file. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
एन.बी.सी.सी. जलजमटेड, एन.बी.सी.सी. िाउस, लोिी रोड, नई दिल्ली; एन.सी.सी. जलजमटेड, ईस्ट्ट दकिवई नगर,
नई दिल्ली ;ओम जसक् ोठरटी सर्वचसेि, ईस्ट्ट दकिवेन नगर, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री बलराम
वसंि/संिभच सं् ा. 83/2010, श्री दिनेि वसंि /संिभच सं् ा. 84/2010/ श्री मोिन िास/ संिभच सं् ा. 85/2010,
श्री ि वीर वसंि / संिभच सं् ा. 86/2010, श्री ओम प्रकाि/ संिभच सं् ा. 87/2010, कामगार, द्वारा -अज ल भारती
िनरल मििूर रेड ूजन न, ंडजगठर नगर, कालकािी, नई दिल्ली, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा. 83/2010,संिभच सं् ा. 84/2010, संिभच
सं् ा. 85/2010, संिभच सं् ा. 86/2010 संिभच सं् ा. 87/2010, को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 83/2010]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 84/2010]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 85/2010]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 86/2010]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 87/2010]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID No.83/2010, ID No.84/2010, ID No.85/2010, ID No.86/2010,
ID No.87/2010), of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in
the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to N.B.C.C. Ltd., N.B.C.C. House, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi; N.C.C. Ltd., East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi; Om Security Services, East Kidwain Nagar,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1229
New Delhi, and Shri Balram Singh / ID No. 83/2010, Shri Dinesh Singh,/ID No. 84/2010, Shri Mohan Das / ID
No. 85/2010, Shri Jaivir Singh/ ID No. 86/2010, Shri Om Prakash / ID No. 87/2010, Worker, Through–All India
General Mazdoor Trade Union, Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-40-IR (DU) ID No. 83/2010]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-40-IR (DU) ID No. 84/2010]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-40-IR (DU) ID No. 85/2010]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-40-IR (DU)ID No. 86/2010]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-40-IR (DU)ID No. 87/2010]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No.83/2020
Sh. Balram Singh, S/o Sh. Babulal Singh,
R/o – House No. 1667, ParsadiGali, KotlaMubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through–All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Office – 170,
BalMukund – KhandGiri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019.
I.D. No. 84/2020
Sh. Dinesh Singh, S/o Sh. Inderpal Singh,
R/o House No. 1634, BadiGumbad, KotlaMubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through–All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Office – 170,
BalMukund – KhandGiri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019.
I.D. No.85/2020
Sh. Mohan Das, S/o Late Sh. Khedan Das,
R/o House No. B – 2045, Pilanji, KotlaMubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through–All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Office – 170,
BalMukund – KhandGiri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019.
I.D. No. 86/2020
Sh. Jaivir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Khedan Das, R/o House
No. 1667, KotlaMubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through–All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Office – 170,
BalMukund – KhandGiri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
I.D. No. 87/2020
Sh. Om Prakash, S/o Sh. Ajay Pal Singh,
R/o House No. S-60/265, Shiv Mandir Camp,
Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar –1, New Delhi – 110024.
Through–All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Office – 170,
BalMukund – KhandGiri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019.
VERSUS
1. N.B.C.C. Ltd.,
N.B.C.C. House, Lodhi Road, New Delhi–110003.
2. N.C.C. Ltd.,
1230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi–110023.
3. Om Security Services,
East Kidwain Nagar, New Delhi – 110023.
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose off five cases filed by different workmen against the same
respondents having the same cause of action. These are the five claim petition U/S 2(A) of the I.D Act against their
dismissal/termination.
Succinctly the case of the workmen are that they were working with respondent no 1 at the post of Security
Guard through respondent no 2 since January 2018 at the last salary nine thousand rupees. The respondent No 1 and
2 have not paid the arrear of salary of rupee thirty thousand and had not be given yearly holidays which is illegal and
improper. When the workmen appeared for their duty on 11/03/2019 with the management, they were thrown out
from their jobs and refused to pay the illegal due which is improper, illegal and unjust. They through their union had
sent the demand letter through registered post to the management on 14/03/2019, however, management had not
given any reply to their demand letter nor managements had taken them on duty. Hence they had filed present claims
with the prayer that they be reinstated in services with full back wages.
Upon filing these claims petitions, notices were issued to the managements. Inspite of being served with
the notices, managements has not appeared, hence, they were proceeded ex-party vide order dated 27/09/2022.
Workmen were asked to examine their witness. However, inspite of providing a no. of opportunities, workmen
failed to examine any of its witnesses. Counsel of the workman Sh. Anil Rajput has stated before this tribunal
orally that he has no contract with the workman.
In these circumstances, when the workmen have not led any evidence then this tribunal has no option
except to dismiss the claim. Claim of the claimants. Hence, claims of the claimants stand dismissed. Award is
accordingly passed. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file. Claims file are consigned to record room. A
copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government U/s 17 of I.D Act for publication.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
एनबीसीसी इंजड ा जलजमटेड, एनबीसीसी भवन, लोिी रोड, नई दिल्ली; वीर प्रोस्ट्गुएर सोल्डर एंड िाउसकीृसच प्रा.
जलजमटेड, बी - 133, तीसरी मंजिल, डीडीए िेड, ओ ला र्रण - I, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री
नन्ि लाल /संिभच सं् ा.191/2019, अरुण िुक्ला /संिभच सं् ा. 192/2019, श्री छोटे ृासवान/संिभच सं् ा.
196/2019, कामगार, द्वारा- अज ल भारती िनरल मििूर रेड ूजन न, ंड जगरी नगर, कालकािी, नई दिल्ली के
बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली ृंर्ाट (संिभच सं् ा.
191/2019, संिभच सं् ा. 192/2019, संिभच सं् ा. 196/2019, को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-42 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 191/2019]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-42आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 192/ 2019]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-42 आईआर(डी ू)/i.r.to ID No. 196/2019]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 536—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.ID No. 191/2019, -ID No. 192/2019ID No. 196/2019), of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to NBCC India Ltd,NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ;
Veer Prosguer Soilder & Housekeepers Pvt. Ltd., B – 133, 3rd Floor, DDA Shed, Okhla Phase – I, New Delhi,
and Shri Nand Lal / ID No. 191/2019,Shri Arun Shukla/ ID No. 192/2019, Shri Chhote Paswan / ID No.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1231
196/2019, Worker, Through – All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-42-IR (DU) ID No.191/2019]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-42-IR (DU)ID No. 192/2019]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-42-IR (DU)ID No. 196/2019]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM –
LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No.191/2019
Sh. Nand Lal, S/o Late Sh. Sunnath,
R/o 2240, Kotla Pilanji Mubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through – All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Office – 170, Bal Mukund Khand
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019.
I.D. No. 192/2019
Sh. Arun Shukla, S/o Late Sh. Suresh Chan Shukla,
R/o 2011, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through – All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
Office – 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019.
I.D. No.196/2019
Sh. Chhote Paswan, S/o Late Sh. Janki Paswan,
R/o 2024, Kotla Pilanji Mubarakpur, New Delhi – 110003.
Through – All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
Office – 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019.
VERSUS
1. NBCC India Ltd,
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.
2. Veer Prosguer Soilder & Housekeepers Pvt. Ltd., B – 133, 3rd Floor, DDA
Shed, Okhla Phase – I, New Delhi – 110020.
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose off the claims of the above said workmen U/S 2A of the I.D Act.
The workmen in their claim statement had stated that they have been working with the management since February
2016 as well as October 2016 at the post of Security Guard through Contractor Veer Prosguer Soldiers &
Housekeepers Pvt. Ltd. At the last drawn salary of Rs. 6,000 per month. They have been deprived by the
management of the legal facilities since beginning. When they demanded the said legal facilities, principal employer
and contractor had terminated their services on 10.02.2018 after keeping their arrear of salary from 01.11.2017 to
09.02.2018. Workmen had sent the demand notice asking the management to keep them on duty but management
has not given any answer. They had filed the claims with the Labour Commissioner on 30.05.2018 but no result
have been yielded. Hence, they had filed their claim U/S 2 (A) of the I.D Act.
Management had appeared and filed the WS denying the relationship of employer and employee. Issues
have been framed. Workmen are asked to file their evidence in support of their claims. However, the AR of the
workman Sh. Anil Rajput had stated that he has no contract with the workmen for long time as such he is unable to
file the affidavit in evidence.
In these circumstance, when the workmen have not led any evidence, then the claims of the workmen are
resulted into failure. Hence, the claims of the workmen stand dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of
this order is placed in each of the file. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
1232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, मिर डे री फ्रूट एंड वेजिटेबल प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ृटृड़गंि, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री ृुण् िेव वसंि, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1
नई दिल्ली ृंर्ाट (संिभच सं् ा. 106/2023) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल-42011/22/2023-आईआर(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.ID No. 106/2023), of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court- I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager, Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd., Patparganj, New
Delhi, and Shri Punyadev Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011-22-2023-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.106/2023
Shri Punyadev Singh S/o Sh. Chanerhans,
Rept. Delhi Karamchari Sangh (Regd.),
W-4, Kalkaji Bus Depot. Govindpuri,
Delhi-110001.
Claimant…
Versus
General Manager,
Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.,
Patparganj, New Delhi-110092.
Management…
None for the claimant.
None for the management.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-42011/22/2023-IR(DU) dated 29.03.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether demand of Sh. Punyadev vide letter dated 23.08.2021 through Delhi Karamchari Sangh, Delhi to
the management of M/s Expert Security Services (Contractor) under M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable
Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, for alleged illegal termination w.e.f. 01.02.2021 and seeking relief of reinstatement of his
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1233
services alongwith payment of wages for unemployed period, is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what
reliefs the disputant are entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the postal
article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services
remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the
above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against the
management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent
to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd), Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2024
.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
आ ुि, दिल्ली नगर जनगम, एसृीएम जसजवक सेंटर, वमंटो रोड, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुरेंर
वसंि एवं अन् , कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1 नई
दिल्ली ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा. 25/2014, को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- एल -42011/83/2011 -आईआर(डी ू)
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.ID No. 25/2014), of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court- I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi, and Shri Surender Singh & Others, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/83/2011 -IR (DU)
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI No.1 NEW
DELHI.
ID. No. 25/2014
Shri Surender Singh & Others, C/o Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Workmen
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, 4th Floor, SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002.
Management…
Shri Rajiv Agarwal, A/R for the claimants.
None for the management.
1234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)
(Presiding Officer)
1. The present case is referred as an industrial dispute by the Appropriate ‘Government of India’ vides its order
bearing no. L-42011/83/2011 (IR/(DU)) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub
section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication to this tribunal. The term of reference is
as below:
“Whether the action of the management of Municipal corporation of Delhi in not regularizing the services of
Shri. Surender Singh and nineteen other drivers with effect from their respective dates of joining as
mentioned in the annexure is legal and justified. If not, what relief are they entitled to?”
2. On receiving the reference the tribunal has registered the industrial dispute for adjudication as ID No. 25/2014.
The dispute relates to Sh. Surender Singh and nineteen other drivers whose services were not regularized by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi in due course of law since the date of their initial joining the services with the MCD.
A chart is being appended here in below containing the details of the workmen concerned with their designation, date
of appointment, date of regularization and their place of posting.
Sl.
No.
Name and Father’s
Name
Designation
Date of
appointment
Date of
regularization
Present place of
posting
1.
Surender Singh S/o
Sh. Kartar Singh
Driver
26.09.1996
01.04.04
Najafgarh Zone
2.
Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.
Bhim Singh
Driver
22.06.1995
01.04.03
Mogolpuri
Workshop,
Rohini Zone
3.
Sh. Jai Bhagwan S/o
Sh. Raghubir Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
Town Hall, City
Zone
4.
Sh. Nand Kishore S/o
Sh. Rati Ram
Driver
04.10.1996
01.04.04
Green Park,
South Zone
5.
Sh. Anil Kumar S/o
Sh. Mahender Singh
Driver
04.10.1996
01.04.04
Raghubir Nagar,
West Zone
6.
Sh. Braham Prakash
S/o Sh. Sukh Lal
Driver
12.10.1996
01.04.04
Green Park,
South Zone
7.
Sh. Ashok Kumar
Mann S/o Sh. Hari
Ram Mann
Driver
12.10.1996
01.04.04
Green park
South Zone
8.
Sh. Ranbir Singh S/o
Sh. Karan Singh
Driver
25.09.1996
01.04.04
City Zone
9.
Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o
Sh.Daya Nand
Driver
13.11.1998
01.04.05
City Zone
10.
Sh. Jai Pal S/o
Sh.Nafe Singh
Driver
20.11.1998
01.04.04
City Zone
11.
Sh. Tulsi Ram S/o Sh.
Sardare
Driver
01.04.1995
01.04.03
Najafgarh Zone
12.
Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o
Sh. Roop Chand
Driver
17.04.1995
01.04.03
Najafgarh Zone
13.
Sh. Padam Singh S/o
Sh. Lakhmi Chand
Driver
26.08.1996
01.04.04
Najafgarh Zone
14.
Sh. Jagbir S/o Sh. Om
Prakash
Driver
21.07.1995
01.03.04
Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi,
Central Zone
15.
Sh. Om Prakash S/o
Sh. Veer Singh
Driver
26.08.1996
01.04.04
Control Room,
Najafgarh Zone
16.
Sh. Vijender Singh
S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
New Delhi,
Najafgarh Zone
17.
Sh. Sumer Singh S/o
Sh. Chander Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
New Delhi
Najafgarh Zone
18.
Sh. Sat Narain S/o Sh.
Amar Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
New Delhi,
Najafgarh Zone
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1235
19.
Sh. Narender Kumar
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
Driver
06.05.1996
01.04.04
Central Control
room, Town
Hall, City Zone
20.
Sh. Bijender Singh
S/o Sh. Daya Nand
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
Central Control
Room, Town
Hall, City Zone
Factual Matrix
3. The workmen shown in the chart given hereinabove joined into the employment of the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (which shall hereinafter be called as ‘MCD’ only for the purpose of brevity), the opposite party management in
the present dispute. They were taken in employment as a daily rated/muster roll worker and were paid wages as fixed
and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. From the date of their initial joining the workmen
aforesaid were kept in continuous service of the management. They have unblemished and uninterrupted service.
Though, the workmen were supposed to be regularized since their initial date of joining but the management
regularized them since the date as mentioned in the table hereinabove in very arbitrary manner.
As such the case in hand is an industrial dispute with regard to the regularization of services of the workmen
not w.e.f. their initial date of joining on the post of driver in proper pay scale and allowances and also of the non-
payment of difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work as their counterparts doing the identical
work, who were treated as regular employees being paid their salary in proper pay scale and allowances etc. This is
violative of Article of 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitutional of India.
4. Since the dispute referred before this tribunal is relating to the regularization of the services of the
claimants/workmen from an arbitrarily fixed date than the date of their initial joining in the service whether legal and
justified and if, it is illegal and unjustified then, what relief the workmen/claimants concerned are entitled. The
statement of claim pleads that the management of the MCD has not framed any rule or regulations nor they have any
such rule or regularizations approved by U.P.S.C notified in the official gazette so as to govern the service conditions
of the muster roll/part time seasonal workers. If they have not certified standing orders governing service condition of
such workers, the model standing orders framed under the “Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act”, 1946 are
applicable to the workmen and the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and its undertakings. It is further
pleaded in the claim statement as the workmen concerned acquired the status of permanent employee by virtue of
completing 240 days of continuous employment since the date of their initial joining into the employment provided in
the Model Standing Orders under the ‘Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act’, 1946. In utter violation of the
legal provisions and the provision of standing orders the management employed the workmen as casual or temporary
and continued them as such for years together with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of
permanent workmen which amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in section 2 (ra) read with item no. 10 of the
5th schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The demand notice was served upon the management through
registered post A.D dated 20.11.2008, 03.12.2008 & 04.02.2009, which were served in their office but remained un-
replied amounting to a rejection of the demand. Consequent thereupon conciliation proceeding initiated but the same
went in vain due to adamant and non-cooperative attitude of the management which resulted into the reference of the
present industrial dispute by the appropriate government to the tribunal for adjudication.
5. On the ground of aforesaid facts and legal positions the workmen/claimants have prayed for an award in their
favour with regard to their entitlement for regularization in the services on the post of driver with effect from their
respective initial date of joining into the employment and to pay the entire difference of salary from their initial
joining onwards with all consequential benefits. The cost of litigation is also claimed to be awarded.
6. In answer to the claim of the workmen/claimants the management North DMS (as the MCD then was) on
17.03.2017. It is stated by the answering management that it has its own policy of regularizations namely “The Phase
Manner Regularization Policy” according to which the management regularizes its daily wager muster roll employees
as per availability of the posts and funds, that too strictly as per their seniority. They stated that no employee has been
regularized from the date of their initial joining as daily wager. They denied the claim of the claimants of equal pay
for equal work for the period of their services spent as daily wager muster roll driver in view of the law laid on by the
Apex Court and the High Court observing that the daily wager cannot be treated at par with the persons on regular
service because they do not require to possess the qualification prescribed for the regular workers. They further plead
that claimants were paid as per the minimum wages act and nothing is due to them as such the claim of the claimants
for payment of arrears is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the workmen is further contested referring the case of
“Uma Rani vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies” (2007) 4 SCC 112, Apex Court held-
1236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Courts cannot impose on the state a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization
or permanence in the employment of those who are employed temporarily and are not needed
permanently or regularly“.
7. On the basis of above judicial verdict the answering management has further impressed that unless an
appointment is in terms of relevant rules and requirements after a proper competition amongst qualified persons, the
same would not confer any right on the appointee. It is also impressed by the answering management that if an
appointment is a contractual appointment, it comes to an end at the end of the project. If, it were an engagement or
appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.
8. The answering management (North DMC) further clarifies that out of the list of 20 workmen only 8 are concerned
with the North DMC and remaining 12 claimants have no concerned with their establishment. Chart given by them is
also appended here in below showing the name and relevant details of those eight drivers.
Sl. No.
Name and Father’s Name
Designation
Date of initial
engagement as daily
wager
Effective date of
regularization
Present
place of
posting
1
Surender Singh S/o Sh.
Kartar Singh
Driver
26.09.1996
01.04.04
Rohini
2
Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh.
Raghubir Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
Civil Line
Zone
3
Ashok Kumar Mann S/o Sh.
Hari Ram Mann
Driver
12.09.1996
01.04.04
Civil Line
Zone
4
Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Karan
Singh
Driver
23.09.1996
01.04.04
City Zone
5
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Daya
Chand
Driver
27.11.1996
01.04.05
Edu/HQ
6
Jai Pal S/o Sh. Nafe Singh
Driver
19.11.1999
01.04.05
City Zone
7
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Roop
Chand
Driver
17.04.1995
01.04.03
Rohini Zone
8
Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Daya
Chand
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04.
City Zone
On the basis of above stated averments the answering management prays that the claim of the present
workmen not maintainable before the tribunal and therefore liable to be dismissed.
9. As against the reply of the answering management North DMS in their rejoinder the workmen/claimants have
denied the alleged policy of regularization namely “phase manner regularization scheme”. They assertingly have
stated that the concerned workmen were initially appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post of driver it is
repeated that the workmen were working continuously and regularly from their initial date of joining till date with the
management. Through their rejoinder the workmen/claimants concerned have vehemently denied the averment in
written statement of the management that no employee has been regularized from the date of their initial engagement
being false, frivolous, and concocted allegations.
Evidence
10. In support of their claim the claimants/workmen have submitted before the tribunal a huge number of documents
showing their prolonged continuation in service of the management since the date of their initial appointment
uninterruptedly and without anything adverse on their part. The photostate of the documents of the office order issued
by the Delhi Municipal Corporation dated 23.09.1996 to the effect that 119 daily wagers/drivers were appointed on
the vacant post of driver on temporary basis pursuant to their application of prescribed format through employment
exchange. The said office order also reveals the due selection with approval of the panel of selected applicants, vide
order dated 02.09.1996 of the additional commissioner to appoint them for 6 month on the minimum wages
Rs.80.00/-per day to a maximum of Rs. 2101.00/- per month. All the 119 drivers selected and appointed through the
aforesaid office order dated 23.09.1996 were given place of posting in the order itself. The said office order is not
denied by the management of MCD. The said office order also reveals that the 119 drivers so selected and appointed
were subjected to police verification, medical test as required under the policy of selection and appointment. Likewise
several office order dated 22.08.1996 notifying selection and appointment of drivers on daily wages basis and of
dated 08.10.1996, and also of other dates which are showing the utilization of said driver with their transfer to other
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1237
place of posting from time to time during the span of more than further 10 years from the date of their initial
appointment.
11. The claimants/workmen have placed on record documents with regard to their subsequent appointment on regular
basis and probation by the period of 2 years from the date of appointment in a span of period ranging within their
2004 to 2006. They submitted their joining in accordance with the office order of regularization. The present
claimants/workmen who were initially appointed long before their date of regularization in the service of the
management as shown in the chart appended with para 2 hereinabove were appointed in prescribed manner legally
and also get their regularization after a considerable length of service of more than 10 years on the date of their initial
appointment but were given the effectiveness of the regularization from the date of their regularization only than to
relate back the benefit of regularization with the date of their initial appointment. The initial appointment of the
claimants/workmen is undisputed and almost admitted as it is given through duly notified office order with the
approval of competent authority of the management.
12. The Municipal Employees Union after holding a meeting of executive committee on 03.10.2008 unanimously
resolved to raise an industrial dispute in favour of the present workmen/claimants for securing their regularization in
service on the post of driver with retrospective effect from the initial date of their joining into the employment and to
pay them entire differences of salary on the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ from their initial joining onwards
with all consequential benefits. The attested copy of the resolution is placed on record proved by the
claimants/witness which is marked as exhibit WW1/17. The matter was moved before the conciliation officer/the
assistant labour commissioner Government of India New Delhi which is marked as exhibit WW1/19 place and proved
by the claimants is also available on record. Written statement by the management was filed before the conciliation
officer wherein the MCD admitted that it has regularized the service of their applicant/claimants as per phase manner
policy of regularization drafted by the management as such applicants are not entitled for regularization from the date
of their initial engagement. As such conciliation failed and workmen were under compulsion to get reform of
industrial dispute to the tribunal for adjudication.
13. The claimants/workmen produced them as oral witnesses namely Sh. Surender Singh, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Nand
Kishore, Sh. Anil Kumar, Sh. Braham Prakash, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Tulsi Ram, Sh. Padam Singh, Sh. Jagbir, Sh.
Sumer Singh, Sh. Sat Narain, Sh. Om Prakash, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh.Ashok Kumar Mann, and on behalf of the
deceased claimants/workmen his heirs also produced themselves namely Ms. Sunita widow of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar
and Ms. Anita widow of Late Sh. Ranbir Singh, Ms. Roshni Devi widow of Late Sh. Vijender Singh, Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Kaushik the secretary of the municipal employees union Sh. Jai Pal all have submitted their affidavits in oral
examination as their examination in chief and also submitted themselves personally and individually for cross-
examination. All the witnesses stated on oath about their initial date of appointment proving the office orders on
record through which they were appointed and other documentary evidences placed on record with regard to their
continuous working since the date of their initial engagement and the office order with regard to their appointment on
in regularization from the date of regularization only. They stated that they are continuously discharging services with
the management and have unblemished service record. Although they were supposed to be regularized since their
initial date of joining but the management regularized their services with effect from 01.04.2004 only. In cross-
examination also the consistently proved their initial date of appointment the management in the cross-examination
stressed on the position with regard to the witnesses gave their acceptance letter of regular appointment and also that
they were knowing very well the recruitment process of regular employee and daily wages employees are different.
However, the witnesses expressed their unawareness about the phase manner regularization policy of the
management.
Heard the learned authorized representatives of the party to the dispute and considered the facts and evidence on
record.
Discussions
Unfair Labour Practice
14. The initial appointment as on daily wages basis of the claimants/workmen as shown in the chart appended with
the claim and made part of this judgment and award is admitted and also proved in the evidence by the claimant
through documentary and oral evidences. The uninterrupted continuous service from the date of their initial
appointment till the date of their regularization in service after a considerable length of service is also admitted and
proved by the office orders issued by the management itself. The posting and transfer of the claimants/workmen since
after the date of their initial appointment at various places of the management MCD is proved by the office order
which tends to show the services of the claimants/workmen as driver were regularly and continuously utilized which
constructively show and establish the need of their deployment as driver in the routine business of the MCD.
Regularization is made as against the regular vacancy of driver available in the management establishment. The facts
and evidences available on record convincively establish that the claimants/workmen as driver were continued in
service on daily wages basis in utter violation of the provision of the industrial dispute act and rules.
1238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. The answer of the management as against the claim of regularization of the claimants/workmen in accordance
with their phase regularization scheme is beyond the logical understanding. This would be noteworthy here that the
management though pleaded the phase regularization scheme adopted by them but have not placed the said scheme
with the proper approval and sanction of the state government or the competent authority of the management (MCD).
Even particular of the scheme is not averred in the pleading submitted by the management before this tribunal. It
seems that the management has deliberately employed the workmen on daily wages basis who are performing the
regular nature of job of driver and treating them as mere casual/contractual employee solely the for the purpose of and
denying them the status and salary of regular and permanent driver. Such an action of the management amount to
unfair labour practice as provided in section 2 (ra) read with item no.10 of the 5th schedule.
16. The Apex Court in the case before it titled as “Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. V. Jagannath Maruti
Kondhare and Ors., (1996)2 SCC 293”, held in para 22 as follows.
“We have given our due thought to the aforesaid rival contentions and, according to us, the object of the
State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get
frustrated if such a burden is placed on a workman which he cannot reasonably discharge. In our opinion, it
would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the interference mentioned in the second part of
the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state that the present
was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to
Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long years
with the primary object of depriving them the status of permanent employees inasmuch as giving of this
status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the
Minimum wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered that the Pachgaon
Parwati scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace,
which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-
pollution-care work of Ahmedanagar, whose need is on increase because of increase in pollution.
Permanency is thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are
kept in jobs on casual for years the object manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the
second question also against the appellants”
In the above context the question arise before the tribunal that when after keeping the workmen for a considerable
long lapse of time of more than a decade and the management while recognized their right of regularization in the
service, regularized them, but not from the date of their initial appointment than the date of their regularization far
later from their initial appointment. Whether can be held justified? And, whether the services rendered by the present
claimants/workmen in their daily wager capacity for such a long time can be legalized.
17. This would be pertinent to state that though the management opposite party has referred their policy of
regularization of the daily wagers/temporary employees in services of the management but no such policy named by
them in written statement as phase regularization policy is placed before the tribunal in evidence the management has
also not explained the manner of regularization provided in their phase regularization policy. In the absence of the
said policy on record and explanation before the tribunal by any management witness the manner adopted by the
committee of regularization under the said policy and also why the workmen were not given benefit of regularization
from the date of their initial appointment though kept as daily wager since then till the date of their regularization in
the services.
18. The entire facts on record emerging order the pleadings of the parties along with documentary and oral evidence
produced by them before the tribunal it is established that the initial appointment of the present claimants/workmen
were not illegal nor irregular the nature of the work for which they were appointed was permanent and perennial.
Moreover, the regularization by the management of such workmen per-se amounts the recognition of legality in their
appointment. Contrary to this statement of claim the answer to the above questions formulated by the tribunal the
answer of the management relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Uma Rani V. Registrar
Cooperative Societies, (2004) 7 SCC 112” and in “ Secretary State of Karnartka V. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1”
wherein it is observed that the Courts cannot impose on the state a financial burden of this nature by insisting on
regularization or permanence in the employment of those who are employed temporarily and are not needed
permanently or regularly does not apply. Because an appointment of the present workmen is neither illegal nor
irregular as admitted by the management. The appointment is not a contractual appointment nor is it made for any
time bound project nor the work is discontinued at any point of time from the date of their initial engagement till the
date of their regularization.
19. Apart from the above prospects of the matter in issue for the non-applicability of the case is referred by the
management, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held in several cases that the laws laid down in the above referred
judgments do not deal with case in the realm of industrial adjudication but pertain to matters of services law
jurisprudence. Some of the judgments deserves to be referred here delivered by the Apex Court with the above
finding are “ONGC Limited V. Petroleum Coal Labour Union (2016) 5 SCALE 353”, “Umrala Gram
Panchayat V. The Secretary Municipal Employees Union, (2015) 4 SCALE 334” and “Ajay Pal Singh V.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1239
Haryana Warehousing Corp. (2015) 6 SCC 321’’. Wherein it is consistently held that the powers on the Industrial
Adjudicator under the ID Act are very wide and as the purpose of the Act is to preempt industrial tension the
adjudicator has been prescribed vast powers issued preventive as positive directions to the employers. As such this
can be said that the prohibition lent on by Supreme Court for regularization in Uma Devi (Supra) does not apply to
Industrial adjudication and that the Industrial Tribunal has powered to direct regularization of services in cases were
pursuant to unfair labour practices, employees have been made to rendered services for excessively long periods as
daily wager for work that should ordinarily be done by regular employees. See the similar finding recorded by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case before it titled as project director, Department of Rural Development V. Its
workmen reported in (2019) 2 LLJ 594.
20. The tribunal on the basis of discussion made hereinabove relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the
cases of Ajay Pal Singh (Supra), ONGC (Supra) Umrala Gram Panchayat (Supra) that denying regularization of
services to a daily wager like present claimants/workmen after he has been in uninterrupted service for a very long
period, tantamounts to an extremely unfair labour practice. Therefore, the services rendered by the workmen
concerned to the management form the date of their initial engagement in service till the date of their regularization
on a subsequent date extraordinarily later from their initial engagement falls within the extremely unfair labour
practice which is illegal. Refusing the claim of claimants/workmen for regularization in service from the date of their
initial engagement rather from the date of their actual regularization in service would amount to recognizing and
illegal and unfair labour practice. In view of the aforesaid finding this tribunal has got every power to adjudicate the
present industrial dispute and impose upon the management a new obligation to strike a balance and secure industrial
peace and harmony in the establishment.
21. Before parting with the discussion the tribunal thinks it proper to answer the objection raised by the answering
North DMC is classified the some of the claimants/workmen not to be concerned with it but from the South DMC is
of no avail because the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi is also made parting to the present industrial
dispute and all the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Corporation or merged and amalgamated in the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) all the claimants/workmen are employees of the MCD therefore, the adjudication in present
industrial dispute of the industrial dispute referred to the tribunal by the appropriate government shall be applicable
and binding upon the MCD.
22. On the facts and circumstances of the case the reference is answered vide adjudication of the Industrial dispute
that management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi is wrong, unjustified and it has committed illegality in not
regularizing the services of Sh. Surender Singh and 19 Ors. Drivers (Whose details are given in para 2 of the
judgment) with effect from their respective dates of joining as mentioned in the chart. Consequent thereupon the
above claimants/workmen are held entitled to get their order of regularization passed by the management on their
respective date shown in the column no. 5 of the chart appended in para 2 of the judgment effective and enforceable
since from their respective date of initial engagement as daily wager shown in column no. 4 of the chart.
AWARD
23 (a). The claimants/workmen are held entitled to have their order of regularization in the service on the post of
driver passed by the management Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the dates shown in the chart (as shown below)
against their name in column no. 5 with effect from the respective date of their initial joining shown against their
name in column no. 4 in the chart retrospectively into the employment and also entitle to get all the consequential
benefit including pay and seniority etc. with effect from the initial date of their joining referred hereinabove.
(b) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to pay the entire difference of salary and other emoluments
payable to them with effect from their initial date of joining till the date of regularization by the management as
shown in the chart appended herewith within 30 days from the date of order in case of failure to pay the
differences of salary and other emoluments as ordered by the tribunal within the time prescribed in the award
the MCD shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of its accrual as such. The
amount to be paid by the management under the award shall be recoverable as land revenue by the govt. in due
course of procedure prescribed therefor.
(c) Since the matter was forced to be litigated in industrial court unreasonably at the behest of the management
MCD from the year 2014 the claimants has incurred huge amount of money in litigation since then they shall be
entitled to litigation cost and expenses. The management is imposed with to be a lump sum amount of such
expenses and cost to the tune of Rs. 25000/- each payable to all the 20 workmen/claimants individually paid to
the claimants and separately within 30 days from the date of order otherwise in case of failure to pay the same
within prescribed period the same shall be recoverable as land revenue with interest at the rate of 6 % per
annum.
(d) The office is directed to send the award to appropriate government for implementation and execution in
accordance with prescribed procedure.
1240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CHART
Sl.
No.
Name and Father’s
Name
Designation
Date of
appointment
Date of
regularization
Present place of
posting
1.
Surender Singh S/o
Sh. Kartar Singh
Driver
26.09.1996
01.04.04
Najafgarh Zone
2.
Ashok Kumar S/o
Sh. Bhim Singh
Driver
22.06.1995
01.04.03
Mogolpuri
Workshop,
Rohini Zone
3.
Sh. Jai Bhagwan S/o
Sh. Raghubir Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
Town Hall, City
Zone
4.
Sh. Nand Kishore S/o
Sh. Rati Ram
Driver
04.10.1996
01.04.04
Green Park,
South Zone
5.
Sh. Anil Kumar S/o
Sh. Mahender Singh
Driver
04.10.1996
01.04.04
Raghubir Nagar,
West Zone
6.
Sh. Braham Prakash S/o
Sh. Sukh Lal
Driver
12.10.1996
01.04.04
Green Park,
South Zone
7.
Sh. Ashok Kumar Mann
S/o Sh. Hari Ram Mann
Driver
12.10.1996
01.04.04
Green park
South Zone
8.
Sh. Ranbir Singh S/o Sh.
Karan Singh
Driver
25.09.1996
01.04.04
City Zone
9.
Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o
Sh.Daya Nand
Driver
13.11.1998
01.04.05
City Zone
10.
Sh. Jai Pal S/o Sh.Nafe
Singh
Driver
20.11.1998
01.04.04
City Zone
11.
Sh. Tulsi Ram S/o Sh.
Sardare
Driver
01.04.1995
01.04.03
Najafgarh Zone
12.
Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh.
Roop Chand
Driver
17.04.1995
01.04.03
Najafgarh Zone
13.
Sh. Padam Singh S/o Sh.
Lakhmi Chand
Driver
26.08.1996
01.04.04
Najafgarh Zone
14.
Sh. Jagbir S/o Sh. Om
Prakash
Driver
21.07.1995
01.03.04
Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi,
Central Zone
15.
Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh.
Veer Singh
Driver
26.08.1996
01.04.04
Control Room,
Najafgarh Zone
16.
Sh. Vijender Singh S/o Sh.
Jagdev Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
New Delhi,
Najafgarh Zone
17.
Sh. Sumer Singh S/o Sh.
Chander Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
New Delhi
Najafgarh Zone
18.
Sh. Sat Narain S/o Sh.
Amar Singh
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
New Delhi,
Najafgarh Zone
19.
Sh. Narender Kumar S/o
Sh. Charan Singh
Driver
06.05.1996
01.04.04
Central Control
room, Town
Hall, City Zone
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1241
20.
Sh. Bijender Singh S/o Sh.
Daya Nand
Driver
22.08.1996
01.04.04
Central Control
Room, Town
Hall, City Zone
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), (Presiding Officer)
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 539.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंधिक, बंी.जी. गिके कधपिी टेक्नोलॉजी प्रा. गलगमटेड, िरेला, िई ददल्ली; श्री राम इधटरप्राइजेज, िरेला,
िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंधितधत्र के सधबंद्ध गियोजकों और श्री सुरजीत कुमार/सधदर्भ सधख्या. 100/2023, श्री गिगति,/ सधदर्भ
सधख्या. 101/2023, कामिार, के बंीच अिुबंधि में गिर्दभष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2
िई ददल्ली पधचाट (सधदर्भ सधख्या.100/2023,सधदर्भ सधख्या. 101/2023, को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है,
प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-43 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.100/2023]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-43 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.101/2023]
ददलीप कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID No. 100/2023, ID No. 101/2023), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
the employers in relation to The General Manager, B.G. Shirke Company Technology Pvt. Ltd., Narela, New
Delhi ; Shri Ram Enterprises, Narela, New Delhi and Shri Amarjeet /ID No. 100/2023,Shri Ajay Dahiya/
ID No. 101/2023, Worker, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-43-IR (DU) ID No.100/2023]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-43-IR (DU) ID No.101/2023]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No.100/2023
Sh. Amarjeet, S/o Sh. Satpal,
R/o House No–101, Fatehpur, P.O. Bindroli,
District–Sonipat, Haryana–131403.
I.D. No.101/2023
Sh. Ajay Dahiya, S/o Sh. RajbirDahiya,
R/o V.P.O.Nahra, District–Sonipat, Haryana–131403.
VERSUS
1. The General Manager,
B.G. Shirke Company Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
DDA Project–1V, Mata Mansa Devi Main Office,
Pocket–09, Narela, New Delhi–110040.
1242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Shri Ram Enterprises,
At Pocket–11, Sector –A–01 to A–04, Near Mansa Devi Mandir,
Narela, New Delhi–110040.
Also At:
02, Krishna Plaza, Opp. PMC Water Tank, Bombay Sappers
Colony, Pune Nagar Road, Pune, Maharashtra–411014.
AWARD
These are the two cases filed by the different workmen U/S 2 (A) of the I.D Act for their
dismissal/termination against the same managements. As the workmen were having the same cause of action, hence,
these cases are taken together for disposal.
Claimants in their claims statements had stated that they were employed with the managements as heavy
worker driver with punching code bearing no.SHOOO2547 and SHOOO16743 at sight no. 1340 and 1337 from
15.12.2015 as well as 15.05.2019 at the last drawn salary of Rs.20,600/- and 19,600/- respectively. Managements
since beginning have not issued any appointment letter to the workman, despite, repeated request and reminder
made/sent. They have done their duty with utmost care and sincerity. Workmen had not given legal benefits despite
being asked. Management got annoyed for this and ultimately their services were terminated on 20.10.2022. By
completing the legal formalities i.e. by availing the services of conciliation officer, both of them had filed the claims
petitions hear in.
On 29.01.2024 management had filed the memo of appearance. However, this tribunal had called the
Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Labour (Central Delhi) for explaining the fact as to why they had
entertained the present claims before him and issuing the certificate of failure to the claimants because none of the
respondents, is the central government which is mandatory for entertaining any Industrial Dispute in three other cases
where the B.G.K Shirke is also the respondents. However, Sh. Santosh Kumar had not appeared despite, the notice
being given to this effect. Therefore, this tribunal has taken it for disposal.
Counsel for the claimants has stated that he has appeared before this tribunal because the notices were sent
by this tribunal and the conciliation had been failed and Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Labour,
(Central) had issued the failure report.
Appropriate government is the central government in relation to any industrial dispute which pertained to
any industry carried on by all under the authority of central government.
Section-2(a)(1) of the Act give the detail expression of covering the industry which falls under the definition
of central government controlled industry. It is reproduced
‘in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company [or concerning any such
controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] or in
relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labor Board established under
Section 5A of the Dock workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 0f 1948), or
[the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 19560] or the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of
1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of
Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B,
respectively, of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952
(19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of
the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited registered under the companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation establish under section 3 of the
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the
Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing
Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section
3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporations of India
established under section 3, or a Board of Management established for two or more
contiguous States under section 16, of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or
[the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of
India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the
Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank
of India Limited], [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the
National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or [[an air transport service, or a
banking or an insurance company,] a mine, an oil field,] [a cantonment Board,] or a
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1243
[major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid-up share
capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation
referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by parliament, or the
Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal
undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the
Central Government, and]
Ld. AR of the workman is unable to tell how this tribunal has the jurisdiction to try their claim particularly
when the appropriate government is not the central government in respect of the respondent herein. Ld. AR has only
stated that the Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Labour Commisioner (Central) Delhi had given the failure report U/s 2 A
of the Act and for this reason he had filed his claim. He further asserted that this tribunal has the jurisdiction in view
of the failure report given by the Assistant Commissioner (Central).
Section-2 A have been inserted by Act 35 of 1965 in the Act and provide that the dismissal, discharge,
retrenchment and termination of individual employee/workman shall be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute and give
an option to the workmen to file the claim directly by filing an application to the labour court or tribunal for
adjudication. However, it is subject to the condition that first, he will make an application to the conciliation officer of
the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute. However, the application has to be made before the
tribunal after expiry of the Forty-five days of moving the application before the conciliation officer.
Section-2 A of the Act is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience
‘[2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.
[(1)] where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the
services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and
his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other
workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute]’
Section 2 A (2) which has been inserted by Act 24 of 2010 has categorically mentioned that the application
has to be made to the conciliation officer of the appropriate government. However, the Assistant Commissioner
(Central) Delhi is not the conciliation officer of the appropriate government herein because none of the respondent has
come within the definition of the Central Government. He has exercised the jurisdiction which has not been vested
upon him.
In these circumstances, this tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to try the claim of the workmen.
Hence, the claim of the workmen stand dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of
this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. A copy of this award is
also sent to the Central Labour Commissioner for information and action.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 540.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मेससभ टाटा कम्युगिकेिि गलगमटेड, किॉट प्लेस, िई ददल्ली; मेससभ प्रीग्रीि िार्डिंि प्रा. गलगमटेड, सेक्टर-18, इलेक्रॉगिक्स
गसटी, िुड़िाधि, के प्रबंधितधत्र के सधबंद्ध गियोजकों और श्री जसिीर ससधह, कामिार, द्वारा- ददल्ली प्लधबंर एम्प्लॉइज
इधडगररयल िकभर यूगियि, कालकाजी िई ददल्ली, के बंीच अिुबंधि में गिर्दभष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली पधचाट(सधदर्भ सधख्या. 151/2018, को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है,प्रकागित करती है
जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-44 आईआर(डीयू)]
ददलीप कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.ID No. 151 of 2018), of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s. Tata Communication Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi ; M/s. Pregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd. , Sector-
1244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18, Electronics City, Gurgaon, and Shri Jasveer Singh , Worker, Through-Delhi Plumber Employees industrial
Worker Union, Kalkaji New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-44-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
ID. NO. 151/2018
Sh.Jasveer Singh, S/o Sh. Sukh Pal Singh,
R/o 152, Village- Khichripur, Delhi-110091
Through-Delhi Plumber Employees industrial Worker Union,
Address: 118/2, Govind Puri, Near Kalka Ji Bus Depot,
Kalkaji New Delhi- 110019
…Applicant/Claimant
VERSUS
1. M/s. Tata Communication Ltd.
Address:- 2, Bangla Sahib Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s. Pregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd.
Address: Plot No.- 13, Sector-18,
Electronics City, Gurgaon-122015. Managements/Respondents
AWARD/ORDER DATED
Succinctly, the Workman’s case is that he has been working with management-1 through management-2
since 01.08.2014 at the last drawn pay of Rs. 12,500/- month. His service record was clean and management has no
complaint of any kind against his work. At the time of appointment his signature were obtained on blank papers by
the management. Management-2 was the contractor by namesake though, he was doing his work with management-1.
Since beginning he has not been providing any appointment letter, leave, attendance card, weakly holiday etc. He had
demanded the same from the management and for this reason management got annoyed and he was thrown up from
the job on 23.05.2017 in cross violation of Industrial dispute Act. He had tried to get his service back and for this he
had applied through labour department however management had not co-operated. Hence, he had filed the present
claim.
Respondent had appeared and filed their respective reply. Management-1 had denied that workman had been
terminated by him. Workman was related to respondent-2 through it distinct and independent service provider i.e.
M/s. Pregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd. Which is a independent and distinct entity. The grievance of the workman if any is
against the management-2. Hence, he submitted that claims of the workman be dismissed qua him.
Respondent-2 had admitted that workman was on the rolls of respondent-2, one of the contractor of the
respondent-1 for providing security services under the agreement executed between them. He submitted that the
claimant was very careless and always prefered sit ideally. Management-2 repeatedly receiving complaint with regard
to the act of misbehavior and misconduct, un-necessary argument and using un-parliamentary language with officers
of management-1. He was warned by many times but he did not change his habits. He submitted that claimant had
lastly attended the duty on 11.04.2017 and remained absent thereafter illegally. He submitted that he still ready to
take back the claimant on duty.
Rejoinder has been filed by the claimant denying the averment made by the management in their WS.
From the pleading of the party, following issues have been framed vide order dated 24.10.2019.
ISSUES
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2. Whether the workman was illegally terminated from service by management no.1.
3. Whether there exist any employer and employee relationship between the management no.1 and the
workman.
4. To what relief the workman is entitled to and by whom.
Claimant is asked to examine the witness. During the course of proceeding this court has asked from the
workman AR, how the claim of the workman is maintainable before this tribunal because none of the respondent is
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1245
the central government institutions or industry. Respondent no-1 is M/s TATA COMMUNICATION LTD. And
respondent-2 is M/s PEREGRINE GUARDINEG Pvt. LTD.
Section-2 (a) of I.D Act (hereinafter is called as an Act) define the expression ‘appropriate government’.
Appropriate government is the central government in relation to any industrial dispute which pertain to any
industry carried on by all under the authority of central government.
Section-2(a)(1) of the Act give the detail expression of covering the industry which falls under the definition
of central government controlled industry. It is reproduced
‘in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under
the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company [or concerning any
such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government]
or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labor Board established
under Section 5A of the Dock workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 0f
1948), or [the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 19560] or the Employees State Insurance Act,
1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal
Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the
Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section
5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India
established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956),
or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the companies Act,
1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation
establish under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation
Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under
section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of
India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or
the Food Corporations of India established under section 3, or a Board of Management
established for two or more contiguous States under section 16, of the Food
Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted
under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional
Rural banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation
Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited], [the National
Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53
of 1987)], or [[an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company,] a mine,
an oil field,] [a cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any company in which not less
than fifty-one percent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government,
or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or
under any law made by parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary
companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or
controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and]
Ld. AR of the workman is unable to tell how this tribunal has the jurisdiction to try their claim particularly when the
appropriate government is not the central government in respect of the respondent herein. Ld. AR has only stated that
the Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Assistant Labour Commisioner (Central) Delhi had given the failure report U/s 2 A of the
Act and for this reason he had filed his claim. He further asserted that this tribunal has the jurisdiction in view of the
failure report given by the Assistant Commissioner (Central).
Section-2 A have been inserted by Act 35 of 1965 in the Act and provide that the dismissal, discharge, retrenchment
and termination of individual employee/workman shall be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute and give an option to
the workmen to file the claim directly by filing an application to the labour court or tribunal for adjudication.
However, it is subject to the condition that first, he will make an application to the conciliation officer of the
appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute. However, the application has to be made before the tribunal
after expiry of the Forty-five days of moving the application before the conciliation officer.
Section-2 A of the Act is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience
‘[2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial
dispute. [(1)] where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise
terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between
that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute]’
1246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 2 A (2) which has been inserted by Act 24 of 2010 has categorically mentioned that the application
has to be made to the conciliation officer of the appropriate government. However, the Assistant Commissioner
(Central) Delhi is not the conciliation officer of the appropriate government herein because none of the respondent has
come within the definition of the Central Government. He has exercised the jurisdiction which has not been vested
upon him.
In these circumstances, this tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to try the claim of the workmen.
Hence, the claim of the workmen stand dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of
this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. A copy of this award is
also sent to the Central Labour Commissioner for information and action.
Date: 29.01.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 541.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
सीएमडी, िेििल गबंसल्डधि कधररक्िि कॉपोरेिि गलगमटेड, एि.बंी.सी.सी. र्िि, लोिी रोड, िई ददल्ली; प्रबंधिक, िेििल
गबंसल्डधि कधररक्िि कॉपोरेिि गलगमटेड, एि.बंी.सी.सी. रथाि, प्रिगत गिहार, िई ददल्ली; श्री सुरेंर कुमार (गियोक्ता),
एस.के.कधररक्िि कधपिी, बंुराड़ी, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंधितधत्र के सधबंद्ध गियोजकों और श्री ब्रजेि कुमार/सधदर्भ सधख्या.
26/2021, श्री िेदपाल/सधदर्भ सधख्या. 27/2021/ श्री दीपक/ सधदर्भ सधख्या. 28/2021, श्री सुरजीत कुमार/ सधदर्भ सधख्या.
29/2021, श्री गिगति,/ सधदर्भ सधख्या. 30/2021, कामिार, द्वारा - र्ारतीय राष्ट्रीय प्रिासी श्रगमक सधघ, 1770/8, तीसरी
मधगजल िोगिद पुरी एक्सटेंिि, मेि रोड, कालकाजी, िई ददल्ली, के बंीच अिुबंधि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली पधचाट (सधदर्भ सधख्या. 26/2021, सधदर्भ सधख्या. 27/2021, सधदर्भ सधख्या.
28/2021, सधदर्भ सधख्या. 29/2021 सधदर्भ सधख्या. 30/2021, को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है
जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.26/2021]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.27/2021]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.28/2021]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.29/2021]
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-40 आईआर(डीयू)/i.r.to ID No.30/2021]
ददलीप कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID No.26/2021, ID No. 27/2021, ID No. 28/2021, ID No.
29/2021, ID No. 30/2021), of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The CMD, National Building
Construction Corporation Ltd., N.B.C.C. Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ;The Manager, National Building
Construction Corporation Ltd., N.B.C.C. Place, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi ; Shri Surender Kumar
(Employer),S.K. Construction Co.,Burari, New Delhi, and Shri Brajesh Kumar/ID No.26/2021,Shri Vedpal /
ID No.27/2021, Shri Deepak / ID No.28/2021, Shri Surjit Kumar / ID No.29/2010, Shri Nitin / ID
No.20/2021,Worker, Through– Indian National Migrant Workers Union, 1770/8, 3rd Floor Govid Puri Extn.
Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-41-IR (DU) ID No.26/2021]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-41-IR (DU) ID No.27/2021]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-41-IR (DU) ID No.28/2021]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-41-IR (DU)ID No.29/2021]
[No. L-42025-07-2024-41-IR (DU)ID No.30/2021]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1247
ANNEXURE
SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM –
LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No.26/2021
Sh. Brajesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o – Sikandarpur, P.O. Pilkhana, Akarabad, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh –
202121.
Through – Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,
1770/8, 3rd Floor Govid Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi – 110019.
I.D. No.27/2021
Sh. Vedpal, S/o Sh. Masijaran,
R/o T – 281, Mehar Chand Market Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.
Through – Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,
1770/8, 3rd Floor Govid Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi – 110019.
I.D. No.28/2021
Sh. Deepak, S/o Sh. Chander Lal, R/o J - 53,
2nd Floor, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi – 110019.
Through – Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,
1770/8, 3rd Floor Govid Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi – 110019.
I.D. No.29/2021
Sh. Surjit Kumar, S/o Sh.Subhash Chand,
R/o BB - 165, Bagrian Basti Near Kali Mandir ,
Akhara Wali Gali, Nabi Karim, Pharganj, Delhi – 110055.
Through – Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,
1770/8, 3rd Floor Govid Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi – 110019.
I.D. No.30/2021
Sh. Nitin, S/o Late Sh.Puran, R/o J - 289, Jaitpur
Arpan Vihar , Badarpur, South Delhi – 110044.
Through – Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,
1770/8, 3rd Floor Govid Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019.
VERSUS
1.
Sh. P.K. Gupta CMD
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.,
N.B.C.C. Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.
2.
Sh. A.K. Verma, Manager,
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.,
N.B.C.C. Place, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi – 110003.
3.
Sh. Surender Kumar (Employer),
S.K.Construction Co.
D – 29, Gali No. 1, Jharoda Part-01, Burari,
New Delhi- 110009.
4.
Vimal Enterprises,
Through- National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.,
N.B.C.C. Place, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi- 110003.
1248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose off the claims of the above said workmen U/S 2A of the I.D Act.
The workmen in their claim statement had stated that they have been working with the managements since
12.03.2017, 11.02.2019, 01.11.2012, 2014 and 01.03.2018 at the post of House keeping with the management- 1 &
2. Respondent no. 3 & 4 are the false contractor. They have been drawing the pay from 15,000 to 18,000/- per
month. They have been deprived by the management of the legal facilities since beginning. When they demanded
the said legal facilities, principal employer and contractor had terminated their services on 01.12.2019 after keeping
their arrear of their salary of November 2019. Workmen had sent the demand notice asking the management to
keep them on duty but management has not given any answer. They had filed the claims with the Labour
Commissioner on 30.05.2018 but no result have been yielded. Hence, they had filed their claim U/S 2 (A) of the
I.D Act.
Management no. 1 & 2 had appeared and filed the WS denying the relationship of employer and employee.
Management-3 had also appeared later on and filed their WS denying the averment made by the claimants. Issues
have been framed. Workmen are asked to file their evidence in support of their claims. However, the AR of the
workman Sh. Anil Rajput had stated that he has no contract with the workmen for long time as such he is unable to
file the affidavit in evidence.
In these circumstance, when the workmen have not led any evidence, then the claims of the workmen are
resulted into failure. Hence, the claims of the workmen stand dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of
this order is placed in each of the file. File is consigned to record room.
Date: 24.01.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 542.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
महागिदेिक, सीपीडब्लल्यूडी, गिमाभण र्िि, िई ददल्ली; कायभकारी अगर्यधता, सीपीडब्लल्यूडी, यू गडिीजि, सीजीओ
कॉम्प्लेक्स, लोिी रोड, ददल्ली, के प्रबंधितधत्र के सधबंद्ध गियोजकों और श्री राज कुमार और 3 अन्द्य, कामिार, द्वारा -
सीपीडब्लल्यूडी कमभचारी सधघ, िुड़िाधि, (हररयाणा), के बंीच अिुबंधि में गिर्दभष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-
श्रम न्द्यायालय-1 िई ददल्ली पधचाट(सधदर्भ सधख्या. 106/2019) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है,प्रकागित करती है
जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/44/2019-आईआर(डीयू)]
ददलीप कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2024
S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.ID No. 106/2019), of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court- I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Director General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi ;The Executive Engineer,
CPWD,U Division, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi, and Shri Raj Kumar & 3 others, Worker, Through -
CPWD Karamchari Union, Gurgaon , (Haryana), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.03.2024.
[No. L-42011/44/2019-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI – 1 ROOM
NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
ID No. 106/2019
Shri Raj Kumar & 3 others,
Through CPWD Karamchari Union,
Banu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No. 4 Gurgaon Road,
Opp. Bus Stand Gurgaon (Haryana)-122005.
Claimant…
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1249
Versus
1.
The Director General
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2.
The Executive Engineer, CPWD,
U Division, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
Delhi-110003
Managements…
Claimant in person.
Shri K.K.Pandey, AR for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.42011/44/2019-IR(DU) dated 11.04.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between CPWD (U Division) and its Contractor is sham? Whether the workmen Sh. Raj
Kumar & 3 others (mentioned in Annexure-A) are entitled to be regularized in the services of the management
of CPWD with effect from the initial date of appointment along with consequential benefits, if yes, what
directions are necessary in this respect? 2. Whether the action of management of CPWD in not ensuring the
wages to the workmen Sh. Raj Kumar & 3 others (mentioned in Annexure-A) Equal to their regular employees
discharging same and similar work is illegal and/or unjustified, If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to
and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Claim statement filed, rebuttal written statement filed on behalf of the management.
3.
The claimant filed an application for withdrawal with affidavit. Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal
has no option except to pass the no dispute with reserved their legal rights. No disputant award is passed accordingly.
File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate government for
notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेडक् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175, अबचन एस्ट्टेट,
फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj मवनंिर वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (134/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y -12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-117]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.134/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Maninder Singh.Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-117]
SALONI, Dy. Director
1250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.134/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Maninder Singh S/o Sh. Bittu Singh R/o Village Fateh Majiri, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala.
Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
Respondents
Award
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Maninder Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of
no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन
.
कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेडक् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल
.
आई
.
िी
.
175, अबचन एस्ट्टेट,
फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सरबिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (135/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y -12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-118]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.135/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Sarabjit Kaur Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-118]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 135/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Sarabjit Kaur W/o Sh. Avtar Singh R/o Village Hardaspur Distt. Patiala.
Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1251
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Sarabjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but
of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after
completion be consigned in the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेडक् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj दकरणृाल कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (136/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y -12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-119]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.136/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Kiranpal Kaur Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-119]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 136/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Kiranpal Kaur W/o Sh. Tejinder Singh R/o Village Hardaspur Tehsil & Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
1252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Kiranpal Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence
but of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after
completion be consigned in the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क्वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj कुलिीृ कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (137/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y -12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-120]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 137/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –
I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.
175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Kuldeep Kaur Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-120]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 137/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Kuldeep Kaur W/o Sh. Mohan Singh R/o Village Baghwala Pasa, Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1253
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Kuldeep Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence
but of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after
completion be consigned in the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj बबनिीृ वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.Mhx< ds iapkV (139/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-121]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.139/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.
175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Babandeep Singh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-121]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 139/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Babandeep Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh R/o Village Icchewal, Tehsil Nabha, Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
1254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Babandeep Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but
of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after
completion be consigned in the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 548.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, आ ुि जनमाचणी, इटारसी, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री रमेि प्रसाि, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में
जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट (संिभच सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/142/2001) को
िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- ,y -14012/25/2001-vkbZ vkj-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/142/2001) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi , and Shri Ramesh Prasad, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L-14012/25/2001- IR(DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/142/2001
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ramesh Prasad,
Adarsh Nagar,
Near EWS-73, Housing Board Colony,
Hoshangabad - 461001
Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi – 461122
Management
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1255
AWARD
(Passed on this 26th day of February 2024)
As per letter dated 09/07/2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-14012/25/2001 (IR(DU)) dt 09/07/2001. The dispute under reference relates to:-
“Whether the action of the management of Ordinance Factory. Itarsi in terminating the servicers of
Sh. Ramesh Prasad w.e.f. 15/03/1995 if justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Facts connected in brief are mainly that while the workman was in service of management he was issued a
charge sheet by management containing following charges: -
1. In pilferage of diesel from the government vacant amounting to fact of government property.
2. Misuse of government vehicle for private riding.
3. Carrying on authorized person in the explosive van.
4. Following unauthorized and longer route
The departmental enquiry was conducted by the management the Enquiry Officer, filed his enquiry report
holding all the charges proved except charge No. 1. The disciplinary authority,after considering the
representation of the workman against the enquiry report, awarded the punishment of terminating his
services vide his order dated 15/03/1995. According to the workman, the departmental enquiry was not
legally and properly conducted, charges were not proved on the basis of enquiry and the punishment was
disproportionate to the charges. The workman therefore requested that holding the punishment bad-in-law,
he be reinstated with all consequences benefits.
Case of management, as taken in their written statement of defence, is mainly that the workman had committed
the gross misconduct of serious nature while working as Civilian Motor Driver with the fact on 24/09/1998 in the
Ordinance Factory Itarsi in the year 02/1992. Departmental action was initiated against him under Rule 14 of statutory
Central Services (CCA) Rules 1965 and a department enquiry was conducted following procedure laid down in the
rules. The workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer submitted his finding on
19/04/1993 holding all the charges except charge No.1 proved against the workman. A copy of enquiry report was
forwarded the workman he did submit his representation on enquiry report and after considering his representation the
disciplinary authority disagreeing with the final of enquiry Officer with the charge No. 1 held the charge No. 1 also
proved and imposed the penalty of termination of his services while order dated 20 July 1993. Appeal filed by the
workman against this order was dismissed by the appellate authority. Accordingly to the management, the charges
were duly proved and punishment was also not disproportionate to the charges accordingly management requested
that reference be answered against the workman.
On the basis of pleading, my learned predecessor framed the following issue vide order dated 21/11/2006
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by management against the workman is
proper and legal ?
2. If issue no. 1 has decided is negative against management whether the management is
entitled to prove the mistake of the workman?
3. To what relief if is the workman entitled?
Issue No. 1 was taken as preliminary issue.
Preliminary issue was decided on the basis of evidence by my learned vide his order Dt. 16/05/2013 holding
the departmental enquiry bad in law. Management was permitted to lead evidence before this Tribunal.
Parties adduced their side of evidence in form of documents and affidavits of witnesses. On the basis of
evidence on record, award was passed by my learned predecessor on Sep 7/2015 holding only the charge No. 3 i.e.
carrying unauthorized person in explosive van proved and set aside the punishment of termination of the workman
from the services holding it not proper, this sentence was modified to compulsory retirement for the workman.
The management filed W.P. No. 2522/2016 before Hon’ble Court of M.P. which was decided after hearing
on 08/09/2023. The Hon’ble High Court Single Bench held that finding of this Tribunal with respect to non-proving
of charge regarding illegal transportation of the private goods by the workman in the official explosive van from
Nashik to Indore required reconsideration by this Tribunal and accordingly the modification of punishment also
requires reconsideration. Hon’ble High Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to this Tribunal to decide it
afresh and pass fresh award in the light of the observations. It is in the light of the observations and on the direction of
Hon’ble High Court the case was reheard by this Tribunal.
1256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Learned counsel for workman Shri Neeraj Kewat and Learned counsel for management Shri Gopi Chourasia
submitted his argument. I have gone through the record as well.
The perusal of record in the light of and reveals that finding of my learned predecessor in the award passed
by, on the finding that charge No. 1, charge No. 4 and charge No. 5 were not proved, has not been interfered by
Hon’ble High Court. Hon’ble High court has concurred with the finding of my learned predecessor in the award that
charge No. 3 which is carrying on authorized person in the explosive van containing explosive was held proved by
evidence. As regard to charge of misuse of government vehicle for private trading, finding on this charge as been
found against record by Hon’ble High Court. Hon’ble High Court referred to the statement of two witnesses i.e. C.P.
Mourya and Rajendra Prasad Patel recorded before this Tribunal.
I have gone through the statements of these two witnesses recorded before this Tribunal. In the light of the
observation of this Hon’ble High court as mentioned above.
Rajendra Prasad Patel states in his affidavit which is his examination in chief hat “we left Amarnath on
13/02/1992 at 16-30 hours. When we reached at Nashik, Ramesh Prasad (workman) permitted the transporters to load
about 8 tone materials consisting of tyre and metals part in the vacant vehicle and same was unloaded at Indore”. In
his cross examination on this point, this witness states that he was assigned to go to Bombay with Ramesh on
08/02/1992. He was sent with Ramesh as a helper they had gone in the explosive van, there were no written order
given to him for going with Ramesh, he does not remember the year he left the school, he does not know whether C.P.
Mourya was given order for going to Bombay. The van was halted at 2 or 3 places on way to Bombay. He did not
listen a conversation between driver Ramesh and Proprietor of Mama Transport they had gone through the godown of
the Mama transport which was at distance from the road the tyres were loaded at Nashik. He had objected to loading
the private good in government vehicle. It is clear from his cross examination that there is nothing in cross
examination to discredit him with regard to his statement regarding loading of private goods in government vehicle.
The other witness C.P. Mourya has stated in his affidavit in form of affidavit that he, along with Rajendra
Prasad Patel was in said vehicle, while returning back, Ramesh Prasad stopped the vehicle in Nashik and told that he
had some personal work there in Nashik which will take time. According to this witness, he left the vehicle and came
back in the evening. They all proceeded in the Nashik in the evening. During journey, he was told by the Rajendra
Prasad Patel that Ramesh Prasad (driver) had filled in some non government goods for transportation in the vehicle at
Nashik. They reached at Indore the vehicle stopped there he got down from the vehicle and return back after 2 or 3
hours thereafter they proceeded from Indore. In his cross examination of this point he has stated that he had witnessed
goods been unloaded from the vehicle at Indore from distance about 100 to 150 meters. These goods were unloaded at
Dewas Naka at Indore.
It well settled proposition of law that charge in a departmental enquiry need not be proved beyond doubt.
Here are some decisions in support -
Departmental enquiry & criminal proceedings distinguished: Scope of disciplinary proceedings and
scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in
the two proceedings are also different. See: T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255
Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although
the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable
doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who upon analyzing
the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges
on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot
refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of
the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. See: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat &
Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88
(Para 25)
In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State
Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC
442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 (vi)
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30, it has
been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two
different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public
service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a
departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1257
proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and
the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."
In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been ruled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct,
exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.
In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High
Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the
distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings
i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The
object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule
relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot
be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent
officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of proof
in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules of
evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental
enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for
breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in
the service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental
enquiry and trial of criminal case. "
Looking into the evidence recorded as discussed above of the light of settled principal of law with respect to
prove of charges in the departmental enquiry it is held that the charge of illegally transporting private goods in the
government vehicle is also proved and this point is answered accordingly.
In Deputy Commissioner, KVS & Others Vs. J. Hussain, AIR 2014 SC 766 (DB) Held-
“It is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be
imposed on delinquent. This discretion has to be exercised objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of
charge. The Disciplinary Authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. Host of factors go
into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of
misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the
delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in department or establishment
where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist.”
As regards the proportionality of punishment, the other charge proved amounts to engaging in profiteering
by way of transporting private goods in a government vehicle which is serious misconduct on the part of the workman
affecting his integrity. Keeping in view the seriousness of this charge proved, the punishment of termination of
services of the workman by the management cannot be held so disproportionate to the charge which shocks the
conscience of this Tribunal. Holding that the punishment does not warrant interference, this point is also answered
accordingly.
In the light of above findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and being
answered as such
AWARD
Holding the the action of the management of Ordinance Factory. Itarsi in terminating the servicers of
Sh. Ramesh Prasad w.e.f. 15/03/1995 justifiedin law, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 549.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
प्रभारी अजिकारी, विंिुस्ट्तान ए रोनॉठटक्स जलजमटेड, ओवरिॉल जडवीिन, वा ु सेना स्ट्टेिन, ग्वाजल र (म.प्र.), के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री रमेि ारा, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
1258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट (संिभच सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/40/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा
ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42012/204/2018 - आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/40/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The Officer Incharge, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Overhall Division, Air Force Station, Gwalior
(M.P), and Shri Ramesh Khara, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L-42012/204/2018 - IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd)
Shri Ramesh Khara
S/o Gannu Khare,
R/o Rasoolpur, Bhind Road,
Maharajpura, Gwalior(MP) - 474020
Workman
Versus
The Officer Incharge,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Overhall Division, Air Force Station,
Gwalior (MP) - 474001
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 27Th day of February-2024.)
As per letter dated 15/02/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number
L 42012/204/ 2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 15/02/2019. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the claim of Shri Ramesh Khare regarding his work under officer Incharge, Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. Form 23.06.1995 to 28.02.2015 is correct. If so, whether his oral termination by
Officer Incharge, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Gwalior on 28.02.2015 was justificd? If not, to what
relief Shri Ramesh Khare is entitled to ?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of allotment of time and service of
notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim, due to which reference preceded ex-parte
against the workman vide order dated September 27, 2022. Management also did not file its written statement of
claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1259
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of workman not proved the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 550.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
जनिेिक, मेससच अटल जबिारी बािृे ी IIITM, इंरलोक नगर,ग्वाजल र (म.प्र.); अध् क्ष, मैससच अटल जबिारी बािृे ी
IIITM, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और सुश्री सुभांगी र्तुवेिी, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट
केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/12/2021) को िैसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-50-आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/12/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The Director, M/s Atal Bihari Bajpayee IIITM, Indralok Nagar, Gwalior (M.P) ;The President,
M/s Atal Bihari Bajpayee IIITM, New Delhi, and Ms. Subhangi Chaturvedi, Worker, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L- 42025-07-2024-50- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Ms. Subhangi Chaturvedi,
K-32, Gandhinagar,
Gwalior (MP) - 474002
Workman
Versus
The Director,
M/s Atal Bihari Bajpayee IIITM,
106, Globus Township, Near Indralok Nagar,
Gwalior (MP) – 474011
1260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The President,
M/s Atal Bihari Bajpayee IIITM,
4/73, New Friends Colony,
Near DBA Shopping Centre
New Delhi – 110025
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of February-2024.)
As per letter dated 22/01/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number J-1(1-
2)/2021-IR dt. 22/01/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-
“क् ा सुश्री िुभांगी र्तुवेिी कमचकार को मैससच अटल जबिारी बािृे ीए आईआईआईटीएम, ग् वाजल र द्वारा
आवेिक को 01/05/2020 को काम से जनकाला िाना न् ा ोजर्त िैय दि निीं, तो उक् त कमचकारको कब से
और दकन लाभों के सा नौकरी ृर ृुन: बिाल दक ा िाना र्ाजिए य ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of allotment of time and service of
notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written
statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of workman not proved the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 551.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मु् का चृालन अजिकारी, छावनी बोडच, िबलृुर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री रामप्रसाि ृटेल, कामगार, के
बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट (संिभच सं् ा
CGIT/LC/R/114/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 13012/02/2018 -आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/114/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jabalpur, and Shri Ramprashad Patel, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L- 13012/02/2018 - IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1261
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ramprashad Patel
S/o Shri Radheshaym Patel
Vill- Bhamki, PO- Shahpura (Bhitoni)
Jabalpur - 483119
Workman
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
Jabalpur - 482001
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 04th day of March 2024)
As per letter dated 22/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-13012/02/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 22/11/2018 The dispute under reference relates to:
“क् ा प्रबंितत्र र्ीफ एक् िीक् ूठटव ऑदफसर, केन् टोनमेंट बोडच, िबलृुर म० प्र० के प्रबंिन द्वारा
श्री रामप्रसाि ृटेल आत् मि श्री रािेश् ाम ृटेल भूतृूवच िैजनक वेतनभोगी वा रमेन को दिनांक 27.9.2016 से
1.9.2017 के बीर् का च में र े िाने ृश् र्ात उसकी सेवा समाजप्त की का चवािी न् ा ोजर्त िै दि निीं तो
संबंजित कमचर्ारी दकस अनुतोप का िकिार िै य ”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and were
duly served on them.
In his statement of claim filed by the applicant Workman, he was initially appointed by the management of
Cantonment Board on the post of wireman for a period of three months wide order of management, dated September
27th 2016 for 89 days. His this appointment was further extended for another period of 89 days wide order dated
January 2nd, 2017 and thereafter for another period of 89 days by order of management, dated April 1st , 2017. His
appointment was again extended for another period of 89 days wide order dated July 3rd . His appointment was on
daily rated basis. Hence, he worked continuously with management for a period of more than 240 days in and year,
and in spite of that, he was illegally disengaged by management wide order dated September 1st 2017. Without any
notice or compensation. According to the workman, the management is an industry as defined in the section 2(J) of
the industrial disputes ‘Act’ 1947, hereinafter referred to by the word ‘Act’ and he is a Workman as defined under
section2(s) of the ‘Act’. His termination amounts to retrenchment as defined under section 2(0)(0) of the ‘Act’. His
termination is against the section25F of the ‘Act’. Since the principle of first-come last go was not followed in his
case, his termination is also in violation of section25H of the ‘Act’ and rules 76 and 77 of industrial disputes (Central
) rules, hereinafter referred to by the word rules. The Workman has accordingly sought the relief of his reinstatement
with all back wages and benefits, holding his termination against law.
Despite of the fact that, notices were sufficiently server management, none appeared from management to
contest this reference. Hence, the reference proceeded ex parte against the management vide order dated March 22nd
2021.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit, which was on cross-examined. He also filed and proved
documents regarding his initial appointment and subsequent extensions and his termination letter as mentioned above,
as ExW1 to ExW5.
No evidence was adduced to from the side of management.
I have heard argument of learned counsel for the workman, Mr Hari 0m Gupta.
None was present from the side of management at this stage of argument. No written arguments were
submitted by management. I have gone through the record as well.
The reference itself is in issue in this case.
1262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Before entering into any discussion, following provisions of the ‘Act’ required to be mentioned and are being
reproduced as follows-
2[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any any
reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
3[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated
under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]
1 Substituted
2[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-
(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(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.]
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the
workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
1[***]
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is
to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any
agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches
any other workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to
take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1263
retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen]
who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
The Workman has corroborated his case is stated in his claim, which is further supported by documentary evidence
ExW1 to ExW4, which are letter of his appointment and extensions regarding his services till August 31st 2017. All
this is un challenged by management. In his affidavit, the workman has stated on oath that he requested the
management to re-engage him, but it was refused and other persons were engaged in his place but he has not given
any detail of such persons. In absence of detail of any person who came over was engaged by the management after
the engagement of the applicant Workman, violation of section25H of the ‘Act’ cannot be held to be proved.
Hence, from the evidence as mentioned above, the continuous employment of the workman with
management for a period of 240 days and more within any year is held proved. As it is the case of the workman that
he was not given any notice or compensation, his termination is held in violation of section 2 5F &25G of the ‘Act’.
Regarding the relief sought, it has been submitted from the side of Workman that interest of Justice will be
served only when he is ordered to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits. Learned counsel has referred to
following decisions in this respect-
1. Rajeev Sinha Vs Sardar Ballabh Bhai Polytechnic 2006(111) FLR 571 M.P.
2. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak 2013 (139) FLR541SC.
3. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs Jabbar Singh and others ( 2017) SCC112.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the Workman has not been gainfully employed after his
termination. Neither his statement of claim, nor his affidavit stated this fact is specifically. Hence, in such a
circumstance, when there is nothing to indicate that the Workman was not gainfully employed after termination of his
services by management, he cannot be held entitled to back wages. In the light of the principles of law laid down in
the above noted cases, when there is nothing on record to show that there is any vacancy of any type with the
management regarding the post on which the workman was employed, his reinstatement will not serve the end of
Justice. It has to be kept in mind that, management cannot be asked by this tribunal to create a vacancy for the
workman.
Hence, in the light of above discussion, the workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation in
the lieu of all his claims, to be computed at Rs. 100,000/-payable to him by management within 30 days from
the date of publication of award in official Gazette, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of award till payment.
The reference is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding the action of management , Chief Executive Officer of
Cantonment Board in terminating the services of Sri Ram Prasad Patel , former daily rated wireman is held
against law and not unjustified in law. He is held entitled to a lump sum compensation in the lieu of all his
claims, to be computed at Rs. 100,000/-payable to him by management within 30 days from the date of
publication of award in official Gazette, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
award till payment.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 552.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
प्रिान ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, प्रिान डाकघर, कोरबा (छ.ग.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िर नारा ण साहू,
कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट (संिभच
सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/06/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2024-45- आईआर-(डी ू)
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
1264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/06/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Korba (C.G), and Shri Har Narayan Sahu, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L- 42025-07-2024-45- IR (DU)
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/06/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Har Narayan Sahu,
Aara Machine Nayar Mohalla,
Ward No. 22 Korba Area,
District – Korba (CG)
Workman
Versus
The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Korba
Dist. Korba (CG)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 21st day of February-2024.)
As per letter dated 06/01/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number
RP–5(1-1)/2021-ES.III dt. 06/01/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Head Post Office, Korba in Terminating the service of
the Daily Wage Worker (Postman) Shri Har Narayan Sahu S/o Dhan Prasad Sahu without giving any prior
notice is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and were
duly served on them.
The case of workman is that he was appointed by management as clerk and was wrongfully dismissed
without any notice and compensation though he completed 240 days in service. Management had totally denied this
claim in their written statement. No evidence was produced by workman, in-spite of many dates given to him. Case
proceeded against workman vide order dated October 19th, 2023.
Management filed affidavit of its witness which is uncross-examined.
Heard ex-parte argument by Learned Counsel of management. Perused record, reference is the issue in this
case. Initial burden to prove is on the workman. In absence of any evidence the claim of workman is held not proceed.
The reference deserves to be answer against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 21/02/2024
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1265
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 553.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
प्रिान ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, प्रिान डाकघर, कोरबा (छ.ग.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और कुमारी ईिा बेला एक् का,
कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट(संिभच
सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/07/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2024-46- आईआर-(डीयू)
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/07/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Korba (C.G), and Miss Isha Bela Ekka, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No L- 42025-07-2024-46- IR (DU]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/07/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Miss Isha Bela Ekka,
Qtr. No. TF. 113, C.S.E.B. Colony,
Pataripara, Korba,
District – Korba (CG)
Workman
Versus
The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Korba
Dist. Korba (CG)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 21st day of February-2024.)
As per letter dated 06/01/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number RP–5(1-
2)/2021-ES.III dt. 06/01/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Head Post Office, Korba in Terminating the service of
the Daily Wage Worker (Postman) Miss Isha Bela Ekka without giving any prior notice is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and were
duly served on them.
The case of workman is that she was appointed by management as clerk and was wrongfully dismissed
without any notice and compensation though he completed 240 days in service. Management had totally denied this
claim in their written statement. No evidence was produced by workman, in-spite of many dates given to her. Case
proceeded against workman vide order dated October 19th, 2023.
1266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management filed affidavit of its witness which is uncross-examined.
Heard ex-parte argument by Learned Counsel of management. Perused record, reference is the issue in this
case. Initial burden to prove is on the workman. In absence of any evidence the claim of workman is held not proceed.
The reference deserves to be answer against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 21/02/2024
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 554.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
प्रिान ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, प्रिान डाकघर, कोरबा (छ.ग.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री संतोप जमरी, कामगार, के
बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा
CGIT/LC/R/08/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2024-47- आईआर-(डी ू)
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/08/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Korba (C.G), and Shri Santosh Miri, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L- 42025-07-2024-47- IR (DU)
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/08/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Santosh Miri,
S/o Late Kondaram Miri,
At – Ramnagar, Korba
District – Korba (CG)
Pin 495677
Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1267
Versus
The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Korba
Dist. Korba (CG)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 21st day of February-2024.)
As per letter dated 06/01/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number
RP–5(1-3)/2021-ES.III dt. 06/01/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Head Post Office, Korba in Terminating the
service of the Daily Wage Worker (Postman) Shri Santosh Miri S/o Late Kondaram Miri without giving any
prior notice is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and were
duly served on them. In spite of service of notices and many dates given, no statement of claim filed by the workman.
Management field written statement /defence.
Case proceeded ex-parte against workman vide order dated August 23th, 2022.
No evidence was filed by management also.
Heard ex-parte argument by learned counsel of management. Perused record, reference is the issue in this
case. Initial burden to prove is on the workman. In absence of any evidence the claim of workman is held not proceed.
The reference deserves to be answer against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 21/02/2024
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 555.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
प्रिान ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, प्रिान डाकघर, कोरबा (छ.ग.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रािेि कुमार र्ंराकर,
कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट (संिभच
सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/10/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2024-48- आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/10/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Korba (C.G), and Shri Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L- 42025-07-2024-48- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
1268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar,
S/o Mukut Ram Chandrakar,
Village- Bhathapara (Katharimal), Post Tarda Korba
District – Korba (CG)
Pin 495446
Workman
Versus
The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Korba
Dist. Korba (CG)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 21st day of February-2024)
As per letter dated 06/01/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number RP–5(1-
5)/2021-ES.III dt. 06/01/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Head Post Office, Korba in Terminating the service of
the Daily Wage Worker (Postman) Shri Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Mukut Ram Chandrakar without
giving any prior notice is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and were
duly served on them. In spite of service of notices and many dates given, no statement of claim filed by the workman.
Management field written statement /defence.
Case proceeded ex-parte against workman vide order dated August 23rd, 2022.
No evidence was filed by management also.
Heard ex-parte argument by learned counsel of management. Perused record, reference is the issue in this
case. Initial burden to prove is on the workman. In absence of any evidence the claim of workman is held not proceed.
The reference deserves to be answer against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 21/02/2024
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 556.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार प्रिान
ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, प्रिान डाकघर, कोरबा (छ.ग.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री प्रकाि ािव, कामगार, के बीर्
अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंर्ाट (संिभच
सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/09/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42025-07-2024-49- आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1269
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/09/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Korba (C.G), and Shri Prakash Yadav, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.
[No. L- 42025-07-2024-49- IR (DU)
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/09/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Prakash Yadav,
S/o Late Dayaram Yadav,
At – Ratakhar, Korba
District – Korba (CG)
Pin 495677
Workman
Versus
The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Korba
Dist. Korba (CG)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 21st day of February-2024.)
As per letter dated 06/01/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number
RP–5(1-4)/2021-ES.III dt. 06/01/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Head Post Office, Korba in Terminating the service of
the Daily Wage Worker (Postman) Shri Prakash Yadav S/o Late Dayaram Yadav without giving any prior
notice is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and were
duly served on them. In spite of service of notices and many dates given, no statement of claim filed by the workman.
Management field written statement /defence.
Case proceeded ex-parte against workman vide order dated August 23rd, 2022.
No evidence was filed by management also.
Heard ex-parte argument by learned counsel of management. Perused record, reference is the issue in this
case. Initial burden to prove is on the workman. In absence of any evidence the claim of workman is held not proceed.
The reference deserves to be answer against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 21/02/2024
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 557.—
(
)
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
1270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला,
ृवन वसंि, कामगार,
(
/
)
[सं.
-12025/01/2024
(
-I)-
]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.140/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Pawan Singh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-122]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 140/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Pawan Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Village Paharpur, P.O. Gajjammajera, Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Pawan Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to CentralGovernment for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 558.—
1947 (1947
)
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला,
कुलववंिर, कामगार,
(141/2016)
[सं. एल-
/
/
(
-I)-
]
सलोनी. उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1271
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.141/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Kulwinder Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-123]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 141/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Kulwinder S/o Sh. Surender R/o H.No.35, St. No.2 Sanjay Colony, Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Kulwinder has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act,
1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 559.—
(1947
14)
प्रिासन .कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार
जनवासी एल.आई.िी .175, अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला,
िगप ृ कौर, कामगार,
(142/2016)
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[सं.
-12025/01/2024
(
-I)-
]
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.142/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.
175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Jagroop Kaur Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-124]
SALONI, Dy. Director
1272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.142/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Jagroop Kaur D/o Sh. Nachhttar Singh R/o Village Icchewal Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Jagroop Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of
no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 560.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार र्ीफ ऑफ स्ट्टाफ
मु् ाल , ृजिमी कमान, र्ंडीमंदिर कैंट, ृंर्कुला-(िठर ाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री कुलभूपण वसंि, कामगार,
के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 र्ंडीगढ़ ृंर्ाट (संिभच
सं् ा 94/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19/03/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-14012/14/2017-आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 94/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court –2,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation The Chief of Staff Head Quarters, Western Command, Chandimandir Cantt, Panchkula-
(Haryana),and Shri Kulbhushan Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 19/03/2024.
[No. L-14012/14/2017- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1273
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 94/2018
Registered on:-11.12.2018
Sh. Kulbhushan Singh S/o Sh. Teja Singh, Village Rampur Siuri, PO-Surajpur, The-Kalka, Panchkula(Haryana)-
133301.
Workman
Versus
Chief of Staff Head Quarters, Western Command, Chandimandir Cantt., Panchkula(Haryana)-134107.
Respondent/Management
AWARD
Passed on:-19.02.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-14012/14/2017-IR(DU), Dated 22.11.2018, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of Chief of State, Head Quarters Western Command, Chandimandir Cantt.
Panchkula in not accepting the demand of workman Kulbhushan for regularizing his service as mali(gardener)
with back wages and consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief workman concerned is
entitled to and from which date?
1.
Both the parties were put to notice and claimant/workman Kulbhushan filed statement of claim, with the
averment, that he was appointed as a Gardener(Mali) sometime in January 1993 on temporary basis with eight hours
of working days and six days a week at the fixed salary. He continuously served with sincerity and honesty but he
was never paid the full monthly wages. When he asked about full wages, he was threatened to be thrown out of job.
The wages paid were even less than what is called DC rate. At the time of his appointment, it was settled and agreed
between him and management, that he would be on probation of one year and would be paid less but after the
completion of probation period he would be regularized and would be paid full wages as per the scale notified by the
Government from time to time. Vide Convening Order dated 10.10.1997, Board of Officers assembled to carry out
the employment in Defence Services Officers Institute(DSOI). 29 candidates were short-listed for interview and
ultimately only 10 candidates were selected for various posts. Copy of the Board Proceedings is enclosed as
Annexure C-1. Minute Sheet dated 07.11.1997 is enclosed as Annexure C-2. A cyclostyled blank appointment letter
dated 12.12.1997 for asking the selected candidates to join the duty on 22.12.1997 is enclosed as Annexure C-3 but
no appointment letter was issued. Earlier there was only one Mali/Gardener but one more post was sanctioned and the
pay scale was fixed as 1000-60-1420-EB-70-1910. Copy of the Minute Sheet dated 12.02.1998 for sanctioning the
additional post and revision of pay scale is enclosed as Annexure C-4. The workman was selected and employed for
the job of Mali in the then DSOI but after having worked for some time and for being observed for performance, the
workman was deputed for a short time in the Command Nursery and thereafter was assigned the job of Mali in the
house of Chief of Staff. The workman was awarded number of awards for the work done by him(Annexure C-5 to
Annexure C-13). He served demand notice Annexure C-14, reply thereof was filed by the respondent-management
Annexure C-15 and Failure of Conciliation Report is Annexure C-16. The workman preferred CWP No.4434/2018
before the Hon’ble High Court in which during the motion hearing on 23.02.2018, the respondent was directed to
take the workman back in service(Annexure C-17). After lot of requests and pleas, payment of Rs.48,298/- was made
through a cheque No.942576 dated 19.08.2018 vide letter dated 13.08.2018(Annexure C-18). The workman prayed
for arrears of difference of wages/salary w.e.f. 01.01.1993 till date along with interest @12% per annum and
regularization of service with continuity along with back wages.
2.
Notice was given to the respondent-management who initially appeared but was proceeded ex parte on
11.09.2019. The case was fixed for ex parte evidence of workman.
3.
In support of his case, the workman has filed its affidavit in evidence along with 22 Annexures but was not
cross-examined by the management as the management was already proceeded ex parte on 11.09.2019.
4.
The workman has filed its written arguments, alleging therein that the workman was appointed as a
Gardener(Mali) sometime in January 1993 on temporary basis with eight hours of working days and six days a week
at the fixed salary. He continuously served with sincerity and honesty but he was never paid the full monthly wages.
When he asked about full wages, he was threatened to be thrown out of job. The wages paid were even less than what
1274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is called DC rate. At the time of his appointment, it was settled and agreed between him and management, that he
would be on probation of one year and would be paid less but after the completion of probation period he would be
regularized and would be paid full wages as per the scale notified by the Government from time to time. Vide
Convening Order dated 10.10.1997, Board of Officers assembled to carry out the employment in Defence Services
Officers Institute(DSOI). 29 candidates were short-listed for interview and ultimately only 10 candidates were
selected for various posts(C-2). Minute Sheet dated 07.11.1997 is enclosed as (C-2). A cyclostyled blank appointment
letter dated 12.12.1997 for asking the selected candidates to join the duty on 22.12.1997(C-3) but no appointment
letter was issued. Earlier there was only one Mali/Gardener but one more post was sanctioned and the pay scale was
fixed as 1000-60-1420-EB-70-1910. Copy of the Minute Sheet dated 12.02.1998 for sanctioning the additional post
and revision of pay scale(C-4). The workman was selected and employed for the job of Mali in the then DSOI but
after having worked for some time and for being observed for performance, the workman was deputed for a short
time in the Command Nursery and thereafter was assigned the job of Mali in the house of Chief of Staff. The
workman was awarded number of awards for the work done by him(C-5 to C-13). He served demand notice(C-14),
reply thereof was filed by the respondent-management(C-15) and Failure of Conciliation Report is (C-16). The
workman preferred CWP No.4434/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court in which during the motion hearing on
23.02.2018, the respondent was directed to take the workman back in service(C-17). After lot of requests and pleas,
payment of Rs.48,298/- was made through a cheque No.942576 dated 19.08.2018 vide letter dated 13.08.2018(C-18).
Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, vide Office Memo No.8(1)/2008/D (Civ-II) dated 12.11.2010(C-19). Govt. of
India recently circulated a policy letter dated 4.9.2019 regarding Equal Pay for Equal Work for casual workers(C-20).
Rather to circumvent the policy the workman was posted out from Adm. Branch to Newly established Command
Nursery and timing of working hours is also altered(C-21 to C-22).
5.
I have heard Sh. S.S. Pathania, AR for the workman and perused the file and record carefully.
6.
In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A the claimant/workman has stated that he had been appointed as a
Gardener(Mali) since January 1993 on temporary basis with 8 hours working days and 6 days a week at the fixed
salary. In the terms and conditions, it was mentioned that the workman was entitled for two national holidays and 30
days leave per annum. The workman continuously served with sincerity and honesty but the workman was never paid
the full monthly wages. When the workman was asked for full back wages, the workman was threatened to be thrown
out of job. At the time of the appointment of workman, it was settled and agreed between the workman and
management that the workman would be on probation for one year and would be paid less but after the completion of
probation period the workman would be regularized and would be paid the full wages as per the scale notified by the
Govt. from time to time. A Board of Officer of respondent-management assembled to carry out the employment in
Defence Services Officer’s Institute(DSOI). 29 candidates were short-listed for interview and only 10 candidates
were selected for various posts. Copy of Board Proceedings is Annexure C-1 and Minute Sheet for employment is
Annexure C-2. He was selected as clear from Annexure C-1 and C-2 on the post of Mali. However, no appointment
letter was issued to him. One more post was sanctioned for the post of Mali Annexure C-4. His work and conduct is
satisfactory as per Annexure C-5 to C-13. He was throughout from service orally on 01.12.2016. He served for a long
period so he filed CWP NO.4434 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
23.02.2018(Annexure C-17) take him back in service 07.04.2018. He was also paid some amount on
13.08.2018(Annexure C-18). He was not regularized despite the policy of the Govt.(Annexure C-19).
7.
While arguing the case, learned AR of workman contended that workman was initially appointed as Mali in
January 1993 and later on he was selected as Mali vide Annexure C-1 as per Board Proceedings of the respondent-
management and in view of the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others,
Appeal(civil) no.3595-3612 of 1999, decided on 10.04.2006, he required to be regularized. He referred to Annexure
C-19, wherein in para 3, it was stated is as follow:-
“as a one time measure the services of such irregularly appointed, who are duly qualified persons
in terms of the statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have worked for ten years or more
in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or tribunals subject to the
condition that if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the
provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.”
8.
It is added here that in the present case, the reference was made by Deputy Director, Govt. of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi, dated 22.11.2018 to this Tribunal for adjudication regarding the regularization/ permanency of
job of workman with the management of Chief of Staff, Head Quarters, Western Command, Chandimandir Cantt.
Panchkula(Haryana). Section 10(1) of the ID Act authorizes the appropriate Government to refer the industrial
dispute to a Tribunal or the Labour Court. Section 2(k) of the ID Act defines “industrial dispute”, which reads as
under:
“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
x x x x
(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or
non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1275
And ID Act was amended adding Section 2A making individual dispute of a workman as an industrial
dispute, if the dispute is related to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination of individual workmen. Thus,
Section 2A carves an exception to the definition of individual dispute as given in Section 2(k) of the ID Act. Thus, in
order to give jurisdiction to the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal/Labour Court, it was
essential for the workman to show that his individual dispute for regularization was sponsored or espoused by the
union of the workmen. The five Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dharampal Premchand
(Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), Civil Appeal No.532/1963, decided on 16.03.1965, has
held at paragraph No.3 as under:-
“3. Section 2(k) defines an “industrial dispute” as meaning any dispute or difference between employers
and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is
connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of
labour, of any person. This definition shows that before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be
an industrial dispute, it must be shown that it is connected with the employment or non-employment of
that person. This condition is satisfied in the present case, because the dispute is in relation to the
dismissal of 18 workmen, and in that sense, it does relate either to their employment or non-employment.
The question however, still remains whether it is a dispute between employers and workmen, Literally
construed, this definition may take within its sweep a dispute between a single workman and his employer,
because the plural, in the context, will include the singular. Besides, in the present case, the dispute is in
fact between 18 workmen on the one hand, and their employer on the other, and that satisfies the
requirement imposed by the fact that the word “workmen” in the context is used in the plural. But the
decisions of this Court have consistently taken the view that in order that dispute between a single
employee and his employer should be validly referred under s. 10 of the Act, it is necessary that it should
have been taken up by the Union to which the employee belongs or by a number of employees. on this
view, a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot, by itself, be treated as an industrial
dispute, unless it is sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen. In other
words, if a workman is dismissed by his employer and the dismissed workman’s case is that his dismissal
is wrongful, he can legitimately have the said dispute referred for adjudication before an Industrial
Tribunal under s. 10(1) of the Act, provided a claim for such a reference is supported either by the Union
to which he belongs or by a number of workmen, vide Central Provinces Transport Services v. Raghunath
Gopal Patwardhan MANU/SC/0067/1956: 1957) ILLJ 27 SC and The Newspapers Ltd. v. The State
Industrial Tribunal, U.P. MANU/SC/0078/1957: (1957) IILLJ 1 SC.”
9.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. Vs. Superintending Engineer
(Electrical), O and M Circle, Belgaum and Ors., Writ Petition Nos.41747-757/1999, decided on 31.03.2000, has
taken a view that the individual workman cannot raise a dispute with regard to absorption and regularization.
10.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Management of Hotel Samrat and Ors. Vs. Government of NCT and
Ors., Writ Petition(C) No.6247 & 6682/2002, decided on 04.01.2007, has taken a similar view that in order to be an
industrial dispute, it has to satisfy the definition of Section 2(k) of the ID Act.
11.
In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the workman is not entitled for any
relief as the reference for his regularization is not maintainable. In result, there is no merit in the case and the same is
liable to be dismissed. So far as the contention of the AR of workman for placing reliance in the case of Uma
Devi(supra) is concerned, in view of above observation, the same cannot be looked into.
12.
Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 561.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार अिीक्षक
डाकघर, जभवानी मंडल, डाकघर, घंटाघर र्ौक, जभवानी िठर ाणा; जनरीक्षक, िािरी िा ा डाकघर, र्र ी िािरी (िठर ाणा), के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री नवीन कुमार, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 र्ंडीगढ़ ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा 18/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै,
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19/03/2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2024-38-आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
1276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court –2,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation The Superintendent of Posts Office, Bhiwani Division, post office, Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani
Haryana ;The Inspector, Dadri Branch Posts office, Charkhi Dadri (Haryana), and Shri Naveen Kumar,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19/03/2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-38- IR (DU]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 18/2018
Registered On: 16.07.2018
Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Mir Singh R/o Vill. Kari Darni, Tehsil Badhra Distt. Charkhi Dadri, Haryana.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Supdt. Of Post Office, Bhiwani Division, Post Office, Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani Haryana.
2.
The Inspector, Dadri Branch Post Office, Charkhi Dadri (Haryana).
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On:29.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Naveen Kumar has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing evidence by way of
affidavit of Management but workman is not responding from several dates which denotes that the workman is not
interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
The workman has not put up his appearance since long i.e. from 25.03.2020 to 29.01.2024 except on two
dates in between the dates mentioned above. Today neither workman nor his AR is present. As such, this Tribunal is
left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for
non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 562.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार वठरष्ठ अिीक्षक
डाकघर, डाकजवभाग ,जिमला जडवीिन ,जिमला, (जिमार्ल प्रिेि), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मोिन लाल, कामगार, के
बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 र्ंडीगढ़ ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा
34/2016) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19/03/2024को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -40012/22/2016-आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court –2,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation The Senior Superintendent Post Office, Deptt. Of Post, Shimla Division Shimla, (Himachal Pradesh),
and Shri Mohan Lal, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
19/03/2024.
[No. L-40012/22/2016- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1277
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 34/2016
Registered on:-27.01.2017
Sh. Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Langu Ram, Village Rahoshi, PO-Tiyali Via Fagu, Tehsil Theog, Distt-Shimla(Himachal
Pradesh).
Workman
Versus
The Senior Superintendent Post Office, Deptt. Of Post, Shimla Division Shimla(Himachal Pradesh).
Respondent/Management
AWARD
Passed on:-15.02.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-40012/22/2016-IR(DU), Dated 12.01.2017, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla in terminating the
services of workman Shri Mohan Lal outsider paid substitute(Group D) with effect from
18.04.2012 is legal, just and valid? If not, then, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to and from which date?
1.
Both the parties were put to notice and claimant/workman Mohan Lal filed statement of claim, with the
averment, that he was employed by the respondent-department on the post of Outside(Group D) in the month of July,
2010 in the Mashobra Branch for 89 days. The workman was given the artificial and fictional breaks by the
respondent-department and thereafter the services of the workman were terminated on 18.04.2012 without any reason
or cause. The workman was not served with any notice or charge-sheet before the termination. The workman had
been representing to the respondents by way of various representations which have not been considered and no heed
has been paid. The workman was got employed on temporary basis for the job of Outside(Group D) on July, 2010 in
Post Office Mashobra Branch. The work and conduct of the workman was very satisfactory and there was no
complaint on his part. The services of the workman was illegally terminated and removed from his job without
following the established procedure or rules applicable to the matter. No notice as required under Section 25-G, 25-H
and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was ever issued to the workman. The workman had completed 240
days during his service period but despite this fact, the services of the workman were orally terminated and
junior/fresh persons had been retained/engaged and it is only the workman who belongs to a poor strata of the society
was terminated from service which is not otherwise sustainable in the eyes of law and appropriate directions are liable
to be issued to the employers to re-engage the workman in service with all consequential benefits. It is therefore,
respectfully prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to re-engage the workman w.e.f. due date in the same
place on the same capacity with continuity in service with all consequential benefits.
2.
Respondent/management has filed its written statement, alleging therein that there is one sanctioned post of
Group D(MTS) at Mashobra Post Office and the same was running vacant during the period 2006 to Jan 2014. The
work of this post was being managed from amongst the Gramin Dak Sewak mail deliverer (hence forth called
GDSMD) on paid substitute arrangement on daily wage basis turn by turn. The workman had never been recruited
against any departmental post. The workman was being engaged by the GDSMD who were working as outsider
against the departmental post of MTS during the different small spells of period to look after the work of their seats at
their own responsibilities. This process of engaging the GDS against the vacant post of MTS was finally terminated
by the appointing authority i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, West Sub-Division Shimla-171003 vide
Memo No.B/Paid Substitute/12-13 dated 18.04.2012. As per these orders, the work of Gramin Dak Sewak in addition
to the work of MTS was to be entrusted to remaining GDSMD for which combined duty allowance is payable to
them. After discontinuation of this arrangement, the outsider which was being earlier engaged by the GDS at their
responsibility was also discontinued and their work was distributed among the GDS. The workman was never
employed by the department against any sanction. The workman was substitute for short spell as stop gap
arrangement by GDS. The workman has never been appointed against any particular post so there is no question of
termination of service and there is no violation of principles of “Last Come First Go”. No new person has been
engaged after 18.04.2012 and there is set procedure for making appointment against any post and one can be allowed
to pick up and allow to serve in the department without adhering to the recruitment process and ruling of the
1278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
department for particular post. It is therefore prayed, that the claim of the workman be rejected being not preferred
within three years from the date of retrenchment i.e. 18.04.2012.
3.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
4.
The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A along with
documents Ex.W1(colly 22 pages) and Ex.W2 and Ex.W3(colly 3 pages) and has been cross-examined by the learned
counsel of management.
5.
The management has examined MW1 Sh. Bali Ram, SSPO in the O/o Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Shimla, who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Annexure M-1 and M-2. The
management has also examined MW2 Sh. Om Parkash S/o late Sh. Pars Ram, working as Postman, Shimla, GPO,
who filed his affidavit as Ex.MW2/A and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman.
6.
The workman filed written arguments, alleging therein that he was appointed by the respondent/management
as per rules to work as outside Group-D which has also been admitted by the management-witness Mr. Bali
Ram(SSPO) initially for 89 days. Thereafter, the workman was given artificial/fictitious break by the management
deliberately but the workman has worked continuously for more than 89 days in a single year commencing from the
month of July 2010 as is evident from Ex.W-1(page 1-22) and in total the workman has worked for 552 days from
July 2010 to April 2012 which is also evident from Ex.W-3(page 1 to 3). The workman was also engaged by the
respondent-management by his second name Shri Pawan Kumar in the month of December 2010(Ex-W-1 page 6) and
worked continuously till January 2011. The workman was paid wages by the management and the detail of wages
paid to the workman through RTI application from management(Ex.W-3) which has also been admitted by the
management witness Bali Ram in his affidavit filed as Ex.MW1/A in para 4. The workman was working in the
respondent/management Post Office Sub-Division Mashobra and all the persons working in the Post Office Sub-
Division Mashobra were working under the Supervision and Control of Post Master. The workman was not a
substitute workman and never substituted any other workman. The workman was paid wages by the management and
his working was also supervised by the management through its post master. The workman was not paid any
retrenchment compensation by the management which is also admitted by the management witness Bali Ram and no
retrenchment notice was given to the workman but his services were terminated by issuing simple letter R-2 dated
18.04.2012 which is in violation of Section 25-G, 25-H and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7.
The management filed written arguments, alleging therein that the GDSs were directed to manage the work
of Group-D post on daily wage basis turn by turn and can make substitute arrangement to manage the work of the
post of GDS by engaging outsiders on his own responsibility. The workman is not a government servant and has
never been recruited on any specific post as per the recruitment rules. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Shimla who is the competent authority had terminated the process of making the arrangement for substitute/outsiders
against the post of Group-D at Mashobra SO vide letter dated 18.04.2012 and directed that the work of Group D
should now be managed by engaging GDSs. The work of GDS engaged as Group D should be entrusted to other
GDSs with combined duty. Combined duty allowance will also be paid to such GDSs entrusted with the combined
duty and the outsider so engaged earlier be relieved immediately. The arrangement made prior to issuance of letter
dated 18.04.2012 were short term arrangement made among the GDSs as per policy of the Govt. as per rules
therefore, the workman was engaged by different GDSs as substitute arrangement basis for different small spells of
period to look after the work of their seats on their own responsibility(Annexure M-1). The workman was engaged
only on daily wages as a substitute arrangement therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief as sought by him.
The provisions of ID Act are not applicable in the present case as such, there is no violation of Section 25-G, 25-H
and 25-N of the ID Act.
8.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties.
9.
There is no dispute about the preposition of law that onus to prove that workman was in the employment of
management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his
employment with the management. Such evidence may be in the form of receipt of salary of wages for 240 days or
record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240
days or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
Sowaran Singh(2005) 8 Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs.
Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.
10.
The workman in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A has stated that he was employed by the respondent-department on
the post of Outside GDS(Group D) in the month of July, 2010 in the Mashobra Branch for 89 days and after giving
the artificial and fictional breaks by the respondent-department, his services were terminated on 18.04.2012 without
any reason or cause. He was not served with any notice or charge-sheet before his termination. He was entitled for
compensation as he has completed 240 days during his service period and juniors were retained in service. He has
also placed on record Ex.W1 consisting 1 to 20 pages of attendance-sheet. It is also his case that he was also known
by the name of Pawan and in this regard he has filed Ex.W2 certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Tiyali. Ex.W3
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1279
is the intimation received by him under the RTI regarding the amount paid by the department to outsider for the
period 1.7.2010 to 1.4.2012.
11.
On the other hand, it is the case of the management that one post of MTS Group D was vacant since 2006
and working of this post was being managed amongst the Gramin Dak Sewak Mail Deliverers(GDSMD) on paid
substitute arrangement on daily wage basis turn by turn as per Rule 10 of GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules,
2011. The workman was never recruited by the department. He was engaged by the GDSs on stop gap arrangement as
per rule. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Shimla vide memo dated 18.04.2012 has directed that work
should be managed by the GDS amongst themselves by doing combined duty. The workman was engaged as
substitute for GDSs by them. Annexure M1 depict that that the working day of workman and the person in place of
whom he was engaged and the period of days he was working.
12.
It is an admitted fact that as per the version of the workman that he was employed on the post of outside
GDS Group-D and he worked from 28.04.2010 to 18.04.2012 and he was given fictional breaks by the respondent-
department in his service. Thus, the workman had admitted that he was outside GDS and this fact stand substantiated
from Annexure M1 which depicts the period from which and upto which date he worked against the post of GDS as
outsider against GDS post.
13.
Thus, it is clear that he was engaged to work as outsider as paid substitute in place of various GDSs at their
own responsibility while they proceeded on leave during the period from July 2010 to 18.04.2012. This fact that
applicant was working in place of regular GDSs further substantiated from the cross-examination of him. He has
stated in his cross-examination that he was not issued any appointment letter. He had also admitted that there is no
post of outside GDS(Group D) available with the department. No advertisement and interview was conducted when
he was appointed. He has also admitted that no seniority list was made for the post which he was served. He has also
admitted that Ex.W1 shows his attendance which was being marked for the purpose of calculating the number of days
worked by him as substitute in the absence of GDS who proceeded on leave. Thus, from his cross-examination, it
clearly emerges that he was working in place of GDSs who proceeded on leave.
14.
In fact, as per procedure when an GDS appointed by the department proceed on leave such agent is
permitted to make temporary arrangements by appointing any one of his choice as a substitute until he returns from
the leave. The substitute appointment is sporadic depending on the period during which the regular employee is on
leave for whatsoever reason. Having regard to the nature of the GDSs when they apply for leave, they have to give
the name and particulars of the substitutes who will discharge their duties during the leave period. Substitutes are not
made by the department but by the GDSs. Thus, it is clear and proved that applicant Mohan Lal rendered his services
not an employee of management but as nominee of various GDSs as mentioned in Ex.M-1. It is also pertinent to
mention that the original incumbent and the workman as such, is not entitled for any termination notice as per Gramin
Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The learned counsel for the workman could not place any rule
before me that any notice of termination under the rules is required before retrenchment by the management.
15.
Admittedly, as per Ex.M-1 the workman has worked for 240 days preceding the year of his alleged
retrenchment/termination as substitute of various GDSs however, he is not entitled for any compensation. In this case,
even workman has not led any evidence that who was placed in place of him.
16.
Learned counsel for the workman has drawn my attention towards the provision of Section 25 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which mandate that if a workman has rendered his services for more than 240 days in a
preceding year of his termination then notice is mandatory and compensation in lieu of the notice is also required to
be given to the workman as is specifically mentioned in the aforesaid section. The management-counsel argued that
the provision of Section 25 of the I.D. Act is not applicable in case in hand as there is no such specific provision
regarding the retrenchment/termination by the management. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no
such provision of issuing a notice to a person who is substitute of any other employee of the management as such,
before his termination or retrenchment. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of
Apex Court in B.N. Sinha vs. Union of India, AIR 1998, SC 2600, where it is observed that the Courts and Tribunals
should not attempt to legislate on a subject which was not of its business and neither the rule of statutory
interpretation nor rules relating to interpretation of subordinate legislation empower any judicial or quasi judicial
body to apply the law to a situation or object which was not completed by the legislature while making a Law or by
the government while making the Rule. The Courts or Tribunals have no power to override the provisions of the
Rules on sympathetic consideration regarding the employment. In view of the above discussion and legal proposition,
provision regarding issuance of notice likewise in Section 25 of the ID Act is not mandatory in dispute in case and in
dispute in hand. Hence, to my mind, the workman being not an employee of the management is neither required such
type of notice nor compensation as required under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
17.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of Central Administrative
Tribunal Calcutta Bench, regarding the entitlement of substitute Extra Departmental Agent(now GDS) has observed
in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Devika Guha and others J.T. 2000(7) Supreme Court, page 473 that
claim on behalf of the substitute ordinarily is not maintainable as there cannot be legal claim on the basis that they
1280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
have worked for 180 days or more continuously. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if they have
worked for a long time continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered by the Department for absorption.
Thus, it is up to the management to absorb the claimant looking his services rendered to the department. This
Tribunal is of the view that management will honour the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in letter and spirit if
possible in given circumstances.
18.
This Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant/workman is not entitled for any relief. In result, there is
no merit in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19.
Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 563.—औद्योजगक
(
)
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला,
सु ववंिर कौर, कामगार,
V औद्योजगक
औद्योजगक
(143/2016)
[सं.
-12025/01/
(
-I)-
]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.143/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.
175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Sukhwinder Kaur Worker.
[No L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-125]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.143/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Sukhwinder Kaur W/o Sh. Krishan Singh R/o Village Jahlan Ranbirpura, Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of
no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1281
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to CentralGovernment for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 564.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िगतार वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.Mhx< ds iapkV (144/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-आईआर(ch-I)-126]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.144/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.
175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Jagtar Singh Worker.
[No. L- 12025/01/2024 - IR (B-I)-126]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.144/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Jagtar Singh S/o Sh. Parkash Singh, R/o Village Jahlan Ranbirpura, Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Jagtar Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
1282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 565.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सुमनिीृ कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (145/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-127]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.145/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.
175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Sumandeep Kaur Worker.
[No. L- 12025/01/2024 - IR (B-I)-127]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.145/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Sumandeep Kaur W/o Sh. Babandeep Singh R/o Village Icchewal Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Sumandeep Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1283
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 566.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सतेंर भारती, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (146/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-128]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 146/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Satinder Bharti Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-128]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 146/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Satinder Bharti S/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o B-4-345, Dheeru Nagar, Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Satinder Bharti has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
1284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 567.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj दकरणिीृ कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (147/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-129]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 147/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Kirandeep Kaur Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-129]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 147/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Kirandeep Kaur W/o Sh. Satnam Singh R/o Village Hardaspur Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Kirandeep Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1285
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 568.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj करमिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (148/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-130]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 148/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Karamjit Kaur Worker.
[No. L- 12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-130]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.148/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Karamjit Kaur W/o Sh. Gurdial Singh R/o Village Hardaspur Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Karamjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
1286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 569.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िोि वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (149/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-131]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 149/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –
I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor
R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Jodh Singh Worker.
[No. L- 12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-131]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 149/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Jodh Singh S/o Sh. Malkit Singh R/o Village Lang Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Jodh Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 570.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1287
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj वररंिर कुमार, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (150/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-132]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 150/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The
Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor
R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Varinder Kumar Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-132]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 150/2016
Registered On :-11.11.2016
Varinder Kumar S/o Sh. Sham Lal R/o H.No.141, Jai Jawan Colony, Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Varinder Kumar has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 571.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj अवतार वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (151/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-133]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
1288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 151/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Avtar Singh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-133]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.151/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Bhinder Singh R/o Village Uccha Gaon Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Avtar Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 572.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िरमेि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (152/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-134]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1289
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 152/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –
I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor
R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Harmesh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-134]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 152/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Harmesh S/o Sh. Harinder Singh R/o Vill. Mehmudpur Jattan Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Harmesh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 573.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िसववंिर वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (153/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-135]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
1290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 153/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.
Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban
Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Jaswinder Singh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-135]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 153/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh R/o Village Shermajera, Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Jaswinder Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 574.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सलोर्न वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (154/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-136]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1291
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 154/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The
Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor
R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Salochan Singh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-136]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 154/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Salochan Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Vill. Pahadpur P.O. Gajjumajera Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Salochan Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 575.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िसववंिर कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; u- 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (155/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-137]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
1292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 155/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Jaswinder Kaur Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-137]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 155/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Jaswinder Kaur W/o Darshan Singh R/o Vill. Kalwan P.O. Janheri Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Smt. Jaswinder Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 576.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटचर, सैन् क्षेत्र, ृठट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,
अबचन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृठट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj ििचन वसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (156/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2024 -आईआर(ch-I)-138]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1293
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024
S.O. 576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 156/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court–I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Darshan Singh Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR (B-I)-138]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 156/2016
Registered On:-11.11.2016
Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Babu Ram R/o Vill. Boharpur Distt. Patiala.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
AWARD
Passed On:-23.01.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Darshan Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 577.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
वठरष्ठ अिीक्षक डाकघर, अम्बाला मंडल अम्बाला, िठर ाणा; उृ. मु् श्रम आ ुि उृ. मु् श्रम आ ुि, र्ंडीगढ़, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री आजबि िसन, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1 र्ंडीगढ़ ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं् ा 30/2016) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 20/03/2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-40012/11/2016 -आईआर-(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व
1294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2024
S.O. 577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court–1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
The Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Ambala Division Ambala, Haryana ; The Dy. Chief Labor
Commissioner Dy. Chief Labor Commissioner, Chandigarh, and Shri Abid Hassan,Worker, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20/03/2024.
[No. L- 40012/11/2016 - IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 30/2016
Registered On: 27.09.2016
Abid Hassan Vill. & Post. Office- Darpur, Tehsil-Chhachrauli, Distt. Yamunanagar, Haryana.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Ambala Division Ambala, Haryana.
2. The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh.
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On: 11.03.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/11/2016-IR(DU) dated 16.08.2016, under clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Assistant Superintendent, Yamunanagar and the Senior
Superintendent, Post Office, Ambala in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Abid Hassan,
outsider GDS (Gramin Dak Sweak) is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to
and from which date?
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by
workman but none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 07.04.2022. It is submitted by the Ld.
Counsel for the management that workman is not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim
petition.
2.
Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true.
Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file the replication but of no use. Which denotes
that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice
except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-
prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च, 2024
का.आ. 578.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजड ा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (30/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12012/101/2016 -आईआर(ch- II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1295
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2024
S.O. 578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/101/2016-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 30/2019
Ref. No.-L-12012/101/2016-IR(BII), dated 16.01.2018
BETWEEN
Sri Dilip Kumar
Uprehitanpurva, Mauza; Janaki Nagar
Near O.N. Pandey Nurshing Home
District- Gonda (U.P.)
……… Workman
AND
1.
The Regional Manager
Central Bank of India Regional Office
Bank Road, Gorakhpur
2.
The Branch Manager
Central Bank of India, LBSDC Branch
Civil Lines Gonda District Gonda (U.P.)
……. Respondent
AWARD
By order/letter dated 16.01.2018 following dispute has been referred to this Tribunal.
D;k izca/ku lsaVªy cSad vkWQ abfM;k] {ks=h; dk;kZy; xksj[kiqj }kjk Jhe fnyhi dqekj dks fnukad 17-10-2012 ukSdjh ls
fudky fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gSA
;fn ugh arks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gSA
Accordingly ID case No. 30/2019 registered before this Tribunal.
By an order dated 16.08.2019 claimant, was called up to file claim statement.
As claimant had not filed the claim statement thereafter on two dates which were passed for the said purpose so on
24.12.2020 an order passed quoted herein below:-
Taken up.
Parties absent.
Fresh notice be issued.
List on 15.02.2021 for C.S.
In spite of the service notice claim statement was not filed by the claimant thereafter six dates were fixed for the said
purpose.
On 16.09.2022. an order was passed quoted reads as under:-
1296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 23, 2024/CHAITRA 3, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Case called out.
Parties absent.
Last opportunity granted for CS.
List on 14.12.2022 for statement of claim.
On 28.02.2023 an order passed quoted reads as under:-
Matter taken up in revised list.
Sri Adheesh, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Gunjan, counsel for bank.
None for claimant.
Last opportunity is granted to claimant to file statement of claim, failing which the case shall proceed
ex-parte.
List on 23.05.2023. Notice be issued to claimant.
On 23.05.2023 an order passed quoted reads as under:-
Sri Mohd. Raza Advocate filed on behalf of claimant power taken on record.
Prays for and granted to file statement of claim.
Sri Gaurav Advocate for respondent is present.
List on 24.07.2023.
On 24.07.2023 an order passed quoted reads as under:-
Matter taken up in the revised list.
None for claimant.
Sri Gaurav Gunjan for OP
Further time is granted for claim statement.
List on 11.10.2023
On 11.10.2023 an order passed quoted reads as under:-
None for claimant.
Sri Gaurav Gunjan for OP.
List opportunity is granted for claim statement.
List on 21.12.2023. Notice to workman.
Today when the matter taken up in the revised cause list. Neither the workman nor his legal representative was
present and learned counsel for respondent was present.
Accordingly after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent and going through the facts on record of the case and
the facts stated herein above, as claimant has not filed claim statement till date.
Thus in view of the above said facts as well as the law laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj
Industries v.
Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under
"It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking junsdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief."
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has
held as under.
"The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 23, 2024/र्ैत्र 3, 1946
1297
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led
And by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary- cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519. wherein it has been held
as under
"The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed"
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief:-
Lucknow
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated 26.12.2023
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: 2024.04.08
22:57:47 +05'30'