3207 GI/2024
(2187)
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. 22]
नई दिल् ली, िून 2—िून 8, 2024, िजनवार/ज् येष् ठ 12 —ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
No. 22]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 2— JUNE 8, 2024, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 12– JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् ठ सं् या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि ृ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 मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जविेि मन्त्रालय
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1008.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, सरकार भारत के िूतावास, तेिरान मेेँ श्री अंिुल व्यास, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को
िून 03, 2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2024(18)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-I)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21062024-254833
CG-DL-W-21062024-254833
2188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1008.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anjul Vyas, Assistant
Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Tehran to perform the consular services as
Assistant Consular Officer with effect from June 03, 2024.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2024(18)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)
कषजि एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय
(कषजि एवं दकसान कल् याण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 1009.—केन् रीय सरकार, रािभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम
10 के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में एतद्द्वारा कषजि एवं दकसान कल् याण जवभाग, कषजि एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय के
संबद्ध कायावलय जवृणन एवं जनरीक्षण जनिेिालय (डीएमआई) के अिीन क्षेत्रीय कायावलय, ल नऊ जिसके 80% कार्मवकों
ने जिन् िी का कायवसािक ञानान प्राप् त कर जलया िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।
[फा. सं. 3-3/2011-जिन् िी नीजत]
िुभा ठाकुर, अृर सजचव
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER’S WELFARE
(Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare)
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024
S.O. 1009.— In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of
the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Regional office, Lucknow under the Directorate of
Marketing and Inspection (DMI) an attached office of the Department of Agriculture and Farmer`s Welfare, Ministry
of Agricuture and farmer’s Welfare, 80% Staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-
[F. No. 3-3/2011-Hindi Neeti]
SHUBHA THAKUR, Addl. Secy.
संस्ट् कषजत मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1010.—केंर सरकार, रािभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10
के उृ जनयम 4 के अनुसरण में संस्ट् कषजत मंत्रालय के अंतगवत आने वाले कायावलय, राष् रीय ृुस्ट् तकालय, बेलवेजडयर,
कोलकाता जिनमें 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों/कमवचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायवसािक ञानान प्राप् त कर जलया िज, को
अजिसूजचत करती िज :-
यि अजिसूचना रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से प्रवषत् त िोगी।
[फा. सं. ई. 13016/1/2024-हिंिी]
गुरमीत हसंि चावला, संयुक् त सजचव
MINISTRY OF CULTURE
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2024
S.O. 1010.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office The National Library, Belvedere, Kolkata
under Ministry of Culture wherein more than 80% officers/staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
This notification shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.
[F. No. E.13016/1/2024-Hindi]
GURMEET SINGH CHAWLA, Jt. Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2189
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1011.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-23012/59/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1011.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/59/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 84/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Sandhya Wd/o Late Rattan Chand, Village & PO Banoo, Tehsil Baldwara, Distt. Mandi(HP)-175033.
….…..Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/59/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 07.08.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Sandhya &
Others(legal heirs/legal representatives of late Rattan Chand) for declaring his retrenchment/
termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting
in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal
representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1012.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/81/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1012.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/81/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 74/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Smt. Bimla Devi & Others W/o Late Shri Bakshi Ram C/o Shri Munish Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Dass R/o Vill-
Bajoura, PO-Bhukkar, Tehsil-Bhoranj, Distt-Hamirpur(HP)-176045.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/81/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 29/30.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demands of Smt. Bimla Devi &
Others, LH/LR of late Shri Bakshi Ram for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and
considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of
consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives
of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2191
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1013.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/109/2018-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1013.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/109/2018– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No. 90/2018
Registered On: 03/12/2018
Sh.Nikru Ram Alias Nikka Ram S/o Sh.Jalam, Village Burna Po Thachi Tehsil Balichowki Distt. Mandi (HP)-175001
...........Workman
Versus
The Chairman,Bhakhra Beas Management Board Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B Chandigarh-160019
The Chief Manager, Bhakhra Beas Management Board BSL Project, SunderNager
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On: 02.04.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/109/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 15.11.2018, 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 action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh.Nikru Ram Alias
Nikka Ram S/o Sh.Jalam for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid ? If not, to
what relief the workman concerned is entitle dot and from which date ?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing claim statement by
workman but none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 20.03.2019. It is submitted by the Ld.
2192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 claim statement by workman 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, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1014.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/53/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1014.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/53/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 89/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Maya Devi & Others, Vill. & PO Gander, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra-176061.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/53/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 08.06.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Maya Devi &
Others(legal heirs/legal representatives of late Bishan Dass) for declaring his retrenchment/
termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting
in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal
heirs/legal representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2193
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1015.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/55/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1015.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/55/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 82/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Chinta Devi & Others Wd/o Late Daulat Ram, Village Surhar, PO Suin SUrhar, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur,
Himachal Pradesh-174033.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/55/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 08.06.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Chinta Devi &
Others
(legal
heirs/legal
representatives
of
late
Daulat
Ram)
for
declaring
his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to
what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
2194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1016.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/88/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1016.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/88/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 71/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Smt. Durgi & Others W/o late Shri Todar alias Todar Mal C/o Shri Munish Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Dass R/o Vill-
Bajoura, PO-Bhukkar, Tehsil-Bhoranj, Distt-Hamirpur(HP)-176045.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/88/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 29/30.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demands of Smt. Durgi & Others,
LH/LR of late Shri Todar alias Todar Mal for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and
considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of
consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives
of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2195
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1017.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/50/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1017.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/50/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 87/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Parkasho Devi & Others Wd/o Late Jaisi Ram Village & PO Harot, Tehsil Hamirpur, Distt. Kangra-176001.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/50/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 06.08.2019, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Parkasho Devi &
Others(legal heirs/legal representatives of late Jaisi Ram) for declaring his retrenchment/termination
as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement
of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal
representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1018.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/52/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1018.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/52/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 91/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Phoola & Others Wd/o Late Masadi Ram, Village Behna, PO Nalag, Tehsil SUndernagar, Distt-Mandi
(HP)-175001.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/52/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 06.08.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Phoola &
Others(legal
heirs/legal
representatives
of
late
Masadi
Ram)
for
declaring
his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to
what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2197
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1019.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/90/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/90/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.73/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Sh. Roop Lal & Others S/o Late Sh. Ranjeet Singh, C/o Shri Munish Kumar, S/o Sh. Dharam Dass, R/o Vill-Bajoura,
PO-Bhukkar, Tehsil-Bhoranj, Distt.-Hamirpur(HP)-176045.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-27.03.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/90/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 29/30.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Sh. Roop Lal &
Others, LH/LR of late Shri Ranjeet Singh for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and
considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of
consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives
of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but no claim statement has been filed by the
workman till date, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2.
Since the workman has not filed any statement of claim despite several opportunities to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1020.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/34/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/34/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 78/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Smt. Janki Wd/o Late Karnee, Village Jagor, PO Saroa, Vill. Pando, Tehsil Chachyot, Distt. Mandi(HP)-175001.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/34/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 05.08.2019, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Smt. Janki & Others,
LH/LR of late Shri Karmee for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in
continuous service upto the age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is
legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late workman are
entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2199
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1021.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/60/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/60/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 85/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Pandei & Others, Vill. Masiani, PO Dhalwan, The. Baldwara, Distt. Mandi(HP)-175033.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/60/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 07.08.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Pandei &
Others(legal heirs/legal representatives of late Hari Singh) for declaring his retrenchment/termination
as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement
of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal
representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
1.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
2200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1022.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/58/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/58/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 93/2019
Registered on:-04.09.2019
Smt. Soma Devi Wd/o Late Prabha Dayal, Village Masiani, PO Dhalwan, Tehsil Baldwara, Distt-Mandi
(HP)-175033.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/58/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 07.08.2019, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Soma Devi &
Others(legal
heirs/legal
representatives
of
late
Prabh
Dayal)
for
declaring
his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of
superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to
what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondents/managements.
The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman. The workman is given
sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim
statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
1.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
2.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2201
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1023.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/89/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1023—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/89/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 72/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Smt. Shanti Devi& Others W/o late Shri Kayth C/o Shri Munish Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Dass R/o Vill-Bajoura,
PO-Bhukkar, Tehsil-Bhorang, Distt-Hamirpur(HP)-176045.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/89/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 29/30.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demands of Smt. Santi Devi &
Others, LH/LR of late Shri Kayth for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and
considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of
consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives
of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
2202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1024.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/28/2018-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/28/2018– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 109/2019
Registered on:-07.01.2019
Sh. Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Gosaun Ram, R/o Village-Sauiun, Post Office-Maloh, Tehsil-Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/28/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 20.12.2018, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Sh. Dhani Ram S/o Sh.
Gosaun Ram for considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in
entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal
representatives of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2203
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1025.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/86/2019-
- (
.एम -II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2024.
[No. L-23012/86/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 75/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Smt. Bimla Devi & Others W/o Late Shri Amar Singh C/o Shri Munish Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Dass
R/o Vill-Bajoura, PO-Bhukkar, Tehsil-Bhoranj, Distt. Hamirpur(HP)-176045.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.
..…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-04.12.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/86/2019-IR(CM-II) Dated 29/30.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demands of Smt. Bimla Devi &
Others, LH/LR of late Shri Amar Singh for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and
considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of
consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives
of late workman are entitled to and from which date?
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity
afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
2204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1026.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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;]
ds iapkV (46/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12025/01/2024-
- (
-I)-157]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2024
S.O. 1026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.46/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kishtriya Gramin
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR (B-I)-157]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Jh f=yksd iq= Jh euksgj yky lSuh] fuoklh& okMZ uEcj 14] uoksMh dksBh <k.kh] xzke iksLV& >k>M] rglhy& uoyx<]
ftyk& >qU>quw] ¼jktLFkku½ 333304A
-------izkFkhZ
1-
Ekgkizca/kd] cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] ¼gsM vkWfQl½ irk] IykV ua- 2343] f}rh; ry] vkuklkxj ldqZyj
jksM] oS'kyh uxj] vtesjA
2-
{ks=h; izca/kd] cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] ¼{ks=h; dk;kZy;½ ih: flag ldZy ds ikl] >qU>quw ¼333301½
3-
'kk[kk izca/kd] cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] 'kk[kk& >k>M+] >qU>quw
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh ljkt ;ksxh] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh mn; 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.kA
1-
izkFkhZ f=yksd dh vksj ls fnukad 10-08-2021 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e
dgk tkosxk ½ dh /kkjk 2A ds vUrxZr bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds laf{kIr vfHkopu bl izdkj gSa%&
2-
izkFkhZ dks prqFkZ Js.kh eslsatj ds in ij fnukad 13-08-2014 dks foi{khx.k ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k] fdarq
foi{khx.k us fnukad 04-05-2020 dks izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :Ik ls dk;Z ij vkus ls euk dj fn;kA foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dh lsok
lekIr djrs le; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds varxZr u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k u gh uksfVl osru vkSj NaVuh
izfrdj fn;kA foi{khx.k us lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph Hkh ugha cukbZ] tcfd izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj Jfed foi{khx.k
ds v/khu dk;Z dj jgs FksA lsok lekfIr ds ckn Hkh dbZ fu;qfDr;kWa foi{kh us dh fdarq izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ojh;rk ugha nh xbZA
izkFkhZ ls foi{khx.k }kjk lkQ lQkbZ] ikuh dh O;oLFkk] vf'kf{kr xzkgdksa dh lgk;rk dk;Z ,oa fcy] pkyku vkfn tek
djokus dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds v/khu izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok iw.kZ dh gSa izkFkhZ
lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls gh csjkstxkj gSA vr% izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fujarjrk
foxr osru lfgr iznku djrs gq;s lsok esa cgky fd;k tkosA
3-
foi{khx.k us fnukad 24-11-2021 dks vaxszth Hkk"kk esa oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k ftlds laf{kIr vuqfnr dFku bl izdkj
gS%&
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2205
4-
foi{khx.k dk ;g dFku gS fd mUgksaus izkFkhZ dks cSad dh HkrhZ izfdz;k ds vuq:Ik dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ o
muds e/; Jfed vkSj fu;ksDrk ds laca/k ugha gSA dHkh dHkh vko';d dk;Z laikfnr djokus ds fy;s dqN O;fDr;ks ls ikuh
Hkjokus] lQkbZ vkfn dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk] ,sls O;fDr;ksa ls dk;Z cSad ds lEiw.kZ dk;Z≤ rd ugha fy;k tkrk Fkk
vkSj os vU;= dk;Z djus dks Lora= FksA foi{kh cSad vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr xfBr fudk; gS ftldh] fu;qfDr gsrq fofgr
p;u izfdz;k gSA izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds v/khu fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ugh fd;kA foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e
ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA vr% izkFkhZ dk okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosa] D;ksafd os fdlh vuqrks"k dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA
5-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; es Lo;a izkFkhZ f=yksd dks AW-1 ds :Ik esa ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ W-1
ls izn'kZ W-193 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
6-
foi{khx.k dh vksj ls mudh lk{; esa izn'kZ MW-1 Jh jkexksiky >k>fM;k] 'kk[kk izca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k x;k
rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ MW-1 ls izn'kZ MW-7 rd izys[k iznf'kZr fd;s x;sA
7-
fnukad 16-11-2023 dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s x;sA ftldh izfr foi{khx.k dks nh xbZ fdarq
foi{khx.k us dksbZ fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr u djrs gq;s fnukad 04-12-2023 ekSf[kd rdZ izLrqr fd;sA
8-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;k;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s%&
1-
2006 ¼3½ WLC ¼jkt-½ 475 t;iqj MoysiesaV vkWFkfjVh o vU; cuke egs'k dqekj o vU;A
2-
2007 –II - LLJ ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 151 Jhjke b.MLVªh;y baVj izkbZtst fy- cuke egd falag o vU;A
3-
WP No.- 692/1994 fu.kZ; frfFk 21-07-1994 ¼e/; izns'k mPp U;k;ky;½ xoZesaV usg: fMxzh dkyst] lcyx<
cuke v’kksd dqekj oekZA
9-
foi{khx.k dh vksj ls vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;k;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s%&
1-
AIR 2002 SC 1147 jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj o vU; cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuhA
2-
2015 ¼144½ FLR 452 ¼bykgkckn½ ;w-ih-ih-lh-,y- y[kuÅ cuke ih-vks-] yscj dksVZ] dkuiqjA
3-
2000& I LLJ 1187 ;wdksa cSad cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh o vU;A
4-
¼2007½ I SCC 408 bf.M;u MªXl ,UM QkekZ- fy- cuke odZesau bf.M;u MªXl ,UM QkekZ- fy-A
5-
¼2007½ I SCC 533 xaxk/kj fiYybZ cuke flesaUl fy-A
6-
2001 LLR 747 ¼jktLFkku½ jkexksiky lSauh cuke n tt] yscj dksVZ ua- 2 o vU;A
7-
MANU@MH@0856@2007 ds- ,y- dqekj cuke oh-ih- ikfVy o vU;A
8-
MANU@SC@1422@2017 ih- d:ibZ;k ¼e`rd½ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k cuke tujy esustj] fr:oYywoj
VªkUliksVZ dksiZjs”ku fy-A
9-
2016 LLR 1244 ¼e/; izns'k½ bathfu;j bu phQ okVj fjlksflZt fMikVZesaV] Hkksiky cuke eugj.kA
10- 2007 LLR 1164 ¼xqtjkr½ xksiky uanfd'kksj 'kekZ cuke esustj] ukukokVh ,slksf'k;V~lA
11- ¼2012½ I SCC 558 ch-,l-,u-,y- cuke ekuflagA
12- ¼2010½ 6 SCC 773 lhfu;j lqizhVsUMsUV VsyhxzkQ ¼VSªfQd½] Hkksiky cuke lUrks"k dqekj lhy o vU;A
13- 2016 LLR 261 ¼jktLFkku½ ,Dl- bathfu;j ih- MCY;w- Mh- cuke gjpUnh o vU;A
10-
esusa mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZ] miyC/k lk{; ,oa U;k;kf;d n`"Vkarks esa izfr ikfnr fof/k ij /;ku iwoZd euu fd;kA bl fookn esa fuEuufdar fopkj.kh;
fcUnq U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq mRiUu gq;s gSa] ftu ij dzfed fofu’p; fuEukuqlkj gS%&
11-
D;k izkFkhZ us mldh lsok lekfIr frfFk 04-05-2020 ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh
vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd lrr dk;Z fd;k gSA rFkk mls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr gS\
- ------------izkFkhZ
12-
;k foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds le; ojh;rk lwph ugha cukbZ ,oa izkFkhZ ls
dfu"Brj Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr j[kk\ -------------izkFkhZ
13-
2206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14-
AW-1 izkFkhZ f=yksd us vius lk{; ds 'kiFk i= es ;g dgk gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr
fnukad 13-08-2014 dks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh eslsatj ds in ij vizkFkhZx.k ds vf/kdkj o fu;U=.k esa dh xbZ FkhA fdarq
vpkud fnukad 04-05-2020 dks vizkFkhZx.k us ekSf[kd :Ik ls mldh lsok;sa voS/k :Ik ls lekIr dj nhA izkFkhZ us vkxkeh
dFku esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mlus lsok ds izR;sd o"kZ esa rFkk lsok i`FkDdj.k ds iwoZorhZ 12 ekg esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd
dh lsok vof/k iw.kZ dj yh FkhA izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa izn'kZ W-2 foi{kh cSad dk ,d i= fnukad 13-08-2014 iznf'kZr
fd;k gS] vkSj dgk gS fd ;g izkFkZuk i= mlus 'kk[kk izca/kd dks fu;qfDr gsrq fn;k FkkA izn'kZ W-2 i= dk voyksdu ;g
n’kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks 13-08-2014 ls cSad ifjlj esa lkQ lQkbZ] ikuh O;oLFkk rFkk vU; dk;Z gsrq nSfud osru Hkksxh ds
:Ik esa j[kk x;k FkkA foi{khx.k us Hkh bl i= dk dksbZ [k.Mu ugha fd;k gS] ek= ;g dgk gS fd cSad esa fu;qfDr gsrq
fofgr p;u izfdz;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;fer fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA izfrijh{kk esa foi{kh lk{kh jkexksiky >k>fM;k us
;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 2014 ls 2020 dh vof/k esa tc Hkh Class 4th dk dksbZ dk;Z gksrk Fkk rks izkFkhZ dks cqykdj
djok fy;k tkrk FkkA izn'kZ W-2 i= cSad us tkjh fd;k FkkA
15-
bl laca/k esa mHk; i{k }kjk izLrqr izys[kh; lk{; dk lw{e foospu djus ij ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izn’kZ W-2 ls
izn'kZ W-193 rd ds izys[k foi{kh cSad ds izys[kksa dh QksVks izfr;k gS] ftUgsa foi{kh lk{kh MW-1 jkexksiky >k>fM;k us
Lohdkj fd;k gSA vius rdksZ ds nkSjku foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd us ;g LohdkjksfDr Hkh dh gS] fd pwfd lk{; ds nkSjku
foi{khx.k us tkWp drkZ vf/kdkjh dks ijhf{kr ugha fd;k gS og izn'kZ M-5 tkWp fjiksVZ ds fu"d"kksZ dks izekf.kr ugha dj
ik;s gSaA bl rF;kRed izdk’k esa vc ;g ijhf{kr fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnol ls vf/kd
yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA
16-
izkFkhZ us bl laca/k esa eSllZ Jhjke b.MLVªh;y baVj izkbZtst fy- cuke egd falag o vU; ds fu.kZ; esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/ker dk voyEc ysrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk o"kZ 2014 ls lsok lekfIr fnukad
04-05-2020 rd fdlh Hkh dys.Mj o"kZ esa ;fn 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gks rks mldh NaVuh fd;s tkus ds iwoZ
/kkjk 25 ¼F½ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu vko”;d gks tkrk gSA eSusas bl fu.kZ; esa ikfjr fof/k ij fopkj fd;kA
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us mRrj izns'k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼g½ rFkk /kkjk 6 ¼N½ ds izko/kkuksa
dk foospu djrs gq;s ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd Jfed }kjk lsok dky ds fdlh Hkh dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu lrr lsok
dj fy;s tkus ij ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd Jfed us lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ ,d o"kZ dh lsok yxkrkj dh gSaA tcfda foi{khx.k
dk ;g rdZ gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼B½ ds vUrxZr ;g Li"V izko/kku gS fd tc rd Jfed lsok lekfIr ds rqjar
iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ u djys] /kkjk 25 ¼F½ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gSA esusa
ijLij fojks/kh rdksZ ij fopkj fd;kA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us eSllZ Jhjke b.MLVªh;y baVj izkbZtst fy- cuke egd
falag ds fu.kZ; esa tks fof/k izfrikfnr dh gS og fu”fpr :Ik ls mRrj izns”k jkT; }kjk vf/kfu;fer vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼g½ rFkk /kkjk 6 ¼N½ esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA Li"V gS fd mRrj izns'k jkT; }kjk ikfjr
vf/kfu;e jktLFkku jkT; ij izHkkoh ugha gSA bl fy;s bl vf/kdj.k }kjk dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds
izko/kkuksa dk gh vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼B½ ds vuqlkj fujarj lsok dh tks
ifjHkk"kk nh xbZ gS mlds vUrxZr lsok lekfIr ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa Jfed }kjk 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ
fd;k tkuk v/;isf{kr gSA
17-
izkFkhZ us vius ijh{k.k esa ;g dgk gS fd mlds dk;Z laca/kh nLrkost izn”kZ WW-9 ls izn”kZ WW-193 rd gSA izkFkhZ
dh lsok lekfIr dh dfFkr frfFk 04-05-2020 gSaA bl&fy;s fof/k ds vuqlkj 04-05-2020 ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ
dh vof/k 04-05-2019 rd gksrh gSA blh vof/k esa 240 fnu lrr lsok fd;s tkus dk rF; izkFkhZ dks izekf.kr djuk gSA
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa izn”kZ W-9 ls izn”kZ W-87 rd tks izn”kZ iznf'kZr fd;s gS os izys[k lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d
o"kZ dh vof/k ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA izn”kZ W-88 ls izn”kZ W-104 rd os okmplZ gSa ftuds ek/;e ls foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dks
etnwjh dk Hkqxrku@osru fn;kA ftls fuEukfdar rkfydk esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS%
izn”kZ W-88
ebZ] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W-91
Tkwu] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W-92
tqykbZ] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W-93
vxLr] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W-94
flrEcj] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W--95
vDVwcj] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W-98
uoEcj] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj gS
izn”kZ W-99 o 102
fnlEcj] 2019
6000@&
gLrk{kj ugha gS
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2207
izn”kZ W-101 o 104
Tkuojh] 2020
6000@&
gLrk{kj ugha gS
18-
bl izdkj mi;qZDr rkfydk ls ;g Li"V gS fd ekg ebZ] 2019 ls ekg uoEcj] 2019 rd ¼lkr ekg½ rd 6000
:- izfr ekg osru dk Hkqxrku foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dks lkQ lQkbZ djus ,oa ikuh Hkjus ds izfrdj Lo:Ik fn;k x;kA
vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd izn”kZ W-99 rFkk W-101 okmplZ ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks fnlEcj] 2019 ,oa tuojh]
2020 ds osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS ;}fi izn”kZ W-99 rFkk W-101 ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj ugha djok;s x;s fdarq bl
ij izkf/kd`r O;fDr ds gLrk{kj Hkqxrku dks izekf.kr djrs gSA ek= izkFkhZ@Jfed ds gLrk{kj ugha gksus ls ;g ugha dgk tk
ldrk fd izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA foi{khx.k Hkh ;g crkus esa lQy ugha gq;s gSa fd izn”kZ W-99 rFkk W-101
ij vafdr Hkqxrku oLrqr% fdls fd;k x;kA bl fy;s ebZ] 2019 ls tuojh] 2020 rd ds Hkqxrku okmplZ ds vk/kkj ij 9
ekg vFkkZr 270 fnu dk;Z fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ us izekf.kr fd;k gSaA
19-
blds foijhr vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izn”kZ W-99 rFkk W-101 ij pwWfda izkFkhZ ds osru izkfIr laca/kh
gLrk{kj ugha gSa bl fy;s ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd bu okmplZ ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gksA ;g
fl}hHkkj izkFkhZ ij gh vkjksfir gS fd og 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsok djus dk rF; izekf.kr djsaA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds
leFkZu esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj o vU; cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh] ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;w-ih-ih-lh-,y- y[kuÅ cuke ih-vks-] yscj dksVZ rFkk ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;wdksa cSad cuke
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k dk mYys[k fd;k gSaA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g dgk
x;k gS fd 240 fnu lsok] lsok&lekfIr ds iwoZ fd;s tkus ds rF; dks Lo;a dh lk{; ls izekf.kr djus dk nkf;Ro Lo;a
izkFkhZ Jfed ij gh gSA bl fof/k ds izdk’k esa izkFkhZ us tc ,d volj ij ;g dgk gS fd fd;s x;s Hkqxrku ds izek.k
Lo:Ik izn'kZ W-88 ls W-98 rd Hkqxrku okmplZ izLrqr fd;s x;s gS ftu ij osru Hkqxrku izkIr djus ds izkFkhZ ds
gLrk{kj fo|eku gSa] rks ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd leku Hkqxrku ds izek.k laca/kh okmplZ izn”kZ W-99 rFkk W-101 ij
izkFkhZ ds Hkqxrku izkfIr ds gLrk{kj fo|eku u gksus ij Hkh ;g mi/kkj.kk dj yh tkos fd izkFkhZ dks fnlEcj] 2019 ,oa
tuojh] 2020 ekg dk osru Hkqxrku bu okmplZ ds ek/;e ls fd;k x;kA foi{khx.k ls ;g vis{kk fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha
gS fd os ;g crk;s fd bu okmplZ ds ek/;e ls fdu O;fDr;ksa dks Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA D;ksfd vius vfHkopuksa dks
izekf.kr djus dk flf}Hkkj Lo;a izkFkhZ ij gh gSA
20-
foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa izn'kZ M-7@1 ls yxkrkj M-7@6 rd okmplZ dh izfr;kW izLrqr dh gS ftuls ;g
rF; Hkh izekf.kr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnlEcj] 2018 ls vizsy] 2019 rd izfrekg 6000@& osru fn;k x;kA fdarq ;g
vof/k lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ ds vUrxZr u vkus ls lqlaxr ugh gSA
21-
lk{; ,oa rdksZ ds foospu ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us mldh lsok lekfIr frfFk 04-05-2020 ls iwoZorhZ 7
ekg dh vof/k rd vFkkZr 210 fnu foi{khx.k ds v/khu lrr dk;Z fd;k fdarq ;g vof/k 240 fnu ls de gS vkSj ;g
mi/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gksA
izkFkhZ fnlEcj] 2019 ls 4 ebZ] 2020 rd osru Hkqxrku dk vFkok lrr dk;Z djus dk dksbZ izek.k izLrqr djus Eksa foQy
jgk gSA bl fu"d"kZ ds mijkar pwfda izkFkhZ 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z foxr ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa djuk izekf.kr ugha dj ldk
gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{khx.k }kjk ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa
NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks fd;s tkus dh dksbZ fof/kd vis{kk mRiUu ugha gks ik;h gSA izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 25 ¼F½ vf/kfu;e ds
izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k blh fy;s izkIr ugha gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
22-
bl fcUnq ds vUrxZr izkFkhZ dks ;g izekf.kr djuk gS fd foi{khx.k us mldh
lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ Jfedksa dh ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ rFkk izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa dks fu;kstu esa gh j[kkA bl laca/k
esa izkFkhZ AW-1 f=yksd us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ foi{khx.k us u rks ofj"Brk lwph
cukbZ u gh izdkf'kr dh tcfd izkFkhZ ls twfu;j Jfed foi{khx.k ds fu;U=.k esa dk;Z dj jgs FksA fdarq izkFkhZ us vius
lk{; ds nkSjku mu dfu"B O;fDr;ksa ds u rks ukeksa dk mYys[k fd;k u gh muds fu;qfDr laca/kh dksbZ izys[k izLrqr fd;sA
tcfd foi{kh lk{kh MW-1 jkexksiky >k>fM;k us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh
izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k gSA rFkk fdlh vU; Jfed dks Hkh foi{khx.k us fu;qfDr ugha nhA izfrijh{kk esa lk{kh us
dgk gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd o"kZ 2020 esa jkeLo:Ik lSuh dks izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij cSad esa lsok esa fy;k gksA mls fdaXl
flD;qfjVh lfoZl us >k>M+ 'kk[kk esa j[kok;k FkkA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; jkexksiky lSauh cuke
n tt] yscj dksVZ t;iqj eas ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks gh ;g izekf.kr djuk gksxk fd fu;ksDrk }kjk vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25 ¼G½ vkSj 25 ¼H½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA ek= dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dk uke of.kZr djuk bl mn~s'; dh
iwfrZ ugha djrk gSA bu ifjLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr djus esa loZFkk foQy jgk gS fd foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds
mijkar mlls dfu"Brj fdlh vU; O;fDr dks fu;kstu esa fy;k gks vFkok j[kk gksA vr% ;g fcUnq Hkh izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k
tkrk gSA
23-
mi;qZDr fcUnq la- ¼1½ o ¼2½ izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;s x;s gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ ;g
izekf.kr djus esa foQy jgk gS fd mlus foi{khx.k ds v/khu 04-05-2020 ls iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240
fnu ls vf/kd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k rFkk mls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr gSA izkFkhZ ;g Hkh
izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd foi{khx.k us mldh lsok lekfIr ds Ik'pkr fdlh vU; dfu"B O;fDr dks fu;ksftr fd;k gks
2208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vFkok lsok esa j[kk gksA bl LFkfr esa foi{khx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; bf.M;u MªXl ,UM QkekZ- fy- cuke odZesau
bf.M;u MªXl ,UM QkekZ- fy-] ds- ,y- dqekj cuke oh-ih- ikfVy] ih- d:ibZ;k cuke tujy esustj] fr:oYywoj
VªkUliksVZ dksiZjs'ku fy-] bathfu;j bu phQ okVj fjlksflZt fMikVZesaV] Hkksiky cuke eugj.k] xksiky uanfd'kksj 'kekZ cuke
esustj] ukukokVh ,slksf'k;V~l] ch-,l-,u-,y- cuke ekuflag] lhfu;j lqizhVsUMsUV VsyhxzkQ ¼VSªfQd½] Hkksiky cuke lUrks"k
dqekj lhy ,oa ,Dl- bathfu;j ih- MCY;w- Mh- cuke gjpUnh esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;@ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk
izfrikfnr fof/k tks fd vLFkkbZ Jfedksa ds fu;fefrdj.k rFkk lsok esa iquZLFkkiu ds cnys {kfriwfrZ fn;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gS]
bl fookn ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k llEeku lqlaxr izrhr ugha gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
24-
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 21-12-2023 dks fy[kk;k o lquk;k x;kA vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks
vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1027.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iVuk ds iapkV (08 ( C ) of 2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12011/54/2018-
- (
-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2024
S.O. 1027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08 ( C ) of 2018) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/54/2018– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:-08 (C) of 2018
Between the management of the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, S.K. Tarafdar Road, Near Koyala
Ghat Adampur, Bhagalpur (Bihar)-812001 And their workman Shri Pankaj Kumar, temporary peon represented
through the General Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar, Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind
Republic Hotel, Patna-800001( Bihar ).
For the management:-
Sri Sourabh Soni, Asst. Manager (Law)
For the workman:-
Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary, UCO Bank Employees
Association, Bihar.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 29th April, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/54/2018-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 14.09.2018 the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the
management of Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, S.K. Tarafdar Road, Near Koyala Ghat Adampur,
Bhagalpur (Bihar)-812001 And their workman Shri Pankaj Kumar, temporary peon represented through the General
Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar, Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Patna-
800001( Bihar ) for adjudication to this tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Pankaj Kumar,
Temporary Peon, w.e.f 01.07.2017 without following the due process of law, is justified? If not,to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2209
2.
As per the statement of claim, the case of the workman Sri Pankaj Kumar is that he was orally appointed by
the management of UCO Bank to discharge the duties of a peon w.e.f 01.02.2006 at Katoria Branch. It is further
asserted that that complainant / workman Sri Pankaj Kumar while working at Katoria Branch used to discharge his
duties as a peon to take out registers, files from Almirah, and placing the same on the counters of staffs, taking out
cash box from strong room to cash department. He was also discharging the duties of posting of mails of the bank
through post office, serving letters to the borrowers of the bank and also discharged the hospitality work in the bank.
It is further asserted that Pankaj Kumar used to perform his duties from 10.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M at the instruction of
the branch manager. Initially he used to be paid wages @ Rs. 900/- per week which was raised to @ Rs. 200/- per
day. It is further asserted that the duties of the workman were identical to that of a permanent peon and his duties was
perennial in nature. It is further asserted that Pankaj Kumar was paid to his service by the bank through debit
vouchers. It is further asserted that workman was stopped from doing duties from 01.07.2017 at Katoria Branch. After
the termination Pankaj Kumar approached the management for his reinstatement but no positive step was taken by the
management bank. The workman was neither given any notice, nor any notice pay, nor any retrenchment
compensation preceding his termination. It is further asserted that when the grievances of the workman is not
redressed, he caused an Industrial dispute before the conciliation officer which ultimately result in referring the
dispute for adjudication by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, before this tribunal. It is further
asserted that the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman from 01.07.2017 is neither legal
nor justified. Management violated the mandatory provision as contained in the section 25(F) of the I.D.Act,1947 and
further management resorted to unfair labour practices as per schedule V read with section 25 (T) of the I.D.Act.
Management did not follow the principle of equal pay for equal work. Management also violated the provision of
section-25(G) and 25(N) of the I.D.Act. Hence the termination of the workman is covered u/s-2(oo) of the I.D.Act. it
is further asserted that the workman worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination as
per section 25(B) of the I.D.Act. Thus workman prays for following relief (s):-
(i)
Reinstatement in the services of the bank as a temporarypeon with back wages and other
consequential benefits;
(ii)
Payment of due wages for the period of working;
(iii)
Payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for contesting the dispute;
(iv)
Any other relief (S) as the tribunal deems fit and proper;
3.
On the other hand management bank filed written statement and mentioned therein the dispute as raised on
behalf of the Pankaj Kumar is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and as such it is fit to be rejected. Pankaj
Kumar was not a employee of the UCO bank and he was not under the category of the workman as defind under the
I.D.Act.. It is further asserted that all the claim of the Pankaj Kumar regarding his oral appointment and about his
duties like a peon from 10.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M, about his payment and about his termination on 01.07.2017 and
further he approached to the management bank for reinstatement as asserted in the statement of claim are purely false
and fabricated and concocted these claim of the workman is totally denied by the bank. It is further asserted that the
real fact is Mr. Pankaj Kumar was never appointed by the competent authority of the bank to discharge the duties of a
peon as alleged in his statement of claim. The complainant / workman also did not disclosed who appointed him in
the service of bank which also indicates Mr. Pankaj Kumar was never appointed by the competent authority of the
bank and not through any process of selection. It is further asserted that bank took the service of Pankaj Kumar from
time to time for 2 to 4 hours on daily wages as coolie / labour for non banking work for which he was duly paid. It is
further asserted that at the relevant time there was no such vacancy of peon / temporary peon and no advertisement
was published for the appointment of a peon. It is further asserted that since Pankaj Kumar was never appointed and
nor engaged by the bank as a regular employee or temporary peon rather his services was taken from time to time as
per requirement as coolie or labourer purely on daily basis so management bank did not violated any provision of
constitutiol and of Industrial Dispute Act and Rules. It is further asserted that Pankaj Kumar never worked regularly,
so his claim of continuous working more than 240 days in a calendar year is totally in correct and denied by the
management bank. The present dispute as raised on behalf of the Pankaj Kumar is being devoid of any merit and so
he is not entitled for reinstatement or regularisation and hence the present dispute is fit to be rejected.
4.
The representative of the workman filed rejoinder of the written statement as filed by the management bank
and mentioned therein that the stance of the management bank is totally in correct about Pankaj Kumar does not come
under the purview of section 2(S) of the I.D.Act. The fact is while working with the management bank as a daily
wager as per section 2(S) of the I.D.Act. Pankaj Kumar attains the status of workman as he worked with Katoria
Branch of UCO Bank from 01.02.2006 on getting oral engagement from the Branch Manager. It is further asserted
that the termination of the workman is covered u/s-2(oo) of the I.D.Act and management also resorted to unfair labour
practice as per schedule V read with section 25(F) of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that while working with the
bank for over 11 years certain rights occurred in favour of the workman and certain obligation have been also
bestowed on the management bank. Management bank regularised the services of hundreds of the daily rated
workmen as sweeper cum peon in past so the submission as made by the management in written statement is devoid
of merit.
2210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
On the basis of rival pleadings of the following issues are recasted for adjudication:-
(i)
Whether the Pankaj Kumar comes under the purview of workman as per the provision of section 2(S)
of the I.D.Act.
(ii)
Whether the duties of a temporary peon as assigned by the Pankaj Kumar in his statement of claim is
correct and acceptable.
(iii) “Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank interminating the services of Shri Pankaj
Kumar, Temporary Peon, w.e.f 01.07.2017 without following the due process of law, is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
6.
In order to establish his claim, the workman side examined two witnesses namely Pankaj Kumar (W.W-1)
workman himself and Ram Narayan Choudhary (W.W-2) a retired Sr. Manager of UCO Bank. Besides, oral evidence
workman sides filed some documents and get it marked Exts as:-
(i)
Ext.-W Daily wages payment register from the period 07.04.2007 to 30.10.2007 (with objection by
other side ).
(ii)
Ext.-W/1 Debit voucher of Rs. 700/- dt-27.12.2007 issued by UCO Bank, Katoria Branch paid to
Pankaj Kumar.
(iii) Ext.-W/2 Debit Voucher of dt- 31.10.2006 amounting to Rs. 1200/- issued by UCO Bank, Katoria
Branch paid to Pankaj Kumar as a daily wage.
(iv) Ext.-W/3 Work certificate of dt- 31.07.2007 issued by the then Branch Manager to Pankaj Kumar.
(v)
Ext.-W/3-1 Work certificate of dt- 06.06.2009 issued by the then Branch Manager to Pankaj Kumar.
(vi) Ext.-W/3-2 Work certificate of dt- 20.07.2010 issued by the then Branch Manager to
Pankaj Kumar.
7.
On the other hand management side also produced one witness namely Naveen Kumar (M.W-1) from its
side.
8.
First of all this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of the workman side. W.W-1 Pankaj Kumar is the workman
who deposed before this tribunal on 14.03.2022. He stated before this tribunal that he was doing work of peon at
Katoria Branch of UCO Bank from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2017 at the instruction of the Branch Manager. He further
stated that he used to sit at the gate of the bank. He discharged the duties of vouchers stitching work, taking the cash
box from the strong room and to it on the cash counter. This witness also stated that he maintained his own attendance
register. He further stated that he used to discharged his duties in the bank from 9.30 A.M to 6.30 P.M and he
received his payment through weekly basis and some time he received daily wages payment in his bank account by
transfer. This witness further stated that bank maintained daily wages register in which one Zubair received the
payment @ daily wage and he proved the copy of the payment register marked as Ext.-W i.e objected by the other
side. This witness further stated that Zubair was doing work of computer in the branch. Original paper of Ext.-W is in
the custody of bank branch. This witness further proved two debits vouchers of dt-27.12.2007 and 31.10.2006 through
which he received the payment from the bank i.e Ext.-W/1 & W/2 respectively. This witness further stated that the
then Branch Manager issued certificate to him for his working i.e of the dates 06.06.2009, 20.07.2010, and
31.07.2007 and the proved the same as Ext-W/3 to W/3-2. This witness further stated that bank stopped him from
working from 01.07.2017 but no notice and notice pay given by the bank. On tribunal question this witness
categorically stated he has received all the payment from the bank till 30.06.2017.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-14 that he did not received any appointment
letter from the bank rather on seeing a notice at the bank branch he came Katoria branch and he started working in the
said branch at the instruction of the then Branch Manager Sri S.N. Prasad. This witness categorically stated in para-17
is that he started working in the said branch from March 2006 at that time one Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal was permanent
peon at that branch and this witness further denied that bank did not take his services daily because of permanent peon
posted there. In para-20 of the cross-examination this witness stated that there was no part time sweeper posted in the
Katoria branch and further denied that one Ranu Devi was posted as PTS there. In para-23 of the cross-examination
this witness categorically admits that when bank stopped him from working, he did not file any written complaint to
the bank. In para-24 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he was orally appointed on merely
formal interaction with the manager. There was no selection procedure adopted by the bank. He also admits in para-
25 of the cross-examination his qualification is class-VIII. In para-26 this witness admits that he never received
monthly salary and no ESI & PF was deducted from his payment. In para-28 of the cross-examination this witness
categorically stated that payment vouchers and the zerox copy of daily wage payment register he filed, was given by
the manager thereafter he never asked any documents from the bank. This witness further denied that he never worked
regularly in the bank because there was permanent peon there.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2211
9.
W.W-2 Ram Narayan Choudhary is the retired Senior Manager of UCO Bank who deposed before this
tribunal on 24.03.2022. He stated in this evidence that he was Branch Manager of Katoria Branch of UCO Bank from
March-2009 to November 2010 and during his tenure Pankaj Kumar the workman discharged the duties in the said
branch like a permanent staff. This witness further stated that daily rated worker got regularisation in his UCO Bank
in past one Uday Shankar Raut who was the daily rated worker became regular by the order of the bank. This witness
further proved certificate of dt-20.07.2010 issued by him to the Pankaj Kumar.
In cross-examination this witness categorically admits that he retired on 30.04.2014 from Shambhuganj
Branch, Banka. In para-8 of the cross-examination this witness admits that bank has given him charge sheet in the
year 2007 and he got punishment from bank his his with holding one increment for year. In para-9 of the cross-
examination this witness categorically stated, he can’t say a peon can be appointed orally. In para-10 of the cross-
examination this witness categorically admits that during the period of 2006 to 2014 he never appointed any person
orally daily wager. In para-12 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admits that on the request of Pankaj
Kumar he had issued the certificate and on his request, he came to depose here and whatever the certificate he issued
to Pankaj Kumar was from the date of 07.06.2009. This witness further denied that he deposed against the bank
because of punishment given by the bank to him.
10.
On the other hand management examined just one witness Sri Naveen Kumar, Assistant Manager, (M.W-1).
Who stated before this tribunal that he was posted at Katoria Branch from 20.07.2018 to 10.09..2021 and during his
tenure one Sudama Pd Sao was working as daily wager on the basis of the order of the tribunal. This witness also
stated that Sudama Pd Saw was working in the Katoria Branch prior to his joining on 20.07.2018 and one Ranu Devi
was also doing work of PTS in the said branch but she died later on.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he admits in para-7 of the cross-examination that
he does not know whether any daily rated worker or PTS got regularisation in UCO Bank. In para-8 of the cross-
examination this witness categorically stated that Renu Devi died on December 2017. This witness further stated in
para-10 of his cross-examination he does not know the matter of Pankaj Kumar.
11.
It is argued on behalf of the workman side that Pankaj Kumar discharged the duties of peon at Katoria
Branch from 01.02.2006 to 30.06.2017. He was orally appointed by the then Branch Manger @ Rs.200/- per day and
he received payment by debit voucher. It is further argued that workman discharged his duties till 30.06.2017
regularly. He was stopped from the work by the bank from 01.07.2017 without giving any notice, notice pay, or any
retrenchment compensation i.e supported by the workman himself in his evidence and Ram Narayan Choudhary
(W.W-2) also supported the contention of the workman regarding his regular working at Katoria Branch and he has
also given certificate to Pankaj Kumar of his working on dt-20.07.2010 (Ext.-W/3-2) the workman also filed payment
sheet of the year 2007 through which he received the payment of wages i.e Ext.-W. Workman Pankaj Kumar also
filed two payment vouchers of dt- 27.12.2007, and 31.10.2007 that shows that he received payment of wages from
16.12.2007 to 22.12.2007 (Ext.-W/1) and from 16.10.2006 to 22.10.2006, 25.10.2006 and 26.10.2006 (Ext.-W/2).
These documents establish, the Pankaj Kumar was engaged in the Katoria Branch as the daily rated worker. Ext.-W/3
and Ext.-W/3-2 the certificates issued by the then Branch Manager certifying Pankaj Kumar had been working at
Katoria Branch. It is further argued that bank failed to produce payment vouchers as asked by the workman. It is
further argued that Pankaj Kumar worked at UCO Bank at Katoria Branch from the year 2006 to 30.06.2017 11 years
regularly and all of sudden he was stopped from working by the bank management on 01.07.2017 so his termination
is covered u/s-2(oo) of the I.D.Act and thus management also resorted unfair labour practice as per section 25(T) of
the I.D.Act. It is further argued that workman thoroughly establish his claim through oral and documentary evidence
accordingly he is entitled in the service of the bank as a temporary peon as per the terms of reference.
12.
On the other hand it is argued by the representative of the management that the claim of the workman as per
his statement of claim regarding his duties and payment is not at all duly proved and established. No evidence has
been produced by the workman to show his continuity of his service. It is further argued that there was permanent
peon and permanent PTS posted in the Katoria branch that his dully admitted by the workman and it is also admitted
by the workman in his evidence so the claim of the workman he was working like a temporary peon is totally
projected and superfluous. Even W.W-2 the retired manager of UCO Bank also did not disclosed the details of the
duties of the Pankaj Kumar at Katoria branch and about his payment mode in his evidence. The facts is, bank took the
services of Pankaj Kumar as and when required in exigency of work for 2-4 hours only for which he was duly paid. It
is further argued that since no appointment letter was issued to the Pankaj Kumar so his claim about unjustified,
termination is totally false and fabricated as workman failed to establish he was ever work continuously for more than
240 days preceding his alleged termination dt-01.07.2017. No chit of paper has been produced by the workman that
could show he was in continuance of service. Thus management bank did not violate any provision of I.D.Act as
assigned by the workman side in his statement of claim hence workman is not entitled for any relief.
13.
Considering all the facts and the materials available on the record as discussed above and considering the
submissions as advanced on behalf of the both the sides, this tribunal takes the find issue “Whether complainant /
workman Pankaj Kumar is regarded as workman under the provision of 2(S) of the I.D.Act,1947. In this contest the
claim of the Pankaj Kumar is he was orally appointed by then Branch Manager of Katoria Branch of UCO Bank and
2212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he started working there from 01.01.2006 and continued his services till 30.06.2017. Section 2(S) of the I.D.Act
defines about status of workman :- [ (S) “workman” means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in
any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire
or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose 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 or 1957 ); or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 56a [ ten thousand rupees ] per
mensem or exercise, 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.]
taking into account the provision of section-2(S) of the I.D.Act it appears that even a person is engaged by the
management bank or any other industry as daily wager for which management gives payment comes under the
category of workman. So the contention of the management Pankaj Kumar is not a workman as per provision of
I.D.Act is not acceptable at all. Moreover, after securitizing the dispute, by the appropriate Govt. this reference is sent
to this tribunal considering the complainant Pankaj Kumar as a workman so this issue is decided in favour of the
complainant.
14.
So far as issue no.-II is concerned “Whether the duties of a temporary peon as assigned by the Pankaj
Kumar in his statement of claim is correct and acceptable. This tribunal finds that workman Pankaj Kumar stated in
his evidence he was doing the duties like a peon in the Katoria Branch and he served there from 9.30 A.M to 6.00
P.M and during this period he used to take cash box from the strong room to the cash counter, debit vouchers stitching
work, but he himself did not corroborate his own version regarding his details of work given in the Katoria branch as
mentioned in statement of claim. It appears that Pankaj Kumar has given a sweeping statement regarding his details of
working at the Katoria Branch. Further no oral and documentary evidence produced by the Pankaj Kumar regarding
his duties as assigned by the bank manager during that period. This tribunal further finds that Pankaj Kumar as a
witness himself admits before this tribunal, when he started working at Katoria Branch one permanent peon namely
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal was posted there. So on this admission the claim of the Pankaj Kumar he was discharging the
duties of a peon looks not convincing and acceptable at all. This tribunal further finds that the claim of the
management is that bank took the services of Pankaj Kumar from time to time as per requirement for 2-4 hours for
which he was dully paid. He never worked regularly as a daily wager appears more convincing hence this issue is not
at all proved by the complainant / workman by the Pankaj Kumar. 15. So far as issue no.-III is concerned this
tribunal finds that the complainant Pankaj Kumar tried to convince this tribunal through his oral evidence that he was
orally appointed by the then Branch Manager, Katoria Branch and he started working there from 01.01.2006 and
continued his services till 30.06.2017. This tribunal finds that workman himself did not furnish any cogent and
consistent evidence regarding his regular working like a peon in the Katoria Branch. This tribunal further finds that
workman himself stated in para-17 of the cross-examination that he started working at Katoria Branch from March-
2006 at that time one Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal was posted there as permanent peon so when a permanent peon is posted
in the said branch there is no question of taking work of a peon by the management bank. So the claim of the
workman is very casual and very sweeping one. This tribunal further finds that workman tried to establish his regular
working by way of some documents i.e Ext.-W ( copy of the daily wages payment register from the period of
07.04.2007 to 30.10.2007 ) and this document is marked with objection raised by the management side. On
securitizing the Ext.-W it appears that this is not prepared on a official bank register rather it is prepared of lined plain
register in which entries of two daily wager is mentioned one of Pankaj Kumar the complainant and 2nd is of Mr.
Jubair showing him a computer operator, there is no seal of the bank on this document shows the daily wage payment
received by the complainant Pankaj Kumar and as well as Jubair @ daily wage but this documents does not show he
was discharging the duties regularly at Katoria Branch as per his claim from 01.06.2007 to 30.06.2017. This
documents shows that when he gave his duties to the bank he received the payment at the rate of daily wage. This
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2213
tribunal further finds that Pankaj Kumar claimed in his evidence he received the wage payment in his bank account by
transfer but no statement of account is filed by the Pankaj Kumar that could suffice his claim. Why Pankaj Kumar did
not produced his statement of A/C reasons best known to him. This tribunal further finds that Pankaj Kumar filed
three certificates issued by the then Branch Mangers for his working i.e Ext.-W/3 to W/3-2. On securitizing the
certificate of dt- 31.07.2007 where is mentioned Pankaj Kumar working as a daily wager on daily basis since
30.07.1996 and Ext.-W/3-1 the certificate issued of dt-06.06.2009 shows the working of Pankaj Kumar as a daily
wager since 30.07.1996 i.e and thereafter some over righting is there by circuling 9 as 0 that is apparent from the
document itself that zerox copy and there is no initial there and further Ext.-W/3-2 issued by the then Branch Manger
Ram Narayan Choudhary who also deposed from the workman side as W.W-2, who has given the certificate on
20.07.2010 mentioning Pankaj Kumar worked as a daily wager in Katoria Branch on the daily basis from 07.06.2009.
This tribunal further finds that original of these three documents is not produced by the Pankaj Kumar that was very
much in the custody of the Pankaj Kumar also creates daubt register his actual period of working further these three
documents does not match to the claim of Pankaj Kumar regarding his working at Katoria Branch from 01.01.2006 as
a temporary peon rather all the three documents are different. No manager claimed Pankaj Kumar was working as a
temporary peon rather they claim he was as a daily wager. This tribunal further finds that Pankaj Kumar filed two
papers vouchers of dt- 27.12.2007 i.e the period of 16.12.2007 to 22.12.2007 by virtue of this voucher Pankaj Kumar
received the Rs. 700/- ( Rs. Seven Hundred ) i.e Ext.-W/1 and Ext.-W/2 payment vouchers of dt- 31.10.2006 i.e the
payment of 16.10.2006 to 22.10.2006 and of 25.10.2006 to 26.10.2006 amount of Rs. 1200/- ( Rs. One Thousand
Two Hundred ) is received by Pankaj Kumar as a daily wager. These two documents also does not satisfy Pankaj
Kumar was regularly working as a peon at Katoria Branch from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2017. This tribunal further finds
that these above documents do not establish the claim of Pankaj Kumar he was working regularly as a temporary peon
from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2017 rather it shows that whenever Pankaj Kumar gave his services to the branch of
management bank he received his payment accordingly as a daily wager and this facts is claimed by management
bank in his evidence as well as in written statement too. This tribunal further finds that no oral and documentary
evidence has been produced by the Pankaj Kumar of his working beyond the period of 30.10.2007 to 30.06.2017
whatever the documents placed by the Pankaj Kumar for his payment i.e upto 30.07.2007 ( Ext.-W ). This tribunal
further finds that workman produced the retired Sr Manager Sri Ram Narayan Choudhary from his side as W.W-2
who was posted in Katoria Branch from March-2009 to November-2010 who also frustrated the claim of Pankaj
Kumar regarding his working from 01.01.2006 as a temporary peon rather he issued the certificate during his time i.e
Ext.-W/3-2 showing Pankaj Kumar was working from 07.06.2009 as a daily wager not as a temporary peon,
moreover this witness appears biased and tutored as he was also during his service by the management bank that is
evident from para-8 of the cross-examination. This witness also did not disclosed about mode of payment he has
given to the Pankaj Kumar during his tenure. This tribunal further finds that W.W-2 admits before this tribunal he
never appointed any person orally as a daily wager as a manager from the year 2006 to 2014. This evidence also
shows that no manger has authority to appoint orally any person as a temporary person on regular basis rather Branch
Manager can take the service of a person as a daily wager as per requirement. So W.W-2 also being a retired manager
of UCO Bank does not establish the claim of the Pankaj Kumar, he was discharging his duties like a temporary peon
from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2017. This tribunal further finds that this is a claim of Pankaj Kumar he discharged the
duties continuously more than 240 days preceding the alleged termination on 30.06.2017 but no cogent evidence is
produced by the Pankaj Kumar regarding his daily work for more than 240 days in a calendar year i.e pre-requisite for
any claim by a workman before any industry like bank.
15.
Thus on securitizing all the facts and materials available on records as discussed above this tribunal finds and
hold that complainant Pankaj Kumar has completely failed to establish he was working at Katoria Branch from
01.01.2006 to 30.06.2017 as per his evidence ( W.W-1) by any cogent oral and documentary evidence. More over he
failed to establish he was ever worked more than 240 days in a calendar year as a temporary peon regularly in the
Katoria Branch before his alleged termination date 01.07.2017 rather the contention of the bank is more convincing
that when ever bank took the service of Pankaj Kumar as a daily wager he was duly paid for his work that is evident
2214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from the documents as placed by the workman himself. This tribunal finds and holds that Pankaj Kumar Projected the
story of his working as temporary peon from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2017 without any cogent & concrete evidence and
Pankaj Kumar did not come up with clean hand about his claim. From the facts and evidence, it is evident that Pankaj
Kumar was never working regularly as a temporary peon at Katoria Branch, so there is no question of termination by
the management bank and there is no question of any notice or notice pay is required in the case of Pankaj Kumar,
hence management has not violated any provision of I.D.Act so the action of the management of UCO Bank in
terminating the services of Pankaj Kumar w.e.f 01.07.2017 without following the due process of law is totally
justified because Pankaj Kumar was never working regularly as a temporary peon in Katoria Branch till 30.06.2017 as
per alleged claim i.e not at all established by the Pankaj Kumar. So workman Pankaj Kumar is not entitled for any
relief.
16.
On scanning of materials available on record as discussed above and submissions as advanced on behalf of
both the sides thisl is the considered opinion of this tribunal that workman Pankaj Kumar could not establish his claim
by any cogent evidence and so this is the considered opinion of this tribunal Pankaj Kumar is not entitled for any
relief.This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated &Corrected by me.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1028.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iVuk ds iapkV ( 11 ( C ) of 2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12011/58/2018-
- (
-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2024
S.O. 1028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11 ( C ) of 2018) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/58/2018– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:-11 (C) of 2018
Between the management of the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, S.K. Tarafdar Road, Near Koyala
Ghat Adampur, Bhagalpur (BIHAR)-812001 And their workman Shri Manish Kumar Poddar, Peon represented
through General Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar, Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind Republic
Hotel, Patna (BIHAR)-800001.
For the management:-
Sri Sourabh Soni, Asst. Manager (Law)
For the workman:-
Sri B. Prasad, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 25th April, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/58/2018-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 02.11.2018 the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2215
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the
management of Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, S.K. Tarafdar Road, Near Koyala Ghat Adampur,
Bhagalpur (BIHAR)-812001 And their workman Shri Manish Kumar Poddar, Peon represented through General
Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar, Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Patna
(BIHAR)-800001 for adjudication to this tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Manish Kumar
Poddar, Peon, allegedly working from 04/07/2007 and terminated w.e.f. 20.07.2014 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
As per the statement of claim of the workman Sri Manish Kumar Poddar, he was orally appointed by the
management UCO Bank at Rangara Branch for discharging the duties of a peon w.e.f 04.07.2007 where he was
allowed to work till February 2010. It is further asserted that the workman was further shifted to Dholbazza Bazar
Branch under Bhagalpur Dist. from 20.03.2010 where he worked up to 19.07.2014. It is further asserted that the
workman used to discharged his duties from 9.30A.M to 5.30PM and some times even beyond that as per
requirement. It is further asserted that the workman was doing his duty opening the bank’s gates thereafter sweeping,
cleaning the branch premises and he also assisted in taking out cash box from the strong room, placing the same in
cash department. The workman also used to put registers at the tables of the staff, besides this the workman was also
discharged duties of serving water / tea to the staff and customers of the bank. It is further asserted that some time he
also discharged the postal work of the bank and he was also engaged for stitching the currency notes and vouchers. It
is further asserted that initially the workman was paid wages @ Rs.80/- per day through different modes. The
workman had discharged his duties both the at Rangara and Dholbajja Bazar branch against vacant post of peons. It is
also asserted that the duties of the workman was perennial in nature. It is further that the name of the workman had
been formulated to the head office of the bank in the year 2013 as per the circular issued by the Human Resources
Management Department of the bank. It is also asserted that the workman work for more than 240 days in calendar
month preceding his termination. But he was stopped from work in Dholbajja Bazar Branch from 20.07.2014 without
giving any notice, notice pay or any retrenchment compensation by the management bank so the termination of the
workman is covered u/s-2(oo) of the I.D.Act. it is further asserted that management appointed number of fresh hands
but the case of the workman was not considered. Moreover, management violated the mandatory provision of section-
25(F) of the I.D.Act,1947 and of Industrial Central Rules,1957 as well. Management also resorted to unfair labour
practice as contained in Schedule V read with Section-25(T) of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that the workman
approached the management bank several times for reinstatement by the bank then raised this Industrial Dispute i.e
referred from the appropriate Government. Accordingly action of the management in terminating the services of the
workman is not justified on the above assigned grounds. Thus the workman prays the following reliefs;
(i)
Reinstatement as a peon with back wages;
(ii)
Payment of all consequential benefits;
(iii)
Payment of some of Rs. 20,000/- for contesting the dispute.
(iv)
Any other relief(S) as deems fit and proper by the tribunal;
3.
On the other hand the UCO Bank also filed written statement and mentioned therein, the dispute as raised on
behalf of the Manish Kumar Poddar is neither maintainable in the eye of law nor on facts and so it is fit to be rejected.
The fact is, the Manish Kumar Poddar was not an employee of the UCO bank and he was not under the definition of
workman so he has got no locus standi to raise the present dispute. It is further asserted that Manish Kumar Poddar
was never appointed by the bank or by competent authority to discharge the duties of a temporary peon as alleged in
the statement of claim. Manish Kumar Poddar claimed he was orally appointed in the services of UCO Bank to
discharge the duties of temporary peon at Rangra branch but did not disclosed who appointed him in the service so
Manish Kumar Poddar did not come up with clean hand. It is further asserted that in fact bank took the services of
Manish Kumar Poddar time to time for only to 2 to 4 hours on daily wages as collie / labour work that is non banking
work for which he was duly paid. All the details about working in the branches of the management bank as asserted
by the workman in his statement of claim is totally incorrect that could not be believed even. It has to be proved by
the workman whatever he has asserted about his work in the statement of claim by cogent evidence. It is further
asserted that the claim of the workman, he has worked against the vacant post of a peon in both the branches is totally
incorrect because at that relevant time there was no such vacancy of peon / temporary peon and no advertisement was
published for the vacancy of peon. It is further asserted that since Manish Kumar Poddar was never appointed or
engaged by the bank as a regular employee rather bank took the service as and when required for the labour work
purely on daily basis for which he was duly paid so there is no question of issuing termination letter. It is further
asserted that the present dispute as raised on behalf of Manish Kumar Poddar is a devoid of any merit and he is not
entitled for reinstatement and so claim is fit to be rejected.
2216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The representative of the workman filed rejoinder of the written statement where he disclosed, since Manish
Kumar Poddar worked in two branches Rangara and Dholbajja Branch of the management bank from 04.07.2007 to
28.02.2010 and from 20.03.2010 to 19.07.2014 respectively for the duties of a peon so he attained of the status of the
workman as per section-2(S) of the I.D.Act. It is also asserted that the management reply in the written statement that
the workman had not worked against the permanent vacant post is not correct. The management also violated the
provision of section 25(G) and 25(H) of the I.D.Act.
5.
On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are asserted for adjudication;
(i) “Whether the complainant / workman Sri Manish Kumar Poddar is a workman under the provision of
Section-2(S) of the I.D.Act.
(ii) “Whether the workman has discharged his duties in the two branches of management bank like a temporary
peon as per his details of the working.
(iii) “ Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Manish Kumar
Poddar, Peon, allegedly working from 04/07/2007 and terminated w.e.f. 20.07.2014 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
6.
In order to establish his claim, the workman side examined just one witness namely Manish Kumar Poddar
(W.W-1) the workman himself beside oral evidence, workman got some documents Extd. as:-
(i)
Ext.-W-
Particular of causal worker working as on 31.03.2012 for the work of Dholbajja Bazar
Branch.
(ii) Ext.-W/1- Payment vouchers of dt-04.10.2011 infavour of Manish Kumar Poddar.
(iii) Ext.-W/2- The computerised bank account of Manish Kumar Poddar of the period of 24.12.2011 to
01.07.2014.
7.
On the other hand management side also examined one witness namely Chandan Kumar Singh as M.W-1 but
no documents is placed before this tribunal.
8.
First of all this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of the workman who is Manish Kumar Poddar the workman
himself, this witness stated before this tribunal that he discharged his duties of a peon at Rangara Branch of UCO
Bank in Dist.- Bhagalpur and he was engaged at that branch from 04.07.2007 to February 2010. This witness further
stated at that time a peon has been appointed at that in the said branch than he was transferred to the Dholbazza Bazar
Branch of UCO bank and he started doing work in Dholbazza Branch from 20.03.2010 and he continued his services
till July 2014. On tribunal question this witness categorically stated that he was not given any transferred letter rather
the then Regional Manager Sri R.P.Singh orally sent him to the Dholbazza Branch. This witness further stated that he
was discharging his duties from 9.30A.M to 6.00P.M. He also stated that he was doing the cleaning work, file work,
taking the cash box from the strong room and for the kept on the cash counter and also discharged the duty of
hospitality work and he also performed the vouchers stitching work. This witness further stated that he was getting
payment weekly @ Rs.60/- per day generally he received the payment in the account and some time he received in
cash form. This witness further stated that at Dholbazza Branch he received weekly payment @ Rs.80/- per day. This
witness further stated that there was no cleaning staff and peon posted and both the branches. This witness further
stated that a list of casual worker was sent from the Dholbazza Branch in which his name was given as casual worker
by manager Sri S.K.Jha and he proved the document the same as Ext.-W. On tribunal question this witness
categorically stated there is no signed of the Branch Manager and the seal of the bank on the said Ext.-W. This
witness proved the payment vouchers of 04.10.2011 issued in his name as Ext.-W/1. This witness further stated he has
filed his bank account statement from 24.12.2011 to 05.07.2014 i.e proved as Ext.-W/2. This witness also stated the
bank has given wages i.e evident from the entries of 17.08.2013, 16.01.2014, 08.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 19.05.2014 of
the bank statement ( Ext.-W/2 ). This witness further stated that before his termination bank neither given any notice,
nor any retrenchment compensation.
In cross-examination this witness admits in para-11 & 12 that he started working in the UCO Bank in the
year 2007 and he served in two branches of the UCO Bank till 2014. This witness further stated in cross-examination
he came to know there is need of cleaning staff at Rangara branch on that basis he met with branch manager of
Rangara Branch. This witness also stated in cross-examination the manager engaged him in the bank after interaction.
In para-18 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admits the then Branch Manager had told him about the
cleaning work and putting registers only. Manager Sahab never told about the duties hours and no written letter has
been was given by manager. In para-14 of the cross-examination this witness admits that no training was given to
him. In para-32 of the cross-examination this witness stated that he was sent to the Dholbazza branch on the basis of
telephonic message received by the then Branch Manager but no written letter was given by the Branch Manager. In
para-38 of the cross-examination this witness admits that there is no signature of the manager and no seal of the bank
on Ext.-W. In para-44 of the cross-examination this witness admits that when he started working at Dholbazza
Branch, one Nunu Daie Devi was posted in that branch on consolidated wages. In para-50 of the cross-examination
this witness admits his father was also the employee of UCO Bank, who started duties as a peon on consolidated
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2217
wages then he became a regular employee. On tribunal question this witness stated that his father was regularised on
basis of award passed by this tribunal but he denied that he also wanted to take another mode for his appointment.
9.
On the other hand management examined one Sri Chandan Kumar Singh, field officer of UCO Bank on
20.09.2022. Who stated before this tribunal tht he was Branch Manager of Dholbazza branch from 09.07.2018 to
09.07.2020. In the year 2018 while he was posted at Dholbazza branch he came to know from the Regional Office,
one Manish Kumar Poddar has filed a case for reinstatement. This witness also stated that Manish Kumar Poddar
never workeed in Dholbazza Branch during his tenure. This witness also stated that one permanent staff ( HKP ) was
already posted in Dholbazza Branch. This witness further stated that HKP used to discharge the duties of cleaning
vouchers tagging work placing the file at the staff table postal duties and hospitality work.
In cross-examination this witness categorially admits in para-6 that he is not personally acquainted with this
case. The workman himself reported him he has worked in two branches at Rangara and Dholbzaa Branch and he was
working in Dholbazza from 2010 to 2014.
10.
It is argued from the workman that Manish Kumar Poddar was orally appointed and he discharged the duties
as a peon in Rangara of UCO bank from 04.07.2007 to February 2010 and at Dholbazza Bazar Branch from
20.03.2010 to 19.07.2014 and there was no permanent peon posted in the said branches. It is also argued that under
the background of a scheme for regularisation of Part Time Sweepers / peons in 2013, the name of the workman had
been forwarded to Head Office of the bank but all of sudden workman was stopped from working from 20.07.2014
without any notice, notice pay, nor any retrenchment compensation is given that is gross violation of the provision of
section-25(F) of the I.D.Act. The forwarding details of the workman as forwarded by the then Branch Manager gets
corroboration from Ext.-W. Workman also filed some documents of his payment vouchers and account statement that
establish he was working in Dholbazza Bazar Branch for which he received payment i.e proved with Ext.-W/2. The
workman himself supported details of working in his evidence and the management witness also admits the workman
was working at Rangara Branch and Dholbazza Bazar Branch. The oral and documentary evidence of the workman
clearly establish workman was engaged by the bank continuously from 2007 to 2014 in two branches and he
discharged his work continuously for more than 240 days preceding his termination so his termination is covered u/s-
2(oo) of the I.D.Act and his termination is void abinitio by violating the section-25(F) of the I.D.Act so workman is
entitled for his reinstatement in service of the bank as a peon with back wages. The workman side relied on some
ruling Narottam Chopra Vs Presiding Officer , Labour Court & others 1989 SCC ( L & S ) 565 where it is held that if
the services of an employee is terminated in violation of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act,1947, the order of termination is
rendered ab initio void and the employee would be entitled to continuity of service. Representative of the workman
also relied another ruling Dhirendra Chanmoli and Another Vs State of U.P 134 SC 1986,- 986, 1 SCC 637 where it
was held that if the casual worker is discharging the same duties class IV employee, the same salary and conditions of
services should be given.
11.
On the other hand the management also argued, the claim of the workman he was continuous working at
Rangara Branch and then Dholbazza Bazar Branch from 04.07.2007 as a peon is not at all established by the
workman either by oral or documentary evidence because the documents as Extd. by the workman clearly shows that
he was engaged in Dholbazza Bazar Branch as and when required basis for which he was dully paid as Ext.-W/2 the
statement of bank account i.e period of 24.12.2011 to 05.07.2014 but the payment he received from the bank was of
few dates i.e of 16.01.2014, 08.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 19.05.2014 and 02.11.2013 only had the workman discharged
his duties on Dholbazza Bazar Branch regular and continuous, he might has received payment from the bank regularly
i.e not evident from the workman documents Ext.-W/2 itself because workman himself admits he was getting
payment in his account. More ever there was no sanctioned post in the said two branches as per the claim of the
workman i.e also admitted by the management witness but nothing is countered by the workman side. Workman also
failed to establish his details of working by way of any cogent evidence rather workman himself admits he was told
by the Branch Manager to do the cleaning work and putting register. It is further argued that management took the
services of workman as and when required basis for which he was duly paid moreover workman failed to establish
continuous 240 days working preceding two alleged termination dates by any cogent evidence. Bank has not
committed any violation of I.D. Act as stated by the workman side. Workman himself admits that one permanent
peon was appointed in Rangara Branch and one Smt. Nunu Dai Devi was posted at Dholbzaa Bazar Branch on
consolidated wages that shows the workman never worked as a peon against a sanctioned post. It is further argued
that the claim of the workman is not sustained by any cogent evidence so he is not entitled for any relief.
12.
Considering all the facts and the materials on record as placed by the rival parties and considering the
submissions of both the sides, this tribunal deals the first issue whether the complainant Manish Kumar Poddar is a
workman comes under the provision of section - 2(S) of the I.D.Act. Section-2(S) of the I.D.Act says that:- :- [ (S)
“workman” means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purpose 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
2218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 or 1957 ); or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 56a [ ten thousand rupees ] per
mensem or exercise, 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.]
In this context the claim of the Manish Kumar Poddar is that he was orally engaged initially at Rangara Branch by the
management bank from 04.07.2007 to Feb.-2010 and thereafter he discharged his duties at Dholbazza Bazar Branch
of management bank from 20.03.2010 to 19.07.2014 and this facts is also supported by the Manish Kumar Poddar in
his evidence but no documentary proof of his working at Rangara Branch is placed by the Manish Kumar Poddar but
whatever the document he placed before this tribunal i.e of Dholbazza Bazar Branch. The management bank also
admits this fact the services of Manish Kumar Poddar was taken by the management bank as and when required basis
for which he was dully paid as per the Section-2(S) of the I.D.Act. Manish Kumar Poddar comes under the purview
of workman because he was engaged by the management bank as a casual worker for which he was duly paid by the
management bank. This issue goes in favour of the workman Manish Kumar Poddar.
13.
Now so far the issue no.-(ii) is concerned regarding the duties as assigned by Manish Kumar Poddar in his
statement of claim, this tribunal finds that no cogent evidence is produced by the workman Manish Kumar Poddar
regarding his details of working taking out cash box from the strong room to the cash department, Distribute of Dak
through peon book, stitching of currency and vouchers. No documentary evidence is placed by the Manish Kumar
Poddar. Moreover, workman failed to produce any other witness to suffice this claim of the workman about his duties
as per his statement of claim. This tribunal further finds that workman (W.W-1) himself stated before this tribunal the
than Branch Manager engaged him for the cleaning of the premises and being placing registers only, this admission of
the workman itself frustrated his claim of other duties. This tribunal further finds that the workman’s claim, he was
discharging his duties at both the branches of management bank like of peon because there was no permanent peon
posted in the both the branches and there was sanctioned post of peon there but this claim is also not proved by the
workman eitherr by oral evidence or documentary evidence. This tribunal further finds that the workman himself
admits when he started working at Dholbazza Bazar Branch one NUNU Devi was posted in that branch on
consolidated wages. Moreover, the management bank clearly stated through his witness M.W-1 there was no
sanctioned post of the peon in the both the branches and this evidence of M.W-1 is not controvertred by the workman
in cross-examination. So workman Manish Kumar Poddar has been totally failed to establish his details of working as
a temporary peon in the management bank.
14
So far as issue no.-3 is concerned i.e the terms of reference also, this tribunal finds that the workman Manish
Kumar Poddar claims he discharged his duties like a temporary peon from 04.07.2007 to Feb.-2010 at Rangara
Branch of management bank and thereafter he was engaged at Dholbazza Bazar Branch from 20.03.2010 to July 2014
and he was working continuously there but workman Manish Kumar Poddar did not place any documentary evidence
about his engagement at Rangara Branch and so it is not at all established and proved by the workman Manish
Kumar Poddar. This tribunal further finds that Manish Kumar Poddar claims he was continuously discharging his
duties at both branches of management bank from 04.07.2007 to 20.07.2014 preceding to termination of his service.
In this connection Manish Kumar Poddar did not file any document about his services given at Rangara Branch.
Moreover, the documents as placed by the Manish Kumar Poddar regarding his engagement at Dholbazza Bazar
Branch also does not confirm, he was doing continuous work at Dholbazza Bazar Branch. This tribunal find that Ext.-
W/1 shows that this is a payment vouchers of dt- 04.10.2011 of management bank amounting to Rs. 2800/- for the
coolie charges paid to Manish Kumar Poddar. Further workman Manish Kumar Poddar filed his statement of A/C i.e
period of 24.12.2011 to 01.07.2014 ( Ext.-W/2) showing his payment given by the management bank in his account
for his work. On perusal of the statement of account ( Ext.-W/2), it appears that Manish Kumar Poddar received the
payment of Rs. 2400/- from the management bank on 17.08.2013 and further received Rs. 2000/- from the
management bank on 16.01.2014, Rs. 2400/-, on 18.02.2014 and 15.03.2014, and 1600 Rs. On 19.05.2014 by
transfer. These entries show that whenever Manish Kumar Poddar discharged his duties at Dholbazza Bazar Branch,
he was duly paid by the management bank. These documents does not show he was in continuous working at
management bank. This tribunal further finds that the workman Manish Kumar Poddar himself admits in his evidence
that he was getting payment from the management bank in his account but his statement of account (Ext.-W/2 ) does
not show he was discharging his duties regularly at Dholbazza Bazar Branch rather the contention of the management
is duly established to this extent the management bank took the services of Manish Kumar Poddar as and when
required for which he was duly paid. This tribunal further find that the workman claims he was discharging the duties
continuously more than 240 days preceding his termination on 20.04.2014 is not at all proved and established by the
workman by any oral and documentary evidence. This tribunal further finds and hold that the workman Manish
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2219
Kumar Poddar was not working regularly at management bank and there was no employer and employee relationship
with the management bank so his service is not taken by the management bank from 20.07.2014 on word does not
come under the purview of termination and so management has committed no violation of section 25(F) of the
I.D.Act, 1947 because management took the service of workman Manish Kumar Poddar as and when required basis
for which he was duly paid by the management bank i.e evident from the documents of the workman. This tribunal
further finds that the claim of the workman is that he was stopped from the working by the management bank from
20.07.2014 and thereafter he approached to the management bank several times for reinstatement but no cogent
evidence is placed by the workman in this context because workman was very much knowing this fact that he was
engaged by the management bank as a casual worker and when he stopped from working, he did not raise Industrial
Dispute at that time rather he raised his dispute through his union after the laps of 4 years that appears after thought.
15.
Thus on scrutinizing all the facts and the material available on record as discussed above and the submissions
as placed by the rival parties, this tribunal finds and hold that workman is totally failed to establish his claim
regarding his details of working as a peon and regarding his continuous work at management bank and also failed to
establish, he was in continuous of service for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding 20.07.2014. Hence the
action of the management of UCO bank in terminating the service of Manish Kumar Poddar allegedly working from
04.07.2007 and terminated w.e.f 20.07.2014 is totally justified and so workman Manish Kumar Poddar is not entitled
for any relief.
16
Thus on scanning of all the material available on record as discussed above, this is the considered opinion of
this tribunal Manish Kumar Poddar is not entitled for any relief. This award is effected after date of publication in
gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1029.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मजससव आंध्रा बैंक 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;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (77/2006) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-39025/01/2024-
- (
-II)-16]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2024
S.O. 1029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.77/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Andhra Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/202418– IR (B-II)-16]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: -
Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 2nd day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 77/2006
Between:
Sri A. Bhoomaiah,
S/o Shivaiah,
R/o H.No.2843, Angadi Bazaar,
Mandamarri.
Adilabad District.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
2220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M/s. Andhra Bank,
Kalyankhani Branch,
Adilabad District.
2.
Personnel-in-Charge,
M/s. Andhra Bank,
Head Office, Sultan Bazar,
Hyderabad.
….Respondent s
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao & M. Govind, Advocates
For the Respondent :
M/s. S. Mujib Kumar & S. Vikramaditya Babu, Advocates
AWARD
Sri A. Bhoomaiah, who worked as Bhagyalaxmi Deposit Agent (who will be referred to as the workman)
has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Andhra
Bank seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 30.6.1998 issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside
the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the
consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other
reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that Petitioner has joined the services of the1st Respondent in the month of May, 1978 and
continuously working with unblemished record of service and discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the
superiors till he was illegally prevented from discharging his duties with effect from 30.06.1998. The Petitioner
further submits that the 1st Respondent without assigning any valid reasons and without following the statutory
provisions laid down in the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 preventing him from discharging duties, amounts to
termination of services which is illegal and unjust and contrary to law. It is submitted that at the time of joining the
service, he has deposited Rs.5,000/- towards the Deposit and 2 persons Security for the worth of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is
further submitted that 1st Respondent has assigned the duties of collection of amounts from customers at their
residences and also maintenance of the records and the said collection amount must deposited with the cashier at the
end of the working day or at early hours of next working day and the said records of collections were duly verified by
the concerned officer of the Respondent. Further, it is submitted that the entire work of the Petitioner were supervised
and controlled by the 1st Respondent. It is submitted that his last drawn wage is Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Petitioner
submits that the Respondent management has not issued any charge sheet nor any disciplinary action initiated into
any of the charges against the Petitioner in his entire period of service. The Petitioner submits that at the time of
termination of the services, the Respondent management has not assigned any reasons and terminated the services
without following due procedure of law. It is submitted that he has put in more than 240 days of service in each
completed year of service and has worked more than 20 years of service with the Respondent bank. The Petitioner
further submits that before terminating the services of the Petitioner the Respondent management has not issued any
notice nor paid notice pay nor paid retrenchment compensation nor followed the statutory provisions laid down under
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is legal, unjust and contrary to law. It is submitted that the
Respondent has not assigned any valid reasons before terminating the services of the Petitioner and preventing him
from discharging his duties by an oral order for the reasons best know to them. Petitioner has though put in 240 days
of service in each completed year of service for more than 20 years, not paid any compensation which amounts to
retrenchment. Therefore the action of the Respondent management is illegal and unjust and contrary to law. The
Petitioner submits that he has made representation to the Respondent management to consider his case for permanent
absorption in the Respondent bank since his has completed 20 years of service, and his case was recommended by
the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent but till this date no such orders were communicated to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner submits that inspite of repeated requests and representations, the Respondent management without
considering the case of the Petitioner, illegally preventing him from discharging his duties which is legal, unjust and
contrary to law. The Petitioner submits that with a fond hope that his case would be considered for permanent
absorption in the Respondent bank and believing the version of the 1st Respondent, could not approach immediately
this Hon'ble court. It is further submitted that the Respondent management has not communicated any of the
termination order terminating his services till date and being aggrieved by the action of termination of his services, he
has raised present dispute before this Hon'ble Court for adjudication. The Respondent management has not issued
any charge-sheet nor initiated any disciplinary action into any of the charge in his entire period of service and also
before termination of service. The Petitioner submits that he has neither committed any misconduct nor has acted
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2221
against the interest of Respondent bank. It is submitted that Petitioner has put in clean and unblemished record of
service. Ever since the date of his illegal termination, he remained unemployed and could not secure any alternative
employment inspite of his best efforts. Therefore it is prayed to hold the action of the Respondent management in
termination of the services of the Petitioner by an oral order as illegal and unjustified and direct the Respondent to
reinstate him into service with continuity of service with full back wages and all benefits in the interest of justice.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
It is incorrect to state that the Petitioner joined the service of the 1st Respondent in May, 1978 and continuously
working with unblemished record of service and discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors till
he was allegedly prevented from discharging such duties. It is also false to allege that his disengagement amounts to
illegal termination from service. The Respondents submit that the Petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of
the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the provisions of the Act do not apply to his case. He is not a regular
employee of the bank. He was engaged only as a collection agent who works independently on commission basis and
not on any monthly salary or wages. There is no master and servant relationship between the Respondents and the
Petitioner, but the relationship is that of the principal and agent. The Petitioner's claim that at the time of initial
engagement he deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- is false. He deposited only a sum of Rs.500/- only. The very purpose
of engagement of the collection agents under the Bhagyalaxmi Deposit Scheme is to collect the amounts which
customers are willing to deposit, at their residences and to deposit such collected amounts in the Bank. The amounts
handed over to the bank will be verified with reference to the deposit vouchers to see whether the entire amount
deposited by the depositor on any day, is remitted to the bank or not. It is absolutely false to allege that the
Petitioner's last drawn "wage" is Rs.5000/- p.m. He was getting commission of around Rs.400/-p.m. and the
commission cannot be termed as wage. It is submitted that he Petitioner was only an agent, there was no need for
issuing any charge-sheet or taking any disciplinary action against him for any lapses and his disengagement is not
tantamount to termination from service. As the Bhagyalaxmi Deposit Scheme was not yielding the expected results,
the Bank closed the meager number of accounts outstanding with it, on their maturity. As per the agreement
executed by the Petitioner, his agency was terminable by the principal at any time without notice in the sole discretion
of the principal or the power of attorney agents of the principal. The petition is misconceived and not maintainable
either under law or on facts. Under no circumstances an agent like the Petitioner, under the Bhagyalaxmi Deposit
scheme is entitled to be treated as a workman or employee of the Bank, the period of agency being immaterial and
irrelevant. The Petitioner is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation and Section 25 F of the LD. Act is not
applicable to him. There is no illegality or unjustness in discontinuing the Petitioner's agency. Individuals like the
Petitioner who are not workmen or employees of the Bank are not entitled for permanent absorption of the Bank's
service. The Petitioner's representation was only forwarded to the higher authorities, but without any recommendation
whatsoever, as contended by him. The petition is a highly belated and speculative one. The Petitioner is not entitled
to any notice in writing. Respondents do not admit that after disengagement the Petitioner remained unemployed or
could not secure any alternative employment. The question of reinstatement into service does not arise. The Petitioner
is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for which are all misconceived.
4.
On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge for
determination in this case :-
I.
Whether the Petitioner is a workman within definition of workman under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
II.
Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is legal and justified?
III.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement of service?
IV.
To what relief is the Petitioner entitled?
5.
To fortify his claim, Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and he has also relied upon the photocopies
of documentary evidence, Exs.W1, W2 and W3. On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in oral evidence
and also filed documents Exs.M1, M2 and M3. Both parties have also filed their written submissions. Perused the
record.
Findings:-
6.
Point No.I: Petitioner submits that he has joined the services of the 1st Respondent in the month of May,
1978 and continuously worked with unblemished record of service and discharged his duties to the utmost
satisfaction of the superiors till he was illegally terminated from discharging his duties w.e.f. 30.6.1998. Further,
Petitioner submits that 1st Respondent without following the statutory provisions laid down under I.D. Act, 1947,
prevented him from discharging his duties and such action of the Respondent amounts to termination of the service
of the Petitioner which is illegal, unjust and contrary to law.
7.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that Petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of I.D.
Act, 1947 and as such the provision of the Act do not apply to his case. He is not a regular employee of the bank and
2222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he was engaged only as a collection agent who has worked independently on commission basis and not on monthly
salary or wages. There is no master and servant relationship between the Respondent and the Petitioner, but the
relationship is that of a principal and agent. Further, it is contended that Petitioner was only an agent and there were
no need for issuing any charge sheet or taking any disciplinary action against him for any lapses as the Petitioner’s
disengagement does not amount to termination from service. Further, it is submitted that as the bank’s scheme in
the name of Bhagyalaxmi deposit scheme was not yielding expected results, therefore bank closed the meager
number of accounts outstanding with it on their maturity and as per the agreement executed by the Petitioner, his
agency was terminable by the principal at any time without notice in sole discretion of the principal. Respondent
contended that present petition is misconceived, not maintainable either in law or in facts. Respondent also contended
that the agent like the Petitioner under the Bhagyalaxmi scheme of the bank is not to be treated as a workman or
employee of the bank. Respondent contended that Petitioner is not entitled for retrenchment compensation as
provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is not applicable to him.
8.
It undisputed that the Respondent bank is an industry under the I.D. Act, 1947 and Petitioner has worked
with Respondent bank as collection agent under Bhagyalaxmi Scheme. Now, let us examine whether Petitioner who
was the collection agent of the Respondent bank of the Scheme was covered under the definition of workman as
provided u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Respondent has examined witness MW1 in support of his contention who
has exhibited documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M5. Ex.M1 is the copy of the agreement executed between the Petitioner and
Respondent on 16.11.1978 for appointing the Petitioner as an agent of the bank for collection of deposits under the
Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme on commission. The clause No.3 and 4 of the agreement, Ex.M1 contains the terms
and conditions out of which relevant clause is extracted below:-
“3.
Bhagya Laxmi Deposit collections made by the agents everyday shall be accounted for, and deposited in
cash by him with the Principal on the next working day at the commencement of the office hours along with a
statement of account and the duplicate deposit cards duly signed by the depositors, shall be submitted to the principal
for verification.
4.
The agent shall endeavour to promote and enhance the collections under Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme of
the Principal and shall observe honesty, courtesy, forbearance and good temper in his dealings with the customers
and the public in the discharge of his duties.”
Thus, Agreement, Ex.M1, reveals that the Petitioner had worked with the Respondent bank as a collection agent
under the Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme. Now, the question arises whether Petitioner who worked as collection
agent for the bank under the scheme, is a workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
9.
In this context, I would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank 2001(3) SCC 36, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India while dealing with question of status of commission agent as workman has laid down the principle,
extracted below:-
“29. The question whether the Tiny Depositors are workmen was considered by the Madras High Court in W. A. Nos.
222, 545 and 546 of 1994, where after extensive examination of the earlier decision of the same Court in The
Management of the Indian Bank v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Madras and Another (supra)
the Bench reaffirmed the decision of the Deposit Collectors being workmen. We have already adverted to the decision
earlier. In the Indian Bank case (supra) the Court had taken into consideration the different features of the job of
Deposit Collectors to hold them to be workmen. They had the duty to prepare the duplicate statement of collection of
the deposit amount in the collection sheets provided by the Bank, remitting the amount on the next day to the branch
assigned to them. The deposit mobilisation is one of the chief functions of the bank. Opening of the account could be
done only in the presence of an authorised official of the Bank though the deposit collector is permitted to receive
deposits from door to door. It is the Bank official alone who can enroll the customers of the bank even if there is
recommendation of the Collection Agent in his favour. The nature of the work demands in daily attendance of the
deposit collector. He has to inform in advance if he is not a position to collect the deposits and if he appoints a
delegate it has to be done with the prior permission of the Bank. He has also to do some clerical work like filling up
relevant forms, ledgers, pass books etc. He has also to fill up the Weekly Collection Registers and also the
Corresponding Challans. He has to pay 10% out of the commission due every month towards the Security. The Bank
has the authority to instruct the Agent not to enrol] new subscribers at any time. The fact that the Agent could
terminate the Agency with a month's notice to the Bank showed that it was a contract of service. The Agent was
required to produce physical fitness certificate which would not have been necessary had it only been a contract for
service. Lastly, it was also a condition that the Agent is to be taken to task if any depositor closed the account within a
period of two years of its opening in which event the Agent was to suffer a reduction in the commission. In the latter
case the Court found such conditions also to be more or less present, which persuaded it to be in entire agreement
with the conclusions reached in the earlier case.
30. The Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the Deposit Collectors are Workmen has taken the almost identical
factors into consideration. It reached the finding, on the basis of such factual considerations, that it is clear that these
Deposit Collectors have duties which are manual as well as clerical and that many of them perform duties similar to
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2223
the duties of Cashier in the Bank. They work as per the terms of the agreement and they also do work as per the
instructions and guidelines given by the Manager of Bank. They are subject to the supervision and control of the
Bank. Of course, in the day to day collection work there is no continuous supervision over their work and they have
ample time to do the work according to their convenience. But placing reliance on the decision of the S.J.T. House
case (supra) the Tribunal held that the right to control the manner of work is not an exclusive test. We have already
adverted to the different principles involved by the Apex Court to find the engagement of a person as a workman or
not, and we have no doubt that all such principles applied to the Deposit Collectors have to lead inescapably to the
conclusion of their being workmen. We are in complete agreement with the decisions of the Madras High Court in
W.A. Nos. 222, 545 and 546 of 1994 that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Management of Puri Urban
Cooperative Bank v. Madhusudhan Sahu and Another (supra) does in no way alter the position. As we have discussed
earlier, the terms of engagement of an appraiser in the Bank are wholly different from that of the Deposit
Collectors.”
Similarly, in the present matter as per agreement Ex.M1, Respondent has engaged the Petitioner as a collection agent
under the Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme on commission basis. Clause No.2,3, and 4 of Ex.M1 goes to reveal that
the Petitioner worked as collection agent and his duty was to collect the amount from customer of the scheme and
obtain their signature issuing the receipt and deposit the collection into the bank with statement of account and
duplicate deposit card shall also be submitted by him with the principal on the next working day at the
commencement of the office hours. Further, as per terms of Ex.M1 the Petitioner has also enjoyed the duty that he
has to endeavour to promote and enhance the collections under the Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme of the Principal
and shall observe honesty, courtesy, forbearance and good temper in dealing with the outsiders and public in
discharge of his duties. The para 6 of the Ex.M1 contained that Petitioner agent shall be entitled for payment of
commission at 2 ½ % or such other ratio as may fixed by the Principal from time to time on the total collections
made by the Agent during the period of a calendar month. Thus, from the aforesaid terms and conditions contained
in agreement Ex.M1, regarding Petitioner’s duty as a collection agent under the Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme of
the Respondent bank has established that the Petitioner is a workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
In view of the law laid down in Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank 2001(3) SCC 36, as
discussed above. I am constrained to hold that the Petitioner in the present matter who has worked as collection
agent is covered under the definition of workman u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, Point No.I is answered in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.
10.
Point No.II: Witness WW1 in his chief examination affidavit has deposed that he joined the services of the
first Respondent in the month of May, 1978 as a Bhagya Laxmi Deposit Scheme agent and continuously worked with
unblemished record of service to the satisfaction of the superiors till he was illegally terminated from service w.e.f.
30.6.1998. Further, WW1 states that Respondent without following the statutory provisions laid down in the I.D.
Act, 1947 prevented him in discharging his duties which is nothing but retrenchment from service as well as illegal,
unjust and contrary to the law. Further, witness states that, before termination of his services Respondent has not
issued any notice or charge. WW1 states that, he has completed 240 days of service on every calendar year of his
service and Respondent has not issued, any notice or charge sheet or notice pay in lieu of notice, before his
disengagement which is illegal, unjust and contrary to law. Witness WW1 was cross examined by the Counsel for
Respondent but the witness has not been cross examined on the fact that the Petitioner had worked for 240 days in a
calendar year with the Respondent. WW1 was also not cross examined on the point that any notice or charge sheet
has not been issued by the Respondent before his termination from services. Thus, aforesaid statement of WW1
remained uncontraverted on the point that, he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year continuously and before
his termination Respondent did not issue any charge sheet or notice and not paid notice pay in lieu of notice or any
compensation u/s 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Petitioner has also submitted document Ex.W1 in evidence. Ex.W1,
which goes to show that, a certificate has been issued by the Respondent bank on 15.6.1983 in the name of the
Petitioner, Sri A. Bhoomaiah. The contents of the certificate Ex.W1 reads as under:-
“This is to certify that Sri A. Bhoomaiah is working as a Bhagya Laxmi daily collection Agent from May, 1978. He
is reliable, industrious and having hard working nature. His character and conduct are excellent.”
Thus, Ex.W1 also supports the averment of the Petitioner that during service of Respondent his record was
unblemished. Further, Ex.W2 is a recommendation letter dated 19.12.1997 written by Manager of Respondent Bank,
to the Regional Manager for recommendation of the name of the Petitioner for appointment in the bank. These
documents, Ex.W1and W2 goes to reveal that the Petitioner had worked with the Respondent Management and
having unblemished record of service. These documents further goes to establish that Petitioner had worked with the
Respondent since 1978 till his disengagement on 30.6.1998 for almost 20 years of the service.
11.
On the other hand, Respondent has not contended in counter affidavit that the Petitioner has not worked for
240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his disengagement. The only contention of the
Respondent is that the Petitioner is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under Sec.25F of the I.D. Act,
1947 as Petitioner is not a workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of the Disciplinary Authority. But this issue that the
Petitioner is covered under the definition of workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has been
2224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
answered at Point No. 1 of this Award in view of settled law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank 2001(3) SCC 36. Thus, the plea of the
Petitioner that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year remained uncontraverted and established
by the evidence on record. Although, Respondent has examined witness MW1 and in his cross examination, MW1
has admitted the fact that the Petitioner was not given one month notice as contemplated in Para 8 of the Ex.M1.
Respondent bank also did not given any such notice, as it not required. Further, this witness states that, Petitioner
terminated the agency by himself through his conduct i.e., not collecting the amounts and depositing in the bank.
Further, MW1 states that bank has not given any notice to him complaining against his failure to collect amount
from depositors. Witness also states that they have not received any complaint from the depositors to the effect that
Petitioner was not collecting the amounts from them. Further, MW1 states that it is not true to suggest that since
they have orally terminated the services of the Petitioner as an agent they have not issued any notice to him questing
about his conduct of not collecting amounts from depositors. Further, witness admits that it is true that as per legal
filed by them before the court, agents are workmen under I.D. Act. Further, witness admits that, they have not paid
any terminal benefits to the Petitioner. He is entitled for only gratuity as per the awards of the court since Petitioner
has not made any claim that they have not paid gratuity to him. Further, witness also admitted, “It may be true that
since Petitioner was sincerely discharging his duties one Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Bank Manager has recommended to the
Regional Manager of Respondent vide letter dated 19.12.97 for his absorption on regular basis in the bank. Ex.W4 is
copy of the said letter.” Further, witness denied the suggestion that, “It is not true to suggest that Petitioner is entitled
for all terminal benefits and retrenchment compensation since he completed 240 days of work n each completed year
of work prior to his termination. The witness adds, he was not our employee and we have not terminated his
services.” Thus, from the above statement of the witness MW1 in cross examination, it is clearly established that
before termination of the services of the Petitioner, Respondent has not issued any notice nor paid any compensation
to him.
The relevant provision under Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is extracted as follows:-
Section 25F provides:-
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:
(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].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Thus, from the provision contained under Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, it is clear that before retrenchment of
workman one month notice in writing is mandatory and also payment of compensation. But the Respondent in this
matter has not issued any notice to the Petitioner before his termination nor paid any compensation under the
provision of the Sec.25F of the Act. Therefore, the termination of the agency of the Petitioner by the Respondent is
in violation of the Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
This Point is answered in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent.
12. Points No.III & IV:- Now, the question arises whether Petitioner who has been terminated by the Respondent in
contravention of the provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is entitled for reinstatement into service of the
Respondent bank. In a number of decisions Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles regarding
reinstatement of workman in case of termination of workmen in contravention of the provision of I.D. Act, 1947.
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ordinarily, the Tribunal should not pass the order for reinstatement of workman
even the retrenchment of the workman found in contravention of the provision of Sec.25F of the Act. Therefore, the
appropriate remedy to grant would be to award compensation to the workman in such case. Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal No.10957/2015 have held:-
“It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of
retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has
completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been
found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between
a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in
Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12], wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the
aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they
worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and
instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice."
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2225
23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with
full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may
be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and or malafide and/or by way
of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage
worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages
is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.
Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above,
Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement and he is entitled for award of compensation for his termination from
services in contravention of the provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
13.
Now, the question arises that in the present case for how much compensation, Petitioner is entitled for.
From the perusal of the record, it is established that Petitioner has put in more than 20 years of service in the
Respondent bank and he has been illegally terminated by the Respondent in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947. After putting in 20 years of life into the service of the Respondent bank, he would not be able to
get new employment at this juncture of his life. Further, due to his illegal termination, his family members has also
suffered for their livelihood. Therefore, keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the
award of compensation to the Petitioner to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) would be sufficient to meet
the end of justice.
Thus, Points No.III & IV are answered accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points No.I II,III & IV, I am of the considered view that
the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri A. Bhoomaiah is held illegal and
unjustified as being in violation of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Since he has been terminated from the service in
the year 1998, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,00,000(Rupees Two Lakhs only) against
his illegal termination. Thereby the Respondent is directed to pay the amount within three months after receiving
copy of this award, with all attendant benefits due to the Petitioner, failing which he has to pay the interest of
12% p.a.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 2nd day of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri A. Bhoomaiah
MW1: Sri B. Prasad Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of service certificate issued to Petitioner dt.15.6.1983
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of lr. from R1 to Regional Manager, Respondent bank, Nizamabad recommending
for absorption of Petitioner dt.19.12.97
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of the application of the Petitioner to Ministry of Labour & Employment, State of
A.P. dt.20.10.2005
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Agreement of agency dated 3.5.1978 entered into by Respondent with the Petitioner
Ex.M2:
Indenture of Guarantee dt. 3.5.1978 executed by sureties of Petitioner
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of the award dt. 22.12.1988 passed in ID No.14/1980
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.9783/1989 dt. 28.3.1997 by Hon’ble High Court of A.P.
Ex.M5:
Photostat copy of order passed in Civil Appeal No.3355/1998 & Batch dt. 13.2.2001 of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India
2226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1030.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जविा ाृत्तनम ृोटव रस्ट्ट 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;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (39/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-34012/1/2016-
- (
-II]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2024
S.O. 1030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Visakhapatnam
Port Trust and their workmen.
[No. L-34012/1/2016– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of April , 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 39/2016
Between:
Smt. Rajana Padma Mary,
W/o Late Rajana Albert Raju,
D.No. 34-4-32, Post Office Street,
Gnanapuram,
Vishakapatnam.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Chairman,
Visakhapatnam Port Trust,
Port Area,
Vishakapatnam-530001.
2. The Chief Medical Officer,
VSP, Medical Department,
Vishakapatnam-530001.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. R. Madhusudan Rao & M. Prasanna, Advocates
For the Respondent
: M/s. V. Uma Devi, B. Anantha Laxmi & N. Sakunthala, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-34012 /1/2016 -(IR(B-II)) dated 09.09.2016
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their workmen. The reference is,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2227
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust in not providing compassionate
employment to the son of Late Rajana Albert Raju, Ex- Ward Boy, Visakhapatnam Port Trust is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief Smt. Rajana Padma Mary, W/o Late Rajana Alber Raju and other family
members are entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 39/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for exparte Evidence. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded Petitioner
remained absent and none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any substantiated evidence by
Petitioner, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 16th day of
April, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1031.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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;]
ds iapkV (01/2005) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12011/161/2004-
- (
-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2024
S.O. 1031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.01/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/161/2004– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-12011/161/2004-IR (B-II) Dated: 17.12.2004
Jh pUnzHkku iq= Jh /kqfj;k jke] }kjk Jh Hkksiky flag] 2&,&23 gkmflax cksMZ dkWyksuh] dqUgkM+h] dksVk] ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
4- mi egkizca/kd@ofj"V izca/kd ¼dkfeZd½ ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] ohj izrki Hkou] 'kkL=h e.Mh]
usg: xkMZu ekxZ] tkyU/kj 144001
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
2228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mifLFkr%&
% Jh vkj- lh- tSu] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh equs'k pUnz 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh :fiu ds- dkyk] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ &foi{khx.kA
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 17-12-2004 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the action of the Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Jalandhar in awarding
punishment of Compulsory rretierement to Shri Chandrabhan vide order dated 28.07.2003 is legal and
justified and proportionate to gravity of the misconduct? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to? ’’
2-
fnukad 11-01-2005 dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlds laf{kIr rF; fuEukuqlkj gaS%
3-
izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad dh dksVk 'kk[kk esa fyfid@ iz/kku jksdfM;k Js.kh&bZ] ds in ij 01-07-1977 ls dk;Zjr FkkA
fnukad 17-03-2003 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks ,d vkjksi i= fn;k x;kA vkjksiksa dh tkWp gsrq vkjksi i= esa gh
Jh ,l- ds- diwj dks tkWp vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrs gq;s vuq’kklfud vf/kdkjh Hkh ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;kA fnukad
08-07-2003 dks izkFkhZ dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ gsrq uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k ftlds lkFk izkjfEHkd fu"d"kZ vkSj
izLrkfor n.M Hkh izkFkhZ dks izsf"kr fd;s x;sA fdUrq bl i= ds lkFk tkWp izfrosnu ugha fn;k x;kA O;fDrxr
lquokbZ ds mijkar fnukad 28-07-2003 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:} vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr vkSj ijfuUnk ds
n.Mkns’k ikfjr dj fn;s x;sA ;g n.Mkns”k vuqfpr vkSj voS/k gS] rFkk nqjkpj.k dks ns[krs gq;s vuqikrfud :Ik
ls vR;f/kd dBksj gSA
4-
izkFkhZ us mlds fo:} laiUu dh xbZ tkWp dks nkos ds vfHkdFku ds iSjk la- 6 ¼1½ ¼A ls K) esa of.kZr vk{ksiksa }kjk
vuqfpr ,oa voS/k Bgjk;k gSA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd okLro esa izkFkhZ dk ;g nqjkpj.k u gksdj ,d Hkwy Fkh
ftlds dkj.k cSad dks dksbZ vkfFkZd uqdlku ugha gqvkA izkFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr n.Mkns’k xSj vuqikfrd gS tks mls
'kksf"kr djus ds fy, fn;k x;k gSA vr% foi{kh }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns”k dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr dj n.Mkns’k
dks vikLr fd;k tkos vkSj izkFkhZ dks ns; leLr vkfFkZd ifjykHk iznku fd;s tkosaA
5-
fnukad 26-04-2005 dks foi{kh cSad us oknksRrj esa izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ tkWp dks iw.kZr% oS/k ,oa mfpr dgrs gq;s
;g Hkh dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us mlds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks LosPNk ls Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj Lohd`fr dk
fyf[kr i= Hkh fn;kA bl fLFkfr esa tkWp vf/kdkjh dks fdlh izdkj dh tkWp dh vko”;drk ugha FkhA fdarq dqN
nLrkost tks vkjksi ls lacaf/kr Fks izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s ftUgsa izkFkhZ dks fn[kkdj vfHkys[k ij
fy;k x;k vkSj dk;Zokgh dh fyf[kr izfr izkFkhZ dks ns nh xbZA O;fDrxr lquokbZ esa Hkh izkFkhZ us viuk vijk/k
Lohdkj djrs gq;s mnkjrk cjrus dh izkFkZuk dhA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy dk fuLrkj.k Hkh fnukad 05-01-2004 dks
dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds fo:} tks vkjksi izekf.kr gq;s muds vk/kkj ij vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dk n.M uje :[k
viukrs gq;s fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ds d`R; ls cSad dh lkW[k ij izHkko iMk vkSj xzkgdksa dh n`f"V esa cSad dh
izfr"Bk dks vk?kkr yxkA vkjksi i= esa of.kZr vkjksi Li"V gSa ftUgsa le>dj izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k FkkA vijk/k
Lohdkj djus ds fy;s izkFkhZ ij dksbZ nokc ugha Mkyk x;kA cSad dks nqjkpj.k ls dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr igqWpuk dksbZ
vko’;d ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosaA
6-
pwfda ;g fookn izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkWp ls lacaf/kr gS] vf/kdj.k ds rRdkyhu ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk
fnukad 26-05-2006 dks ?k:syw tkWp dh _`tqrk vkSj 'kq}rk dk ijh{k.k djrs gq;s mDr tkWp dks 'kq} ,oa mfpr
gksuk ik;k x;kA
7-
rnqijkar bl fookn dk fuLrkj.k ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk in yEcs le; rd fjDr jgus ls foyafcr gqvkA varr%
fnukad 05-02-2024 ,oa 07-02-2024 dks esaus mHk;i{k ds rdZ xq.kkxq.k ij vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus ds iwoZ lqus vkSj
miyC/k lkexzh dk /;ku iwoZd voyksdu fd;kA
8-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZ esa fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fn;s x;s vkjksi i= esa ;g Li"V gh
ugh gS fd izkFkhZ us dkSu lk d`R; xaHkhj nqjkpj.k dk fd;k vkSj dkSu lk d`R; y?kq nqjkpj.k dk FkkA oLrqr% izkFkhZ
ij ncko Mky dj vkjksi Lohd`fr dk i= ys fy;k x;k fdarq ml i= dks Hkh lEiw.kZ :Ik ls xzg.k fd;k tkuk
pkfg;s ftlesa izkFkhZ us mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk Li"Vhdj.k fn;k gS ftlds vUrxZr /kujkf'k tek djus esa dqN foyEc
gqvkA izkFkhZ ds d`R; ls foi{kh cSad dks u rks dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr igqWph u izfr"Bk dks dksbZ vk?kkr yxkA tkWp
dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku izn”kZ M- 5 ls ysdj izn'kZ M- 13 rd izys[kksa dks tkWp ds fu"d"kZ dk vk/kkj cuk;k x;k gS]
fdarq bu izys[kksa dks ftu O;fDr;ksa }kjk fufeZr fd;k x;k mUgsa lk{; esa ijhf{kr gh ugha fd;k x;kA lk{kh ds
ijh{k.k ds fcuk izys[kksa dks izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ek= vijk/k Lohdkj dj ysus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2229
fcuk dksbZ lk{; fy;s nks"kh Bgjk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA vihyh; vf/kdkjh vkSj vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk
iwokZxzg&xzLr gksdj n.Mkns’k ikfjr fd;s x;s gS ftUgsa iq"V ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls muds
leFkZu esa fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;sA
1- 2011 ¼131½ FLR 369 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ vfuy fxywjdj cuke fcykliqj jk;iqj {kS=h; xzkeh.k cSadA
2- 1985 ¼II½ LLJ 296 ¼xqtjkr½ uVoj HkkbZ ,l- edokuk cuke ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;A
3- 2009 ¼I) LLN 806 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ :Ikflag usxh cuke iatkc us'kuy cSadA
4- 2009 ¼3) WLC ¼jkt-½ 706 jktsUnz dqekj Hkksyk cuke LVSV vkWQ jktLFkkuA
5- AIR 1976 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 330 eS- cjsyh bysfDVªflVh lIykbZ dEiuh cuke nh odZesu o vU;A
6- 2019 ¼2)WLC ¼jkt-½ UC 09 phQ esustj R.S.R.T.C. Vksad cuke Hkokuh 'kadj <+ksyhA
7- flfoy vihy la- 4410@2012 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ fu.kZ; frfFk 01-06-2022 ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU; cuke
lqjs’k dqekj flagA
8- 2019 LLR 506 ¼iatkc gfj;k.kk½ ;wdks cSad cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] CGIT de yscj dksVZ&2 paMhx<A
9- 2010) 2 WLN 23 ¼jktLFkku½ ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke jktsUnz izlkn 'kekZA
10- 1990 (60) FLR 161 ¼bykgkckn½ eaxy lSu cuke LVSV vkWQ ;w- ih-A
11- 2001 (II) LLJ 1035 ¼jkt-½ Hkjriqj lS.Vªy dkWi- cSad fy- cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] yscj dksVZA
12- 1993 (I) LLJ 390 ¼dydRrk½ bykgkckn cSad cuke izksuo dqekj eq[kthZA
13- 1999 (I) LLJ 1186 ¼enzkl½ lsYojkt ih- cuke ,e- Mh- dVVk okseu VªkUliksVZ dkWi- fy-A
14- 1998 (I) LLJ 694 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ dyj dse fy- cuke vykliqjdj A.L. o vU;A
15- 2021 ¼169) FLR 128 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k fy- cuke ih- ckyklqczkef.k;eA
16- ¼1998( 57) FLR 719 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ LdwVlZ bf.M;k fy- cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;A
9-
foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd us izkFkhZ ds rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ds nqjkpj.k ls cSad dh izfr"Bk
dks {kfr igWqph gS rFkk xzkgdks dh n`f"V esa cSad dh fo'oluh;rk de gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ us LosPNk ls ml ij yxk;s
x;s vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj djrs gq;s fyf[kr i= izn”kZ D-2 fn;k gSA mlds fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k dks Hkh fopkfjr
djrs gq;s izkFkhZ ds izfr ujeh cjrh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls c[kkZLr u djrs gq;s vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dk n.M
fn;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks fo'okl esa ysus ds mijkar gh izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh us tks izys[k izn”kZ M-5 ls izn”kZ M-
13 rd tkWp vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;s mUgsa izkFkhZ dks fn[kkrs gq;s leLr dk;Zokgh ls voxr djk;k x;k
vkSj dk;Zokgh dh izfrfyfi nh xbZA tkWp dk;Zokgh ij fd;s x;s lHkh vk{ksi fujk/kkj ik;s x;s gS vkSj tkWp
dk;Zokgh dks mfpr ,oa 'kq} ik;k x;k gSA bl fy;s ikfjr fd;s x;s n.Mkns'k esa dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk
visf{kr ugha gSA mUgksusa vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu fyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;sA
1- ¼2009) 15 SCC 620 ps;jesu de esusftax Mk;jsDVj dksy bf.M;k fy- cuke eqdqy dqekj pkS/kjhA
2- ¼2008) 05 SCC 569 ps;jesu ,.M esusftax Mk;jsDVj V.P.S. o vU; cuke xksikjktw Jh izHkkdj
gfjckcwA
3- 1996¼1½ SLR 645 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ ADM ¼flVh½ vkxjk cuke izHkkdj prqosZnh o vU;A
4- RLW 2000(2) jkt- 906 [kknh xzkeks|;ksx izfr"Bku chdkusj cuke LVSV vkWQ jktLFkkuA
5- 2003¼3) CDR 2330 ¼jkt-½ jkeiky pkSgku cuke ekjokM+ xzkeh.k cSadA
6- ¼2009) 03 SCC 97 ,Dl- dkULVsoy jkechj flag cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;kA
7- ¼2005) 10 SCC 84 neksg iUuk lkxj vkj- vkj- cSad cuke eqUuk yky tSuA
8- ¼2005) 07 SCC 435 Hkkjrh; LVSV cSad cuke csyk ckxph o vU;A
9- ¼1999) 04 SCC 759 Hkkjrh; LVSV cSad cuke Vh- ts- ikyA
2230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10- ¼1984) 01 SCC 43 ds- ,y- f=ikBh cuke LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;kA
11- ¼1996) 09 SCC 69 fMlhfiyhujh vkWFkksfjVh de jhtuy esustj cuke fudqat fcgkjh iVuk;dA
12- ¼1998) 04 SCC 310 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke fo'o eksguA
13- ¼2010) 11 SCC 233 tujy esustj ¼P½ iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad cuke n;k flagA
14- ¼2003) 03 SCC 605 jhtuy esustj UPSRTC bVkok cuke gksrhykyA
15- ¼1996) 06 SCC 590 U;w 'kksjkWd feYl cuke egs’k HkkbZ Vh- jkoA
16- ¼2011) 04 SCC 584 SBBJ cuke usehpUn uyok;kA
17- ¼2005) 06 SCC 321 dSujk cSad cuke oh- ds- voLFkhA
18- 2008)(iii) LLJ 567 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,l- ,u- xks;yA
19- ¼2008) 14 SCC 445 ukSgj Ykky oekZ cuke fMLVªfjDV dkWi- lS.Vªy cSad fy- txnyiqjA
20- ¼2005) 03 SCC 254 fMohtuy dUVªksyj K.S.R.T.C. ¼NWKRTC½ cuke A.T. ekusA
21- ¼1987) 04 SCC 691 fdz'p;u esMhdy dkWyst gkLihVy ,Ei- ;wfu;u o vU; cuke fdz'p;u esMhdy
dkWyst ,slks- osYykSj o vU;A
22- 2008 (116) FLR 285 ¼dukZVd½ N.R. lkftn cuke K.S.R.T.C.
23- 2009 (121) FLR 979 R.S.R.T.C. cuke de:nhuA
24- 1982 (1) ( LLJ) 46 LVSV vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke jru flagA
25- ¼2003) LLR 436 lqizhe dksVZ ps;jesu ,.M esusftax Mk;jsDVj ;wdks cSad cuke ih- lh- dDdM+A
26- ¼2006)1 SCC 63 dukZVd cSad fy- cuke A.L. eksgu jkoA
27- 1995 (6) 750 ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke B.C. prqosZnhA
28- ¼2011) 4 SCC 545 LVSV vkWQ mRrj izns’k cuke ts- ih- lkjLorA
29- J.T. 2011 (7) SC 91 LVSV vkWQ eSlwj cuke M.C. d`..kIikA
30- ¼1972) 11 LLJ 328 eS- cukjl bysfDVªd ykbZV ,.M ikoj dEiuh cuke yscj dksVZ 2 y[kuÅA
31- ¼2010) 6 SCC 555 U.P.S.R.T.C. cuke lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZA
10- esaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZa] miyC/k tkWap dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k ,oa U;kf;d n`"Vkarkas esa izfrikfnr fof/k ij /;ku iwoZd
euu fd;kA
11- bl fookn esa fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcUnq fofu'p; gsrq mRiUu gq;s gS%
12-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2231
13- izkFkhZ dk ;g vk{ksi gS fd vkjksi i= ls ;g izdV gh ugha gksrk gS fd dkSu lk nqjkpj.k xaHkhj izd`fr dk gS vkSj
dkSu lk y?kq izd`fr dkA vkjksi i= ls ;g Hkh izdV ugha gksrk gS fd f}i{kh; le>kSrs ds fdl vuqPNsn ds
vUrxZr vkjksfir d`R; nqjkpj.k gSA foi{kh dk ;g fojks/kh rdZ gS fd vkjksi i= esa of.kZr vkjksi Li"V gSa] ftlesa
f}i{kh; le>kSrs ds vuqPNsnksa dk o.kZu fd;s tkus dh dksbZ vko’;drk ugha gSA izkFkhZ us vkjksiksa dks lqu ,oa
le>dj LosPNk ls Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gSA
14- eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ij miyC/k tkWp vfHkys[k ds lUnHkZ esa fopkj fd;kA fdlh Hkh ?kjsyw tkWp esa nks"kh deZpkjh
ds fo:} vkjksi foospu dk mn~s’; ;gh gksrk gS fd vkjksfir deZpkjh mlds fo:} vfHk;ksftr rF;ksa dks Hkyh
HkkWfr le> ys vkSj mu rF;ksa ds laca/k esa Lohd`fr ;k vLohd`fr dj ldsA bl fookn esa izkFkhZ@ vkjksfir deZpkjh
dks vkjksi i= ds ek/;e ls nqjkpj.k fd;s tkus dh frfFk] d`R; ls izHkkfor O;fDr ,oa nqjkpj.k ds d`R; dh
fof”kf"V;kWa lalwfpr dh xbZ gSaA nqjkpkj ds d`R;ksa dks xaHkhj o y?kq nqjkpj.k gksuk Hkh lesfdr :Ik esa lalwfpr
fd;k x;k gSA tkWp dk;Zokgh ds fooj.k esa ;g mfYyf[kr gS fd vkjksfir deZpkjh us vkjksi i= izkIr dj fy;k
rFkk mldh vUrZoLrq dks i<+dj le> fy;k gSA vkjksfir deZpkjh us rnqijakr ,d fyf[kr Lohd`fr i= izn”kZ
D-2 izLrqr djrs gq;s mls vfHkys[k ij ysus dk tkWp vf/kdkjh ls fuosnu Hkh fd;k gSA ;gkW ;g mYys[k fd;k
tkuk vlaxr ugha gS fd tkWp dk;Zokgh ds fooj.k ij izkFkhZ us Lo;a ds gLrk{kj fnukad 04-06-2003 dks izR;sd
i`"B ij fd;s gaS] tks mldh] dk;Zokgh ds izfr lgefr ds |ksrd gSaA ;gh ugha mlh fnu izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr
Lohd`fr i= izn”kZ D-2 ij Hkh u dsoy izkFkhZ ds oju mlds cpko gsrq fu;qDr izfrfuf/k Jh oh- ih- lDlsuk ds
gLrk{kj fo|eku gSaA bl fLFkfr esa ;g vk{ksi fuewZy gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ ls mDr izn”kZ D-2 i= ij] ncko
Mkydj vkSj lsokeqfDr dk Hk; fn[kkdj gLrk{kj djok fy;s x;s gksa] D;ksafd bl vk{ksi dk o.kZu izkFkhZ us fdlh
Hkh vU; miyC/k volj ij ugha djrs gq, ek= nkos ds vfHkdFku ,oa rdZ ds nkSjku fd;k gSA fnukad 25-07-2003
dks lEiUu gqbZ O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds nkSjku izkFkhZ us izkjfEHkd lquokbZ ds fu"d"kZ fnukad 08-07-2003 dh izkfIr dks
Lohdkj djrs gq;s izn”kZ D-2 i= dks fdlh izdkj ncko Mkydj gLrk{kfjr djok ysus dk ifjokn ugha fd;k gSA
O;fDrxr lquokbZ dh dk;Zokgh ij Hkh izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj mlds cpko izfrfuf/k ds gLrk{kjksa lfgr fo|eku gSaA
15- izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 08-09-2003 dks izLrqr fd;s x;s vihy ds Kkiu esa] izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s fuEukafdr dFku ls
okLrfodrk mtkxj gks tkrh gS% “Sir, though I have voluntarily given my consent to the
chargesheet but now I realise that justice has not been done to me, as inquiry authority/
disciplinary authority has not considered the facts, before finally imposing the punishment which dose
not commensurate to the allegation”.
16- ;gh ugha fnukad 31-10-2003 dks lEiUu gqbZ vihy ij lquokbZ ds nkSjku Hkh izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa
fd;s x;s bl vk{ksi dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS] tks bl rF; dk izek.k gS fd izkFkhZ us LosPNk iwoZd gh izn”kZ D-2
laLohd`fr i= fnukad 04-06-2003 dks izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk fdlh Hkh vU; volj ij mldk fo[k.Mu djrs gq;s
dksbZ vk{ksi ugha fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; U.P.S.R.T.C. cuke lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZ esa ;g
vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk rFkk lk{; fof/k ds tfVy izko/kku foHkkxh; tkWp dk;Zokgh ij
izk;ksT; ugha gSaA nks"kh deZpkjh dks vkjksi ls lalwfpr djuk ,oa mls izfrj{kk gsrq vf/kdkj fn;k tkuk gh i;kZIr
gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; vfuy fxywjdj cuke fcykliqj jk;iqj {kS=h; xzkeh.k cSad rFkk
uVoj HkkbZ ,l- edokuk cuke ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; vkSj ekuuh; xqtjkr mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k] ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd tkWp esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi fof’k"V] fuf’fpr rFkk ?kVuk
ds lEiw.kZ fooj.k lfgr gksus pkfg;sA tkWp vLi"V vkjksiksa ds vk/kkj ij tkjh ugha j[kh tk ldrh u gh n.M dks
iq"V fd;k tk ldrk gS] izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lgk;d izrhr ugha gksrh gSA
17- bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa ;gh Hkfy HkkWfr Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us mlds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dh xq:Rrk
,oa y?kqrk dks le>dj gh vkjksiksa ds izfr Lohd`fr dh gS rFkk mu vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa viuh izfrj{kk gsrq
Li"Vhdj.k Hkh rF;kRed o.kZu djrs gq;s fd;k gSA bl fy;s tkWp ds nkSjku izkFkhZ ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa esa
fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vLi"Vrk izekf.kr ugha gksrh gS vkSj u gh ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ
laLohd`fr fdlh izdkj ds ncko ;k mRiszj.k ds izHkko esa dh xbZ gksA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k
tkrk gSA
18-
19- bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa miyC/k vfHkys[k dk foospu djus ls iwoZ fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 ij izkIr bl fu"d"kZ dks
/;ku esa j[kk tkuk visf{kr gS fd izkFkhZ us LosPNk ls mlds fo:} yxk;s x;s xaHkhj ,oa y?kq izd`fr ds nqjkpj.k
laca/kh vkjksiksa dh laLohd`fr dh gSA
20- tkWp@vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh us vius izkjfEHkd fu"d"kZ esa ;g fy[kk gS fd vkjksfir deZpkjh ¼izkFkhZ½ us izn”kZ M-3
vkjksi i= esa of.kZr lHkh vkjksiksa dks izn'kZ D-2 Lohd`fr i= }kjk Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA bl fy;s
izca/ku&izfrfuf/k] izca/ku dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgrs gSA rnkfi izca/ku us izn'kZ M-5 ls izn'kZ
M-13 rd izys[k tkWp esa izLrqr fd;s gSA buesa ls izn”kZ M-9 ls izn”kZ M-12 rd izys[k egRoiw.kZ gSa tks fd
i{kdkjksa }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s pSd gSA
2232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21- ;g lR; gS fd bu izys[kksa dks buds ys[kd@ jfp;rk }kjk tkWp ds nkSjku izekf.kr ugha djok;k x;k gSA fdarq
blh lanHkZ esa ;g egRoiw.kZ gS fd izkFkhZ us vius Lohd`fr i= izn”kZ D-2 esa vkjksi la- 1 dk mYys[k djrs gq;s ;g
dgk gS fd ,d yk[k :Ik;s dh /kujkf”k mlus Lo;a dHkh miHkksx ugha dh] ;g jkf'k =`fV iwoZd ,d [kkrsnkj dks
vf/kd Hkqxrku dj nh xbZ Fkh] ftls mDr [kkrsnkj us izkFkhZ dks ykSVk;k rFkk izkFkhZ us foey dqekj xksfy;ku ds
[kkrk dzekad& 10338 esa fnukad 23-11-2002 dks tek djok;k gSA bl dFku ds vk/kkj ij izn”kZ M-5 i= mDr
foey dqekj xksfy;ku }kjk fy[kk x;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA ftlesa foey dqekj us ,d yk[k :- mlds }kjk tek
djok;s tkus ij Hkh [kkrs esa tek dh izfof"V ugha fd;s tkus dk ifjokn 15-11-2002 dks fd;k FkkA izn”kZ M-6
og tek iphZ gS ftlds ek/;e ls fnukad 12-11-2002 dks foey dqekj us ,d yk[k :Ik;s Lo;a ds [kkrs esa tek
djok;s FksA izn”kZ M-7 og tek iphZ gS ftlds ek/;e ls ,d yk[k :i;s izkFkhZ us 23-11-2002 dks foey dqekj
xksfy;ku ds [kkrs esa tek djok;s gSA blh izdkj izn”kZ M-8 vpZuk baVjizkbZtst }kjk fy[kk x;k i= gS tks izkFkhZ
}kjk m/kkj yh xbZ jkf’k okfil u ykSVkus ds lanHkZ esa gSA bl lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ us fnukad 08-09-2003 dks izLrqr fd;s
x;s vihy ds Kkiu esa ;g fy[kk gS fd mlus /ku dh vko';drk gksus ij ukjk;.kyky jkexksiky o eS- vpZuk
baVjizkbZtst ls rhu yk[k o nks yk[k :Ik;s m/kkj fy;s FksA vpZuk baVjizkbZtst ls fy;k x;k pSd izn”kZ M-9 gSA
izn”kZ M-12 pSd izkFkhZ }kjk ukjk;.kyky jkexksiky ls rhu yk[k :Ik;s fy;s tkus dk laO;ogkj n’kkZrk gS rFkk
izn”kZ M-13 pSd izkFkhZ }kjk mDr QeZ dks okfil ykSVkbZ xbZ jkf”k ds laca/k esa gSA izn”kZ M-11 i= Hkh
ukjk;.kyky jkexksiky }kjk blh laO;ogkj ds laca/k esa fy[kk x;k i= gSA izn”kZ M-10 pSd izkFkhZ }kjk
gLrk{kfjr pSd gS ftlds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us vihy ds Kkiu esa foLr`r dFku fd;s gSA bl fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS
fd ftu rF;ksa dh Lohd`fr ,d i{k }kjk dh tk pqdh gks] mu ds izek.k Lo:Ik lk{; dh vis{kk ugha jgrh gSA
;gkWa ;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk Hkh lqlaxr gS fd izn”kZ M-5 ls izn”kZ M-13 rd leLr izys[kksa dh izfr;k Hkh tkWp
ds nkSjku fnukad 04-06-2003 dks izkFkhZ dks mlds cpko izfrfuf/k dh mifLFkfr esa izys[kksa ds fooj.k lfgr ns nh
xbZ Fkh ftl ij izkFkhZ ,oa mlds cpko izfrfuf/k ds gLrk{kj] izkfIr ds izek.k Lo:Ik miyC/k gaSA ;g lHkh izys[k
izkFkhZ }kjk laLohd`r rF;ksa ls gh lacaf/kr gaS] ftuds izLrqfrdj.k ij izkFkhZ us tkWp] O;fDrxr lquokbZ vkSj vihyh;
dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku dksbZ vk{ksi ugha fd;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk
ikfjr :Ikflag usxh cuke iatkc us'kuy cSad ,oa cjsyh bysfDVªflVh lIykbZ dEiuh cuke nh odZesu o vU;]
;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU; cuke lqjs”k dqekj flag ds fu.kZ;ksa esa rFkk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
ikfjr jktsUnz dqekj Hkksyk cuke LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku] phQ esustj R.S.R.T.C. Vksad cuke Hkokuh 'kadj <+ksyh]
;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke jktsUnz izlkn 'kekZ ,oa Hkjriqj lS.Vªy dksvkWi- cSad fy- cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh]
CGIT ds fu.kZ;ksa esa rFkk ekuuh; iatkc ,.M gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;wdks cSad cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh]
CGIT paMhx<+] ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk eaxy lSu cuke LVSV vkWQ ;w- ih-] ekuuh; dydRrk mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk bykgkckn cSad cuke izksuc dqekj eq[kthZ ,oa ekuuh; enzkl mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lsYojkt ih-
cuke ,e- Mh- dVVk okseu VªkUliksVZ dkWi- fy- ds fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu lHkh fu.kZ;ksa esa
izfrikfnr fof/kd vf/ker ls ;g ekxZn’kZu izkIr gksrk gS fd foHkkxh; tkWp esa vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk ,d= dh
xbZ laLohd`fr dh lk{; dks rc rd xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk rc rd ml lk{kh dks lk{; esa ijhf{kr ugha
fd;k tkosA izys[kksa dks fcuk fdlh lk{kh ds ijh{k.k fd;s] tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk tc Lo;a gh iznf'kZr dj fy;k
x;k gks rks ,slh lk{; dks xzg.k djrs gq;s fdlh fu"d"kZ dk vk/kkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrk gSA ;g ekxZn’kZu bl
fookn ds rF;ksa ls lqfHkUu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;s tkus ij esa llEeku izkFkhZ ds i{k esa xzg.k fd;s tkus
;ksX; ugh ikrk gwW] D;ksafd vkjksfir deZpkjh ¼izkFkhZ½ }kjk vkjksiksa ds izfr LosPNk ls laLohd`fr dh xbZ gS vkSj izn”kZ
M-5 ls izn”kZ M-13 izys[kksa ds fu"iknu ds laca/k esa vfHkopu@ dFku djrs gq;s rRlaca/kh Li"Vhdj.k Hkh fn;k
x;k gSA izkFkhZ us cSad ds xzkgdksa ls yh xbZ jkf”kk 2&3 ekg esa ykSVkus dk v'oklu Hkh fn;k gSA
22- foi{kh dh vksj ls blds foijhr ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fuEukfdar fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k dk voyEc
fy;k x;k gSA
1- ps;jesu de esusftax Mk;jsDVj dksy bf.M;k fy- cuke eqdqy dqekj pkS/kjh
2- ps;jesu ,.M esusftax Mk;jsDVj V.P.S. o vU; cuke xksikjktw Jh izHkkdj gfjckcw
3- ADM ¼flVh½ vkxjk cuke izHkkdj prqosZnh o vU;
23- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mi;qZDr fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu tkWp esa fy;s x;s
fofu’p; ds foijhr funsZ’k ugha djrk oju fofu’p; fuekZ.k dh izfdz;k rd lhfer gSA nks"kh }kjk tkWp esa
laLohd`fr dh tkus ij fdlh izfdz;kRed voS/krk ;k vfuf;erk ds vHkko esa vkjksfir deZpkjh ds fo:} vkjksi
izekf.kr ekus tkus pkfg;sA bl izdkj vkjksi Lohdkj fd;s tkus ij foLr`r tkWp dh vko’;drk ugha gksrhA
Lohd`r rF; dks izekf.kr djus dh vis{kk ugha gksrh gSA
24- blh dze esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ;ksa [kknh xzkeks|;ksx izfr"Bku chdkusj cuke LVSV
vkWQ jktLFkku esa ;g dgk gS fd vkjksi dh laLohd`fr djrs gq;s jkf’k tek djk;s tkus ij Jfed dh lsokeqfDr
gsrq tkWp dh vko’;drk ugha gSA jkeiky pkSgku cuke ekjokM+ xzkeh.k cSad o ,Dl- dkULVsoy jkechj flag cuke
;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd tks fcUnq vihy
izf/kdkjh ds le{k ugha mBk;s x;s os U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;s tk ldrsA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2233
25- bl fof/kd ,oa rF;kRed ifjn`'; esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ij laLohd`fr dks ncko Mkydj ;k mnkjrk
dk :[k viukus dk v'oklu nsdj djokus dk tks vk{ksi vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa fd;k gS og vk{ksi izkFkhZ us
u rks vihy ds Kkiu esa vkSj u O;fDrxr lquokbZ esa mBk;k] blfy;s U;k;ky; ds le{k vc bl vk{ksi dks
mBkus gsrq og vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ;g Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fd;k x;k ;g vk{ksi
okLrfod u gksdj Ik'pkrorhZ fopkj ek= gS ftls viuh izfrj{kkFkZ nkos ds vfHkdFku esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks
fdlh izdkj xzkg; ugha gSA laLohd`fr ds rF;ksa dks Li"Vhdj.k lfgr xzg.k djus ij ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ
Lo;a us izn”kZ M-5 ls izn”kZ M-13 rd izys[kksa dh okLrfodrk dks Lohdkj ,oa iq"V fd;k gSA ftUgsa fdlh lk{;
ls izekf.kr fd;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha FkhA tkWp izfdz;k ds nkSjku bu izys[kksa dks izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ Lohd`rh
ls lqlaxr ekurs gq;s fof/k iwoZd tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk xzg.k fd;k x;k vkSj oS/k:Ik ls vius fu"d"kZ dk vk/kkj “h
cuk;k x;k gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
26-
27- bl fcUnq ds lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk cSad dks u rks dksbZ vkfFkZd gkfu igqWpk;h xbZ gS u gh
cSad dh izfr"Bk dks fdlh izdkj /kwfey fd;k x;kA ftl O;fDr ds [kkrs esa /kujkf’k tek u gksus dk ifjokn Fkk
og Hkh tek djok nh xbZ rFkk ifjoknh us ifjokn Hkh okfil ys fy;kA izkFkhZ us ftu O;fDr;ksa ls /kujkf”k m/kkj
yh Fkh og “h okfil ykSVk nh xbZ gSA bl fy;s izkFkhZ dk d`R; nqjk’k;iw.kZ nqjkpkj u gksdj vf/kd ls vf/kd “wy
;k ykijokgh iw.kZ d`R; dgk tk ldrk gSA izkFkhZ ds d`R; ds fy;s vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dk n.M vuuqikrh gS
ftls vikLr fd;k tkosA mUgksusa bl lac/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fuEukafdr fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k
dk voyEc fy;k gSA
1- dyj dse fy- cuke vykliqjdj A.L. o vU;
2- ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k fy- cuke ih- ckyklqczkef.k;e
3- LdwVlZ bf.M;k fy- cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;
28- bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g ekxZn”kZu fn;k gS fd ;fn n.M vk’p;Ztud :Ik ls vuqikr
foghu jgk gks rks ;g vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dh dksfV esa vkrk gSA vkjksfir deZpkjh dk d`R; ykijokgh vFkok
LoHkkfod Hkwy izekf.kr gksus ij Hkh o`gn n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA xyrh djus okys deZpkjh
dks Lo;a esa lq/kkj djus dk ,d volj fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd tkWp ds mfpr ,oa 'kq}
ik;s tkus ij Je U;k;ky; lsok lekfIr ds n.Mkns’k esa gLr{ksi ugha dj ldrk gksA
29- blds foijhr foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd ,d cSad vf/kdkjh@ deZpkjh ls mPp dksfV dh lR;fu"Bk o drZO;
ijk;.krk dh vis{kk gksrh gS ftldk guu gksus ij og vius fu;kstd cSad dk fo’okl [kks nsrk gS rFkk
fo’oklghurk dh fLFkfr esa lsok lekfIr dk n.M gh mfpr gSA bl fookn esa izkFkhZ ds izfr mnkjrk cjrrs gq;s
inP;qfr ds LFkku ij vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dk n.M nsrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks vkfFkZd {kfr ugha igqWpk;h xbZ gSA foi{kh
us vius rdZ dks ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fuEukafdr fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ls lefFkZr djus dk iz;kl fd;k
gSA
1- neksg iUuk lkxj vkj- vkj- cSad cuke eqUuk yky tSu
2- Hkkjrh; LVSV cSad cuke csyk ckxph o vU;
3- Hkkjrh; LVSV cSad cuke Vh- ts- iky
4- ds- ,y- f=ikBh cuke LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k
5- fMlhfiyhujh vkWFkksfjVh de jhtuy esustj cuke fudqat fcgkjh iVuk;d
6- tujy esustj ¼P½ iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad cuke n;k flag
30- bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g ekxZn’kZu fn;k gS fd tc cSad vf/kdkjh }kjk cSad ls vukf/kd`r
/ku vkgj.k fd;k x;k gks rFkk ckn esa C;kt lfgr ykSVk Hkh fn;k gks] fQj Hkh ;g nqjkpj.k gSA cSad dks dksbZ
gkfu u igqpusa dk dFku bl ifjisz{; esa dksbZ izfrj{kk ugha gSA mPprj Lrj dh bZekunkjh] drZO; fu"Bk o
lko/kkuh cSad vf/kdkjh ls visf{kr gSA vius izkf/kdkj ls c<+dj dk;Z djuk vius vki esa vuq’kklu Hkax ,oa
nqjkpj.k gSA tc [kkrk /kkjd ls /kkujkf’k izkIr dj yh xbZ ,oa mlds [kkrs esa tek u dj ek= iklcqd esa tek
dh izo`f"V dj nh xbZ gks rks ,slh fLFkfr esa [kkrk/kkjh }kjk ifjokn okfil ys fy;s tkus rFkk cSad dks dksbZ gkfu
u igqWpkus dk rdZ ,d Lohdk;Z izfrj{kk ugha gS rFkk nqjkpj.k dks 'kfer ugha djrk& nqjkpj.k xaHkhj ekuk x;k
rFkk lsokeqfDr oS/k Bgjk;h xbZA
31- foi{kh us izkFkhZ }kjk vkjksfir n.Mkns’k esa vf/kdj.k }kjk dksbZ gLr{ksi u fd;s tkus dk fuosnu djrs gq;s
fuEukafdr fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fof/k dh vksj /;ku vkfdZ"V fd;k gSA
1- jhtuy esustj UPSRTC bVkok cuke gksrhyky
2234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- SBBJ cuke usehpUn uyok;k
3- dSujk cSad cuke oh- ds- voLFkh
4- U;w 'kksjkWd feYl cuke egs’k HkkbZ Vh- jko
5- LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,l- ,u- xks;y
6- ukSgj Ykky oekZ cuke fMLVªfjDV dkWi- lS.Vªy cSad fy- txnyiqj
7- fMohtuy dUVªksyj K.S.R.T.C. ¼NWKRTC½ cuke A.T. ekus
8- fd”p;u esMhdy dkWyst gkLihVy ,Ei- ;wfu;u o vU; cuke fdz'p;u esMhdy dkWyst ,slks- osYykSj o
vU;
9- R.S.R.T.C. cuke de:nhu
10- ps;jesu ,.M esusftax Mk;jsDVj ;wdks cSad cuke ih- lh- dDdM+
11- dukZVd cSad fy- cuke A.L. eksgu jko
12- ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke B.C. prqosZnh
13- LVSV vkWQ eSlwj cuke M.C. d`..kIik
14- cukjl bysfDVªd ykbZV ,.M ikoj dEiuh cuke yscj dksVZ 2 y[kuÅA
32- bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us U;k;f;d iqufoZyksdu ds ifj{ks= ds laca/k esa ekxZn’kZu djrs gq;s ;g
dgk gS fd U;k;f;d iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfDr cgqr lhfer gS rFkk viokn Lo:Ik gh iz;Dqr dh tkuh pkfg;sA u
dsoy /kujkf'k oju euksn'kk] drZO; dk Lo:Ik rFkk leku lqlaxr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n.M dh vuqikfrdrk ij
fofu’p; djrs le; fopkfjr djuk pkfg;s& ;fn nks"kh deZpkjh ,d ,slk in /kkfjr djrk gS tgkW fo”okl]
lR;fu"Bk ,oa drZO; ijk;.krk vUrfuZfgr vis{kk gks rks nqjkpj.k dks dBksjrk ls fy;k tkuk pkfg;sA /kujkf”k ds
vLFkkbZ nqfoZfu;kstu dks Hkh gYds :Ik esa ugha ysuk pkfg;sA tc rd n.Mkns'k fujk/kkj] euekuk] nqHkkZoukiw.kZ o
vLi"V u gks] mlesa gLr{ksi U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 ¼d½ ds vUrxZr U;kf;d
'kfDr vfu;fU=r euekuh ,oa lhek jfgr ugha gSA n.Mkns'k tc rd vk'p;Ztud :Ik ls] fd;s x;s nqjkpj.k ls
vuuqikfrd u gks] mlesa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA tc tkWp mfpr ,oa oS/k ik;h xbZ gks rFkk nqjkpj.k
fl} gks x;k gks rks ,slh fLFkfr esa n.M dk fu/kkZj.k vu”kklfud izkf/kdkjh ij gh NksM+ nsuk pkfg;sA
33- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k mi;qZDr ekxZn'kZu bl fookn ds rF;ksa ls lqlaxr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ
,d cSad deZpkjh gS rFkk mlls dBksj foRrh; vuq'kklu] lR;fu"Bk ,oa leiZ.k dh vis{kk cSad }kjk fd;k tkuk
vLokHkkfod ugha gSA ;|fi izkFkhZ ds nqjkpj.k ls cSad dks dksbZ vkfFkZd gkfu ugha igqWph] fdarq izkFkhZ }kjk mlds
fu;kstd cSad }kjk mlesa U;Lr fd;s x;s fo'okl dks vijfer gkfu igWqpkuk fl} gksrk gSA cSad deZpkjh }kjk
O;olkf;d ysunsu ,oa leO;ogkj esa fo’okl ,oa vuq”kklu dk Hkax] vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk fofuf'pr n.M
dks iw.kZr% ;qfDr laxr ,oa U;k;ksfpr Bgjkrk gSA izkFkhZ dks inP;qfr ds LFkku ij vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dk n.M
nsrs gq;s foi{kh }kjk mnkjrk cjrh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ dks mlds Hkfo"; esa thou ;kiu gsrq lsok fuo`fRr ifjykHkksa ls
oafpr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl fy;s bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vfHker ls ;g n.Mkns'k] izkFkhZ ds nqjkpj.k dk
vuqikfrd gksus ds dkj.k] bl vf/kdj.k }kjk gLr{ksi fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:}
fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
34-
35- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1] 2] o 3 ij izkIr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr vfuok;Z lsok
fuo`fRr dk n.M izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s nqjkpj.k dh xaHkhj izd`fr dks ns[krs gq;s vuqikfrd] oS/k ,oa U;k;ksfpr gSA
bl fy;s izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
36- dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
37- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1032.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
रक्षा इलेक्रॉजनक्स अनुसंिान प्रयोगिाला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2235
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (36/2009) izdkf”kr djrh
gSA
[सं.
-14011/37/2008-
- (
-I]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2024
S.O. 1032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Defence Electronics
Research Laboratory and their workmen.
[No. L-14011/37/2008– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 20th day of March, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 36/2009
Between:
Sri G. Lingam & 117 others,
C/o The General Secy.,
DLRL Civilian Employees Union (AIDEF),
Defence Electronics Research Laboratory,
Chandrayangutta Lines,
Hyderabad – 500 005.
….. Petitioner
AND
The Director,
Defence Electronics Research Laboratory,
Chandrayangutta Lines,
Hyderabad – 500 005.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, M. Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri N. Parameswara Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-14011/ 37/2008-IR(DU) dated 3.8.2009
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of Defence Electronics Research Laboratory and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the Management of Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, (DLRL) and
the contractor with regard to employment of Shri G. Lingam and 117 others, as per Annexure is sham and
bogus? If yes, whether the demand of the All India Defence Employees Federation for regularization of the
services of these workers by the Management is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 36/2009 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
The petitioner union submits that 118 Casual Workers are working continuously from last 10 to 25 years without any
interruption. It is submitted that the nature of work being discharged by the Casual Employees is that of permanent
2236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and perennial nature. It is submitted that Casual Workers were working in various categories such as, office,
Attendant, Canteen Attendant and Security Attendant. It is further submitted that the respondent has adopted the
unfair labour practice in continuing the casual employees for years together without regularizing their services which
attracts the provisions of unfair labour practice as per the Schedule. It is submitted that there is no contract nor any
contractor has obtained any license under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970. Therefore, all the
Casual Labour deems to be the employees of the respondent. It is submitted all the Casual Laborer were directly
engaged by the respondent management and wages were also directly paid to the casual laborer by the respondent. It
is further submitted that the casual laborers are doing regular nature of work as that of group D' and of C' employees
working in the respondent organization/Lab. Further, it is submitted that the respondent being continuously allowed
them to work for more than 10 to 25 years, but failed to regularize their services. The Union has raised the dispute
before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad, the respondent management failed to resolve the dispute
amicably but protracted the matter by raising untenable grounds. It is submitted that some of the Casual Laborer
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and their cases were allowed and the respondent
management filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court and same were dismissed. The management further
carried the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal filed by
the respondent management. The petitioner union submits that most of the Casual Laborer have studied up to
10th standard and some of them also having ITI qualification and entitled for regularization of their services. It is
submitted that the action of the respondent management in not regularizing the service of the 118 Casual employees is
illegal and the action of the respondent management is also unjustified. It is submitted that there is no contract nor
there was any agreement entered by the respondent by any contractors. Therefore the respondent treating the Casual
Employees as contract employees is sham and bogus. Therefore, the casual employees are deemed to be the
employees of the respondent Management. Hence, it is prayed to hold that the respondent management treating the
Casual Employees as Contract Employees is sham and bogus and grant the consequential benefits and direct the
respondent to regularise their services in the interest of justice.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:
It is submitted that the Petitioners come at the gate to eke out their livings and the project personnel have to get some
items moved and make use of the people who come at the gate by paying minimum wages.There is no contract
between the workers appears from the reference and that there is no contractor who have engaged these people. It is
submitted that it is not true that 118 casual workers are continuously working for the last 10 to 25 years without
interruption as stated by the Petitioners. It is submitted that Respondent do not have any casual labourer in the
Respondent Establishment. Further, DLRIL is not carrying out any manufacturing process but does the sovereign
functions in the field of Research & Development for the Armed Forces. Hence does not come under the definition of
industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The workers are not engaged in any permanent
and perennial job as alleged by them. Hence the averment that they are discharging permanent and perennial work is
denied. DRDO HQ has sanctioned strength of employees and there is no vacant sanctioned post and all the posts are
filled by regular employees. It is totally denied that these casual employees are working as Office Attendants, Canteen
Attendants and Security Attendants, in DLRL as alleged. It is submitted that it is totally sham to say that the
Respondents have adopted unfair labour practices in continuing the casual employees for years without regularizing
their service. It is submitted that no unfair labour practices are followed as alleged by the Petitioners. Some of the
workers, have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide WP No.21456
of 2008 to issue Writ of Mandamus as it for their continuance.The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad had passed an interim order as under:-
There shall be interim direction to the Respondents to continue the members of the Petitioners Union as monthly paid
casual workers on the same terms and conditions existing as of now, until further orders. Hence the issue in the
present ID is sub-Judice, as the matter is pending before the High Court of AP at Hyderabad.”
It is submitted that the question of obtaining license under Contract Labour and Abolition Act, 1970 does not arise.
There is no contractual agreement. The labours come at the gate for their livelihood and Respondent project
personnel deploy them on daily wages as per the dire requirement and needs of the test sites /projects on daily basis as
and when required. It is submitted that the alleged work is intermittent in nature and the need of the project sites for
the shifting of stores, haulage etc, some persons who come at the gate are deployed to meet the urgent and time bound
works of the project and are paid the minimum wages. The question of doing regular nature of work of Group D' and
Group C' does not arise, as the total sanctioned strength of the staff belonging to Group C and Group D' are working
and there is no vacant post. Hence, there is no need for these casual labourers to do the job which are done by
permanent employees. Further, the Petitioners are not deployed through employment exchange and they cannot have
any claim under the scheme of Temporary Status to get regularization. The regularization of the services of the
petitioners as per DRDO HQ letter dated 03-08-2007 is denied. It is submitted that the Petitioners Union by-laws
permit to raise their members issues only. However, there is no scope to be represented by DLRIL, CEU (AIDEF).
The issue is sub-Judice before the Hon'ble High Court Judicature of AP in WP NO.21456/2008 filed by Shri P.Murali
Gopal and Others Vs UOI. On this ground alone the case needs to be dismissed in limini. After protracting
correspondence and conciliations, the Asst Labour Commissioner, Hyderabad had closed the issue by submitting
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2237
failure report looking at the projects works which are under tight time schedules and which are urgent for the needs of
the three Armed Forces. Hence, the issue was closed and a failure report was submitted. It is further submitted that the
Hon'ble C.A.T, Hyderabad Bench had dismissed the case in P.Ramu & Others in OA No.941/2005 vide dated 14-08-
2009 and the case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of AP. It is submitted that none of the 118 Petitioners
are sponsored by District Employment Exchange and are not having any temporary status to get them regularized.
The Petitioners have no existing legal right to claim regularization. The backdoor entry cannot be acceded to and
the regularisation cannot be made without following the constitutional methods. Petitioners Union has no existing
legal right and cannot claim regularization. It is submitted that the DLRL is not having any casual workers on the
rolls on a regular establishment. DLRL has been engaging persons on daily work package basis depending upon the
project works and test sites requirements of various projects on need basis due to heavy pressure of project work and
are engaged on intermittent works only, of sovereign functions of the state. Further, it is pertinent to mention that
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs Uma Devi(3) and others as decided in the
Civil Appeal Number 3595 3612 of 1999 and with numbers 1861-2063, 3849 of 2001, 3520-24 of 2002 and 1968 of
2006 decided on 10-04-2006, held that they have no right under Article 226 public employment of temporary,
contractual, casual, daily wages or adhoc basis cannot claim for mandamus direction for absorption, regularisation or
permanent continuation since such employee do not have any enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed nor
can they show that State has legal duty to make them permanent. It is submitted that the question of regularisation of
service does not arise merely on the strength of such condition if the original appointment was not made following
the due process of selection that means to say that the backdoor entry into public service is not appreciated for their
regularisation. There is no sanctioned post which is available for their regularisation. There is no legal remedy for the
people who do not come through employment exchange. All these people who are said to be casual have not come
through employment exchange. Those who come through employment exchange can claim for their absorption
subject to fulfillment of other conditions. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (3) has held that "In the name of individualizing justice it is not possible for the Supreme
Court to shut its eye to the constitutional schemes and the rights of the numerous against the few who are before this
Court. This means to say that Govt appointments made through other than Employment Exchange, Staff Selection
Board and recruitment boards are not deemed as constitutional process. Any deployment of work other than the
constitutional process cannot claim the regularisation and which would amount to perpetuation of illegality.” It is
submitted that though regular appointments as per constitutional scheme for public employment must be the rule,
there is nothing in the constitutional scheme which prohibits the Union or State Government or their instrumentalities
from engaging persons temporarily or on daily wages in spite of the constitutional scheme. Governing public
employment without following the required procedure to meet the need of the situation. Daily wager is not entitled to
the status of permanent employee merely on the ground of having worked for more than 240 days. Where
appointment of daily wagers was not against vacant post sanctioned by the statutory authority and he has no legal
right to be made permanent. It is submitted that in the present case, the so called 118 people are not
engaged/deployed through employment exchange which is must for a defence establishment and there is no
sanctioned vacant posts for the above said case. It is submitted that in the present case there is no any existing legal
right. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the case of Uma Devi (3) wherein the question of regularization on the
ground of long rendition of service was subject matter. Continuance of a long time casual employee and regularize
his service on humanitarian consideration without following the rules is not permissible. Such action will fail when
tested on the touch- stone of constitutionally and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
The casual employee is also aware of the nature of his appointment as temporary or casual and hence regularising him
on the theory of legitimate expectation is not called for. State also cannot promise to regularize such casual or
contractual employees dehors the rules. In the present case, the so called 118 people do not come through
employment exchange and does not possess the requisite qualifications requirements. Their deployment is backdoor
and cannot claim regularization and consequential benefits. The irregular appointments cannot be regularized by the
Courts. It is appreciated by the Courts that the persons who are coming for casual employment have accepted their job
and fully knowing from it cannot claim the right of absorption. In the present case, the so called 118 persons have not
been deployed by the process of selection method. In the present case, nobody is appointed by the Respondents.
Under 6th CPC, Group D' services have been withdrawn and no persons are recruited for the post of Group 'D'. A
much emphasis was laid that there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirements and regularizing
are making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. The right of legitimate expectation
obviously is not a legal right and the remedy cannot be sought under this name of legitimate expectation. It is
submitted that at no point of time, all the Petitioners have not satisfied the conditions of the Government policies for
grant of Temporary Status and regularization of services. The said Petitioners have not come through employment
exchange at any point of time. Particularly for the reasons of security, the employment of casual workers in the
defence establishment should be restricted to absolute minimum. They have not satisfied the policy of the Govt vide
OM No.4(1)/88 D(Civ II) Ministry of Defence, New Delhi dated 07.04. 1989. The terms and conditions laid down in
OM NO.MF 4(3)89/DI Civ II Govt of India, Ministry of Defence dated 31.01.1991 will also have to be taken into
account. It is further submitted that in the OM, no age limit is prescribed for grant of Temporary Status. However,
for the purpose of subsequent regularization, the conditions regarding age and educational qualifications in the
relevant recruitment rules will apply. In the present case no Petitioner is fulfilling the qualifications and requirements
2238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of age as prescribed in the recruitment rules. All the 118 so called casual workers are not sponsored by Employment
Exchange and as such they be given temporary status. The question of regularization to the above said people cannot
be considered. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that dismiss the claim of
the Petitioners.
4.
In support of the claim statement, workmen have examined witnesses WW1 and WW2 and these witness,
WW1 has exhibited the documents EX.W1 to W5 and WW2 has exhibited documents Ex.W6 to W17. On the other
hand, Respondent has filed affidavit of the witness MW1 and has filed the documentary evidence Ex.M1 to M15.
5.
Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.
6.
On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following points emerge for
determination in the present case:-
I
Whether the contract between the Management of Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, (DLRL) and
Contractor with regard to employment of Sri G. Lingaiah and 117 other workmen as per annexure is sham
and bogus?
II.
Whether the demand of workmen Sri G. Lingaiah and 117 other workmen for regularization in the
employment of Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad through DLRL Civilian Employees
Union (AIDEF) is legal and justified?
III.
To what relief workmen are entitled for?
Findings:-
7.
Point No.I: In the claim statement workmen have averred that they are casual employees of the
Respondent establishment and they are not employees of the contractor. Respondent is treating them as contractual
labourers that is nothing but an act of unfair labour practice. Witness WW1 Sri G. Dayakar Rao in his affidavit
deposed that the Respondent has directly appointed all the casual employees workmen herein and there is no
middle man as such contractor between the Respondent and the casual employees. Further, he states that Respondent
has no license under Contract Labour Regulation & Abolition Act and therefore, all these 118 casual employees are
deemed to be the employees of the Respondent. Per contra, Respondent in Para 4 of the counter has contended that
question of obtaining license under Contract Labour Regulation& Abolition Act does not arise as there is no
contractual agreement. Further, Respondent contended that the labours come at the gate of the Company for their
livelihood and the project personnel of the Company deployed them on daily wages basis as and when required.
Thus, Respondent has admitted that the workmen have been engaged directly by the Company on daily wages and
there is no contractual agreement exists between Company and Contractor. Thus, in view of the pleadings of both
parties, I come to the conclusion that the workmen have been engaged to work by the Respondent DLRL on daily
wages basis directly without any intervention of middleman or contractor. There is no evidence of any contract
between DLRL and Contractor on record for engaging workmen in the Company. Therefore, no question of
contract being sham and bogus arise.
This Point No.I is answered accordingly.
8.
Point No.II:-
As per claim statement, workmen have taken the plea that 118 casual workers have been
working continuously in the Respondent Management from last 10 to 15 years without any interruption and the
nature of work being discharged by them was that of permanent and perennial nature. The workmen had been
working in various categories as of attendant, canteen attendant and Security attendant. But the Respondent has
adopted unfair labour practice in continuing these workmen as casual employees for years together without
regularizing their services which attracts the provisions of unfair labour practice as per the schedule. The Petitioner
union on behalf of workmen submits that the Respondent continuously allowed them to work for more than 10-12
years, but failed to regularize their services and the action of the Respondent Management in not regularizing the
services of these casual employees is illegal and unjustified. On behalf of workman, witness WW1 in his sworn
chief affidavit has reiterated the averment made in the claim statement and deposed that the casual employees were
receiving their salaries from the Respondent for the work done of 8 hours per day excluding lunch and for 5 days
in a week at par with other permanent workers from the date of their initial appointment. Further, WW1 states that
whenever there was extra work, the Respondent was extracting the work from the causal workers and workmen were
paid the over time allowance also. WW1 states that the causal workers has been engaged by the Respondent
organization directly and the word used ‘package basis’ by the Respondent is nothing but camouflaged only in order
to deny the regularization of their services. In fact these casual workers have been working shoulder to shoulder with
the permanent workers in various divisions/sections of the Respondent organization and they were discharging their
duty for 8 hours a day. In support of their claim, workmen has filed the photocopies of 17 documents which are as
follows:-Ex.W1 is the bunch of papers of attendance sheets of the workmen, Ex.W2 is the bunch of wage receipts of
workmen, Ex.W3 is internal office notes, Ex.W4 is the bunch of experience certificates pertaining to workmen,
Ex.W5 are the copies of judgements, Ex.W6 is the photocopies of challan form along with Form ’A’ application for
registration of DLRL casual workers union, Ex.W7 is the Form ’F’ registration of membership and subscription of
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2239
DLRL casual workers union, Ex.W8 is the Minutes Book of DLRL casual workers union along with Union office
bearers list, Ex.W9 is the certificate of registration of Trade Union of DLRL casual workers union Ex.W10 is the
letter issued by the M/s Defence to the Director(All DRDO Labs/Estts) asking for Data regarding causal labourers in
DRDO dated 22.7.2013, Ex.W11 is the details given by the DLRL casual workers union and ELRL Civilian
Employees Union to the letter dated 22.7.2013, Ex.W12 is the office memorandum issued by the DOPT dated
16.10.2014 for regularization of casual labour with temporary status, Ex.W13 is the bunch of cash receipts of wages
of the casual employees, Ex.W14 is the bunch of attendance sheets of casual employees, Ex.W15 is the bunch of
different circulars of the DLRL casual workers union, Ex.W16 is the bunch of letters given by the DLRL casual
workers union along with the office memorandum of Ministry of Finance requesting for the Bonus and Ex.W17 is
the bunch of temporary entry pass issued to the casual employees.
9.
On the other hand for Respondent witness, MW1 in his chief examination affidavit has refuted the claim of
the workmen and states that the workmen in the present matter were engaged as daily wagers in the Respondent
organization for the work, as and when the need and emergency arise. Further, MW1 states that the workmen has
not been appointed against any sanctioned post as a permanent employee according to the recruitment rules of the
organization. The DLRL is not having any casual workers on its rolls. DLRL has been engaging persons for daily
work on package basis depending upon the project works and test sites requirements of various projects on need basis
due to heavy pressure of project work and workmen are engaged for work for intermittent period only. Further,
MW1 states that DLRL is discharging sovereign functions of the State. Further, MW1 states that question of
regularization of the services of the daily wagers does not arise merely on such condition as the original
appointment of the workmen was not made following due procedure according to recruitment rules. Therefore,
workmen are not eligible for their regularization. MW1 further states that there is no sanctioned post which is
available for their regularization and there is no legal remedy for backdoor entry. Further, the workmen were not
sponsored through employment exchange. Further it is contended that all these workmen are said to be casual, as
they have not come through employment exchange. Those workmen who have come through employment exchange
can claim regularization subject to fulfillment of other conditions. Therefore, all 118 workmen here in this petition
have no legal right to claim absorption in the Respondent organization.
10.
Before examining the issue of regularization of these workmen in the Respondent employment, it would
be apposite to have a look into relevant decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the principle laid down
on question of regularization of the casual labour/daily wagers in the public employment:-
i)
In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR SCC 1806, on the question of
regularization of the casual workers, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have
held:-
“38. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the
engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the
theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only
by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary,
contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these
persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make
such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent
in the post….
The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known
to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages
formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly
recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that
such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment,
even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages or equal work. There is no fundamental
right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have
a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a
regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be
extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as
equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been
selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.”
ii)
In the case of ONGC Vs. Krishan Gopal 2020(3) Scale 272,Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have laid
down the principle regarding regularization of the casual workman and have held:-
“23 The following propositions would emerge upon analyzing the above decisions:
2240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.”
iii)
In Hari Nandan Prasad v Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India20 (“FCI”),
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held:
“34. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there
are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for
regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily- wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of
years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the
aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by
such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14
of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not meet the
eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen
in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in
such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself would amount to
invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the
industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this
constitutional provision.”
Further, in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Raja Ram another two judge Bench of Apex Court construed the
provisions of Item 10 of Schedule V to the ID Act and observed:
“9…In other words, before an action can be termed as an unfair labour practice it would be necessary for the
Labour Court to come to a conclusion that the badlis, casuals and temporary workmen had been continued for years
as badlis, casuals or temporary workmen, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent
workmen. To this has been added the judicial gloss that artificial breaks in the service of such workmen would not
allow the employer to avoid a charge of unfair labour practice. However, it is the continuity of service of workmen
over a period of years which is frowned upon. Besides, it needs to be emphasised that for the practice to amount to
unfair labour practice it must be found that the workman had been retained on a casual or temporary basis with the
object of depriving the workman of the status and privileges of a permanent workman.”
11.
Workmen in their claim statement has taken the plea for their regularization in the employment of the
Respondent on the ground that these 118casual workers had been working continuously from last 10 to 25 years
without any interruption and they have been discharging the work of permanent and perennial nature. But the
Respondent has adopted the unfair labour practice in continuing Petitioner workmen for years together without
regularizing their services. Therefore, the workmen raised their plea on the ground of unfair labour practices adopted
by the Respondent. In view of Principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision as referred above, the
workmen in this matter have not produce any evidence that their engagement was based on proper selection as
recognized by relevant rules or procedure. Further, they have admitted that these workmen are not sponsored by
Employment Exchange.
The burden of proof that Respondent has resorted unfair labour practices is indisputably lies on the workmen. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gangadhar Pillay Vs. M/s.Siemens Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.
4769/2006 dated 10.11.2006 have held:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2241
“The question as to whether an employee had intermittently been engaged as casual or temporary for a number of
years is essentially a question of fact. The issue as to whether unfair labour practices had been resorted to by the
employer or not must be judged from the entirety of the circumstances brought on records by the parties of this case.
Only because an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee or that he had been employed for a
number of years, the same by itself may not lead to the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the
object of depriving him of the status and privilege of a permanent employee. Unlike other statutes, the employer does
not have any statutory liability to give permanent status to an employee on completion of a period specified therein.
What is, therefore, necessary to be considered for drawing an inference in terms of the said provisions would be to
consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above, we have to
examine the question whether the Respondent employer had resorted to unfair labour practices by continuing these
workmen as casual employees for years together without regularizing their services.
12.
In order to substantiate the claim, workmen examined witness WW1. WW1 in his chief affidavit has
reiterated he plea and averments made in the claim statement. WW1 was cross examined by the Counsel for
Respondent and in his cross examination the states, “Mr. Lingam and 117 other casual labours filed the claim
statement in this case. Sri Hari is the president of Civilian employees union (DLR). Said Sri Hari alone signed the
claim statement in this case. This claim statement is filed by the union but not the casual labourers individually. The
claim statement was not filed by the union. We authorised Sri Hari to file the claim statement. We have not filed the
said authorization letter. All the 118 Petitioners are not members of the union. It is true that the Defence Electronics
Research Laboratory is a research laboratory. (the witness adds) In addition to research fabrication of different
defence equipment also will be there. I am deposing in the capacity of General Secretary of Civilian Employees
Union. There is no written authorization from either the union or from the workmen. I am not the one of the
workmen herein.” Thus, from the above statement of WW1, it manifests that this witness is not the aggrieved
workmen and has not signed the claim statement. He has not any authorization letter to depose in this case on behalf
of the union or the workmen. The witness WW1 further states, “ It is true that these workmen have not come
through employment exchange. It is true that these workmen were appointed against any sanctioned posts. They
have not been conferred with temporary status either.” This witness WW1 was further cross examined by the
Respondent and WW1states, “The manufacturing work being taken up with the Respondent lab is designing,
fabrication, software development and manufacturing of various items/tools required by the scientists. We can not
measure the quantity of software developed but other instruments being manufactured will be in hundreds. These
will not sold to any outsiders. They are meant for project requirements only. We have not mentioned the details of
the 117 workmen in the claim statement filed in this case. Neither of them signed the claim statement. Myself and
Mr. Srihari signed the claim statement.” Therefore, from the above statement of the witness it is clear that neither
the names of the 118 workmen are mentioned in the claim statement and nor the list of 118 workmen verified by the
signature of the workmen has been annexed to the claim statement. Although the list bearing the names of the 117
workmen has been filed separately by the workmen but that it has not been made as part of the claim statement.
Further, more this list has not been proved by WW1 in his examination in chief. Witness WW1 states that, “ It is
true that we have not filed identification particulars/proof either in the claim statement or in the documents filed by
us before the court. The witness adds, but they are all having identity cards. As of now, all these 118 workmen are
working with the Respondent undertaking.” Further witness adds, “It is not true to suggest that all these workmen
were engaged for the purpose of the specific projects only. The witness adds, in addition to the projects various
other jobs have been entrusted to us. It is not true to suggest that I got not acquaintance with the workmen and the
facts of the case and that I am deposing falsehood only to support the claim in this case.” Although the witness has
testified that all these workmen were appointed against sanctioned post but no documentary evidence to this effect has
been filed on record. Therefore, the claim of workmen that they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts in
Respondent organization, not stands proved for want of evidence. WW1 has also exhibited the documents Ex.W1
to W5. Ex.W1 is the photocopies of attendance register. The perusal of these document pertaining to attendance
register goes to show that attendance sheet pertains to different periods for which these workmen claimed to have
worked. Further, the rest of the documents annexed in Ex.W1 from page No.9 to 24 pertains to the attendance sheet
of different workmen pertaining to different periods. Ex.W1 contains papers No.1 to 114, are the photocopies of the
attendance register pertaining to the period in different years i.e., 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and
2010. It goes to reveal that the workmen whose names appear in the attendance register have been attending their
duties in the Respondent organization. But these documents do not reveal or establish that these workmen have been
appointed after adopting due process of selection in the Respondent employment, nor it goes to establish that the
workmen were engaged or appointed against vacant sanctioned posts. Further Ex.W2 documents from Papers No.
115 to 162 are the photocopies of the cash receipts. The perusal of these photocopies goes to reveal that the payment
has been made to the workmen for executing the job contract for project service/requirement for project from time to
time. These documents do not reveal that any monthly salary has been paid by the Respondent Management to the
workmen at par with permanent employees. Further, Ex.W3 document goes to reveal that the casual labour workmen
working in the Respondent organization has been granted temporary permission card to join their duty on, on going
2242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
project activity and these permission card has been issued in the name of workmen just to enter into the premises of
the Respondent for work and that has been addressed to the Security Officer, ELSEC by the Respondent
Management. These documents, i.e., Ex.W3 are not identity cards, as has been issued to the permanent employees.
These are only temporary permission cards issued by the Respondent Management in the name of the workmen to
enter and carry out their work in the premises of the Respondent organization and these are meant for limited purpose
and limited period. Further, Ex.W4 Papers No.233 to 268, are the photocopies PF and various experience
certificates claimed to be issued by the Respondent organization to the workmen from time to time. But these
documents do not establish that the workmen had been engaged or appointed by the Respondent Management as a
casual workmen against any sanctioned post in the organization after undergoing due process of selection.
Further, Ex.W5 is also not the documents pertaining to their appointment to any post through due process of
selection. Further, Papers No.269 to 316 are the details of casual employees/workmen working in DLRL in different
periods. The documents paper No.317 is the copy of the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and
papers No.348 to 362 are the copies of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and Papers No.363 to 380 are again the
copies of the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal. Further paper No.381 is the list of the casual
labourers with their addresses pertains to the details of casual workers who had worked during the period 1985 to
1992. All the above discussed documents are the photocopies of the circulars and daily orders of the organization.
Further, papers No.404 to 410 are the photocopies of the ID cards of the employees. But these ID cards reveal that
these have been issued for limited period to the canteen employees. Ex.W5 is the bunch of documents pertaining to
the workers union. Further more, the documents filed i.e., Ex.W6 to W10 pertains to the registration of works union
etc., but it do not pertain to the appointment of the workmen herein the petition. The documents Ex.W17 from
papers No.474 to 500 are the copies of the entry passes claimed to be issued to the casual employees by the
Respondent for the entry of the workmen in a restricted campus only for carrying the work assigned. From these
above discussed documents the claim of the workmen that they have been appointed against the vacant sanctioned
post in the Respondent organization over a period as they claim, is not established as whatsoever in any manner.
However, testimony of WW1 is neither relevant nor admissible in respect of averment of claim statement as witness
WW1 has neither signed nor verified the claim statement. However, he is not aggrieved workman in this matter.
13.
Further, WW2 has been examined and he has also reiterated the averments of the claim statement in his
chief affidavit and also marked documents Ex.W6 to W17. This witness has been subjected to cross examination by
the Respondent counsel and in his cross examination WW2 states, “I have not obtained any authorization from the
union to give evidence in this case. I have also not received any authorization from any of the member of the union to
give evidence. The witness volunteers, Since I am the General Secretary of the union, no authorization is needed to
give evidence for the union.” Further, the witness states, “Ex.W16 has been issued in the year 2016. And it is valid
for 3 months. The witness volunteers that, we are given tokens for entry and the cards are renewed quarterly in a
year. It is fact that, visitors are also allowed to enter inside the premises obtaining pass. Presently, we do not have
an entry card to enter inside the premises. The witness volunteers, last two years back the management took our
entry cards for renewal inspite of repeated reminders they have not returned our entry cards. We have not been issued
any letter from the Respondent management to do work in different capacities. It is not correct to suggest that we are
getting salary as per the work done by us day-wise. In fact, whenever I am attending the court duty or any other
duty, absence is noted in my attendance. I am not having any right to leave since I am not a regular employee.”
Further, witness states, “It is not correct to say that we are not casual labourers, we are the daily wagers, and that we
are not entitled to get regularization into service. It is not correct to say that there is no employer and employee
relationship between our union members and the Respondent management. It is not correct to say that whatever ID
cards issued to the applicants, those are issued for security purpose only and not for employment purpose. It is a fact
that, what ever amount we are given on monthly basis it is paid through bank, on monthly calculation basis. It is true
that as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court we are continuing in duty. It is not correct to suggest that whenever
work is required, we are being engaged and not for all days. It is true that whatever documents filed by me in my
chief evidence affidavit are not for employment purpose, but pertaining to the internal correspondence with the
Respondents. It is true that we have not enrolled under the Respondent through employment exchange.” Thus, from
the above statement of the WW2 it is clear that the workmen were engaged by the Respondent on daily wage basis
on project site as package wise that they have not been engaged by the Respondent for different activities apart from
project work as there is no document or order has been filed and proved in evidence. Further, they have not been
issued any ID cards from the Respondent Management, as the regular employees got issued and whatever documents
pertaining to the ID card has been filed on behalf of the workmen or the permission letter that is meant for
workmen to enter into the premises of the Respondent Management for doing the work only which is of very
limited purpose and limited period and that has been addressed to the Security Officer. Thus, the claim of workmen
that they had worked as permanent employees for 8 hours daily and nature of their duty was of permanent and
perennial nature is not found established by the evidence adduced on record.
It is pertinent to mention here that these workmen are still doing the work continuously in the Respondent
organization and getting them salary under the order of Hon’ble High Court of Telengana and said order is being
extracted below:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2243
“9.For the reasons stated above, this Court partly allows the writ petition and modifies the order dated 14.01.2020
to the limited extent that any appointment made by the respondents against the regular vacancies shall be subject
to the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in ID.No.36 of 2009.
8.
By way of abundant caution, it is hereby clarified that any observation made by this Court with regard to
the regularization of the casual workers should not influence the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The
Industrial Tribunal is expected to assess the evidence that is produced by both the parties, and to objectively and
impartially pass it’s award.”
Thus, the present status of engagement of workmen in the Respondent organization is being carried on under the
order of Hon’ble High Court. The claim of regularization of workmen in this petition has to be decided by the
Tribunal in view of the facts of the case, the evidence adduced by the parties and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court as discussed in the earlier paragraphs of the judgement.
14.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 and in chief examination affidavit MW1 deposed that
Respondent do not have any causal labour in the establishment and Petitioner workmen are not engaged in any
permanent or perennial job and they are not discharging permanent and perennial work. Further, MW1 states that
Respondent organization having sanctioned strength of employees and that there is no vacant sanctioned post and all
the posts are filled by regular employees only. Further, MW1 has stated that the Petitioners were performing works
which are of intermittent in nature and they are engaged on need basis on the project sites for shifting of stores,
haulage etc..” Further MW1 states that , “These persons come to the gate and are deployed to meet the urgent and
time bound works of the project on need base and are paid minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1984.
Further, MW1 has deposed that all the Petitioner workmen approached Hon’ble High Court of Telengana at
Hyderabad vide WP No. 21456/2008 and obtained interim order from the Hon’ble High Court to continue them as
monthly paid casual workers and the WP is still pending in the Hon’ble High Court and therefore, as per the
directions of the Hon’ble High Court the Petitioners are being continued till date. Further, this witness states that
regularization of the services of the workmen can not be done merely on the conditions of fulfilling the educational
qualification as there is no sanctioned post available for their regularization and as the appointment in Government of
India are made following the due process of selection. MW1 further states that, the Scheme of 1993 of Government
of India stipulates that they should have come through Employment Exchange and should fulfill the other criteria
such as educational qualification etc.. As the Petitioners have not come through Employment Exchange they have no
legal right to claim regularization. Further, Respondent is a Defence establishment and provide services to the Armed
Forces by making them self-reliant in terms of Science and Technology, especially in the field of Military
technologies. Hence, utmost security, secrecy has to be maintained and for the movement inside and outside the
premises of Test Facilities and office premises and also keeping security concerns under consideration, temporary
passes were issued for identification of the individual. Therefore, mere issuance of temporary pass does not entail
these daily wages workers to claim regularization of their services. MW1 was cross examined by the Learned
Counsel for workmen and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of the witness to contradict or disbelieve
the statement of witness.
15.
Admittedly, the Respondent Management is an instrumentality of the Government of India and the
appointment and selections of the employees are made against the vacant sanctioned posts in the Respondent
Management following the due process of selection as per rules and regulations. But in the present matter, these
workmen have not come through the Employment Exchange which is mandatory requirement for appointment in the
Respondent Management. Further, they have not been recruited or engaged by following the due process of
selection i.e., by issuing advertisement and going through the recruitment process as per the rules and regulations
prescribed for selection. However, these workmen have been engaged on daily wages basis intermittently and had
worked package wise. Although they had worked for over a period in the Respondent organization but they can not
claim regularization in the Respondent organization merely on the basis of their work done for over a period of years.
As their engagement is not done through due process of selection and neither they have had worked against vacant
sanctioned post. However, workmen failed to prove and establish by any evidence that they have been working
against any sanctioned post and Respondent is keeping vacant such post just to deprive workmen from their
regularization. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, any order for
regularization of these workmen would be in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution and that is
impermissible under the law of the land. In this context relevant decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted
below:-
Hari Nandan Prasad v Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India, dated 17 February, 2014
AIR 2014 SCC 1848 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held:
“22. It is clear from the above that the Court emphasized the underline message contained in Umadevi’s case to the
effect that regularization of a daily wager, which has not been appointed after undergoing the proper selection
procedure etc. is impermissible as it was violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and this principle predicated
on Art.14 would apply to the industrial tribunal as well inasmuch as there cannot be any direction to regularize the
services of a workman in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. As we would explain hereinafter, this would mean
that the industrial court would not issue a direction for regularizing the service of a daily wage worker in those cases
2244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
where such regularization would tantamount to infringing the provisions of Art.14 of the Constitution. But for that, it
would not deter the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts from issuing such direction, which the industrial adjudicators
otherwise possess, having regard to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act specifically conferring such powers.
This is recognized by the Court even in the aforesaid judgment.”
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ONGC vs. Krishangopal has laid down the principles pertaining to
the claim of workmen for regularization in the public employment:-
“The first principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that, where such a direction would in the
context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution; The statutory power
of the Labour Court or Industrial Court can not extend the direction to order regularization.”
16.
Admittedly, the workmen in the present matter here have claimed that regularization in the public
employment of Respondent Management and they have not been appointed undergoing the due process of proper
selection procedure. Moreover, they have not worked against vacant sanctioned post and no evidence to this effect
that the Respondent has deliberately keeping the sanctioned post vacant just to deprive the workmen from the benefit
of their regularization. There is no iota of evidence on record adduced by the workmen in this respect. Therefore,
claim of the workmen herein for their regularization in service of Respondent is impermissible being in violation of
principle as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the want of evidence regarding
alleged unfair labour practice, the plea of the workmen regarding unfair labour practice against Respondent not
liable to be accepted.
17.
However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down principles regarding claim of regularization in
public employment as discussed above, it has further held that the statutory power of Industrial Tribunal or Labour
Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the
employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are
available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the
same work as regular workmen on lower wages. But here, in the present matter, the workmen utterly failed to
adduce any evidence that the permanent sanctioned post in the Respondent Management has been kept vacant and
just to deprive the workmen to claim regularization. Further, the workmen have also failed to establish and prove
the fact that they have been performing the same work as performed by the regular workmen and their work was of
perennial in nature equivalent to the regular workmen. However, the Respondent has filed the documents pertaining
to the Departmental office memorandums which prohibits engagement of the daily wagers for work of regular
nature and even daily wagers can not be engaged if they are not registered in through the Employment Exchange.
18.
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and on going through the evidence of the parties on record
and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, I come to the conclusion that
the workmen in the present matter have been engaged as daily wager to do the work of casual nature intermittently
on the project site and after the completion of the work of project, their engagement comes to end. Since, the
Respondent Management is an instrumentality of the Union Government of India and the engagement of the
employee against the sanctioned post can not be made without following the due process of selection as prescribed
under the recruitment rules and regulations. Since these workmen have not been engaged under due process of
selection and workmen failed to establish that they have been working against the sanctioned posts and such posts
kept vacant by the Respondent Management to deprive the workmen, from their regularization on such posts.
Therefore, the plea of unfair labour practices as alleged by the workmen is not found to be established and proved
and the claim of the workmen in the present matter for regularization is not established.
Thus, Point No. II is decided accordingly.
19.
Point No.III: -
In view of the fore gone discussion, Law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and finding
arrived at Points No.I & II, Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Thus, Point No.III is decided accordingly.
AWARD
Thus, the reference is answered as follows:-
a) There is no contract exists between the Management of Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, (DLRL)
and the contractor with regard to employment of Shri G. Lingam and 117 others.
b) The demand of the All India Defence Employees Federation for regularization of the services of the
workmen in the petition, in the Respondent Management is neither legal nor justified.
c) Hence, the claim of Workmen for regularization is liable to be dismissed, hence dismissed.
d) Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2245
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 20th day of March, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri G. Srihari
MW1: Sri Iftekar Murad Ahmed
WW2: Sri P. Murali Gopal
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of Attendance sheets of the workmen pg.No.1 to 114
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of wage receipts of the workmen pg. No.115 to 162
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of internal office notes pg. No.163 to 232
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of experience certificates pg. No.233 to 263
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of judgements pg. Np.269 to 414
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of challan form along with form A application pg.No.415 to 423
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of Form F registration of membership
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of minutes book DLRL casual workers union pg. No.429 to 436
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of certificate of registration of trade union Pg. No.437
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of lr. issued by M/o Defence reg.casual labourers in DRDO pg. No.438
Ex.W11
:Photostat copy of details given by Union s pg. No.439 to 4467
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of OM by M/o Personnel, PG & P, D/o P & T dt. 16.10.2014 Pg. No.447 to 456
Ex.W13: Photostat copy of cash receipts of wages of casual employees Prg.No.457 to 461
Ex.W14: Photostat copy of attendance sheet of casual employeespg.No.462 to 465
Ex.W15: Photostat copy of circulars of DLRL C.W. Union Pg.No.466 to 467
Ex.W16:
Photostat copy of representation of Union reg. bonus Pg.No.468 to 473
Ex.W17: Photostat copy of temporary entry pass of the casual employees Pg.Np,474 to 500
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of writ affidavit in WP 21456/2008 dt.26.9.08
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of interim order in WPMP 28031/2008 in WP No.21456/2008
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of letter dated 3.8.2007
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of lr.No.8/21/2007-E3 dt.28.8.08
Ex.M5:
Photostat copy of letter to cEU/Union dt.12.9.2007
Ex.M6:
Photostat copy of letter No.DLRL/ESTABLISHMENT/3042/CEU/Union dt. 9.3.2007
Ex.M7:
Photostat copy of lr. No.DLRL/EST/400008(1)/CEU/Union dt. 30.1.08
Ex.M8:
Photostat copy of petition filed by casual workers
Ex.M9:
Photostat copy of OM No.4(1)88/D(Civ.II) dt.7.4.1989
Ex.M10:
Photostat copy of order passed WP No.15186/1999 dt.21.12.1999
2246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M11:
Photostat copy of proceedings No.MF.4(3)/89/D (Civ.II) dt.31.1.1991
Ex.M12:
Photostat copy of Memorandum No.49014/2/93/Estt.(C) dt.12.7.1994
Ex.M13:
Photostat copy of order in C.A. No.941/2005 dt.29.4.2008
Ex.M14:
Photostat copy of memorandum No.49014/2/86-Estt© dt.7.6.1988
Ex.M15:
Photostat copy of information about relevant Court cases in OA No.608 and 609 of 2005 and
speaking order by this to the Petitioners
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1033.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (01/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-41011/41/2019-
- (
-I]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/41/2019– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 01 / 2020
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Asarwa, Nr. Chamunda Bridge,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382345
….…….First Party
V/s
The Jt. Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park,
B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380005
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2247
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/41/2019-IR (B-I) dated 23.12.2019 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Union to grant ACP / MACP and Promotion to Shri Jagdish Ramgopal from the
Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad is legal, fair and justified? If yes, what relief, Shri
Jagdish Ramgopal is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 10th January, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1034.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
इलािाबाि बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2
बाि ds iapkV (22/2005) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12012/200/2004-
- (
-II]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
NO. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/200/2004– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
PARTIES:
PRESENT
D.S.K.Thakur
Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947
REFERENCE N0.22 OF 2005.
The General Secretary,
Allahabad Bank Karmachari Sangh, Central Office,
C /0 Allahabad Bank, University Branch
2248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PATNA. BIHAR
Vs.
The Asstt. General Manager,
Allahabad Bank„
, Regional Office, Saraiganj Main Road ,
MUZZAFARPUR
Order No.L-12012/200/2004-IR (B-II) dt. 04.02.2005
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman /Union :
Mr.D.Mukherjee , Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
State
Bihar
Industry :
Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th August1,2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No.L-12012/200/2004-1R (B-11) dt. 04.02.2005
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank in imposing the punishment of lowering
down present basic pay by two stages of Shri Ajit Kumar ,Special Assistant, Bathnaha Branch of
Allahabad Bank by the Disciplinary Authority and Assistant General Manager, Allahabad
Bank, Muzaffarplur is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Ajit Kumar is entitled ?"
2.
The Government of India of Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer,i.e the Management of Allahabad Bank, Patna and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d)
of Sub Sec. (1) and Sub Sec. (2A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter mentioned herein-above to
this Tribunal for adjudication on the terms of Reference mentioned herein above.
3.
That the fact of the case as made out by the Union is that workman namely Ajit Kumar was falsely
implicated in cases against which charge sheet was issued and domestic enquiry was set up to probe the charges .
Based on findings of the enquiry the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment as referred in the Reference. The
workman seeks relief by setting aside the impugned Award of punishment and restoration of suspension with two
increments from retrospective effect besides Rs. 10,000 from Management for meeting out the expenditure towards
contesting the dispute.
4.
On the other hand the OP/Management filed counter statement denying the stand taken by the claimant. It
has been further pleaded that there exists no Industrial Dispute and the claim is not maintainable.
5.
Upon filing statement and counter statement by both the parties under Reference proceedings of the matter
set in motion with documents filed by both sides. The proceeding of the matter rolled out on merit adducing evidences
by both sides .During the course of pendency of the instant proceeding Ld. Representative appearing on behalf of the
workman made wild allegation against then Presiding Officer. So proceeding of the matter was put in suspension till
final directive issued from the Ministry in response of the letter sent by the Presiding Officer himself . There is
absolutely no final argument held thereafter on record despite service of notices and suo motu adjournments of the
proceeding . The matter resulted in halting byscheduling andrescheduling. In the mean time the workman or his
representative stopped appearing in the proceeding in regular course since 19.07.2013 on all the subsequent dates till
the hearing of the matter got concluded on 27.06.2022. Hearing of the matter was mostly conducted at Camp Court
,Patna taking consideration of workman's convenience.
6.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials onrecords it is evident that
workman/claimant is no longer interested to proceed with merit of the case. The matter needs to be disposed of as
there is no point to continue the proceeding in exposure of unwillingness of the workman
The Industrial dispute between them ceases to exist. Accordingly,the Reference stands disposed of on footing of
having nonexistent and devoid of substance between parties. The Tribunal is of the view to pass an Award granting
no Relief to the workman .Accordingly No Claim Award is passed
S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2249
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1035.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2
बाि ds iapkV (20/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12012/120/2002-
- (
-II]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/120/2002– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT
Dr.S.K.Thakur
Presiding Officer.
PARTIES
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO 20 OF -2003.
Shri Pankaj Kumar
S/0 Sh.Jagdish Prasad,
Moh: New Marwari Colony ,Road No. 3.
Gandhi Chowk ,PS:Chapra
SARAN (BIHAR)
VS
The Asstt. General Manager,
UCO Bank
R.O. Mourya lok Complex, A-Block,
4th Floor
PATNA (BIHAR)-800001
ORDER NO. L-120 12/120/2002-IR (B-11) dt. 24.12.2002
& 20/25.3.2003
APPEARANCES
: Workman Himself
On behalf of the workman/Union
Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advovate
On behalf of the Management
State
BIHAR
Industry :
Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 31
m July 2023.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the 1.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No.L-12012 /120/2002-1R (B-H) dt.24.12.2002/20/25.3.2003 .
2250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Sh.Pankaj Kumar
w.e.f. 17.04.93 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled?" (AS PER CORRIGENDUM)
2,This is a reference referred by the Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment the present
dispute existing between employer ,i.e. the Management of UCO Bank, Patna and its workman/claimant on the
issue contained in the Order of Refere4nce mentioned herein above to adjudicate under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the
I.D.Act1947.
3, As stated in the claim petition the claimant namely Shri Pankaj Kumar
was appointed an Agent under Laghu Bachat Yojana Scheme of UCO Bank .He was being paid commission
from the Bank based on his business . But due to some fraud cropped up in the Scheme and subsequently CBI
enquiry into the matter Bank stopped from taking service of the workman. The workman seek reinstatement into
service of the Bank with retrospective effect .
4.
On the other hand the OP/Management filed counter statement denying the stand taken by the claimant. It has
been further pleaded that there exists no Industrial Dispute and the claim is not maintainable.
5.
During pendency of proceeding of the matter upon filing claim and counter claim by both of the parties the
matter came up for hearing over evidence and both sides adduced evidences and finally arrived at argument stage
.Despite taking the service of notice and successive adjournments the claimant did not represent the case since
23.01.2015 nor did he comply with in the matter of completing argument, left the matter in half way. It appears that
the claimant has no interest in the dispute or no grievance against the OP/Management and as such the claim does not
seem to exist anymore particularly when most of hearings was conducted during Camp Court based at Patna for
convenience of the claimant/workman being originally the case of Bihar.
6.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is obvious that the workman/claimant is no longer
interested to proceed with merit of the case. The Industrial Dispute between them ceases to exist. Accordingly, the
Reference stands disposed of on footing of having nonexistent and devoid of substance between parties. The Tribunal
is of the view to pass an Award granting no Relief to the workman .Accordingly, 'No Claim Award ' is passed with no
relief to workman.
S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1036.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार के
मिाप्रबंिक, रािनगर टेक्सटाइल जमल्स, िररृुरा, असरवा, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
श्री तुिार ल न एवं 16 जलजृक कमवचारी, सी/ओ रािनगर टेक्सटाइल जमल्स, िररृुरा, असरवा, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात),
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या
06/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-42012/45/2019-
- (डीयू]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The General Manager, Rajnagar Textile Mills, Haripura, Asarwa, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), and Shri Tushar
Lakhan & 16 Clerical Staff, C/o Rajnagar Textile Mills, Haripura, Asarwa, Ahmedabad-(Gujarat), which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31/05/2024.
[No. L-42012/45/2019– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2251
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 06 / 2020
The General Manager,
Rajnagar Textile Mills, Opp. Uttar Gujarat,
Patelnagar Society, Babupura, Haripura, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380016
….…….First Party
V/s
Sh. Tushar Lakhan & 16 Clerical Staff,
C/o Rajnagar Textile Mills, Opp. Uttar Gujarat,
Patelnagar Society, Babupura,
Haripura, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380016
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/45/2019-IR (DU) dated 12.02.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Sh. Tushar Lakkhan and 16 clerical staff for regularization of services alongwith
consequential benefits in the Rajnagar Textile Mills, Ahmedabad is legal, just and proper? If so, to what relief
these Sh. Tushar Lakkhan and 16 Clerical staff working in Rajnagar Textile Mills, Ahmedabad are entitled to and
from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 24th February, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1037.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार के
एस.िी.एस इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, गांिीिाम, कच्छ-(गुिरात),प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, ृररविन
एवं डॉक वकवसव यूजनयन, गांिीिाम, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
अिमिाबाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं्या 08/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-42011/11/2020-
- (डीयू]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
2252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham,Kutch-(Gujarat), and The General Secretary,Transport & Dock Workers
Union, Gandhidham, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
31/05/2024.
[No. L-42011/11/2020– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 08 / 2020
SGS India Pvt. Ltd.
1st Floor, Plot No. 156-157,
GIDC, Opp. Sect-4,
Oslo Main Road, Gandhidham,
Kutch(Gujarat)- 370201
.....…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union, F/3,
Adinath Arcade- I, Plot No. 583, Ward 12-C,
Gandhidham – 370201
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/11/2020-IR (DU) dated 13.02.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. Gandhidham in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Noormohamad Sodha w.e.f. 28.02.2018 is legal, proper & justified? If not, what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to and to what extent?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 24th February, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the
Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed but
none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2253
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1038.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार के
प्रिान मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, सूरत-(गुिरात); प्रिान मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड,
व्यारा, मिाजनया, ताृी, मेससव िय िनुमान इलेजक्रकल्स, मिजनया, कजमूर-(जबिार), और अध्यक्ष, गुिरात मििूर संघ,
मान िरवािा, सूरत (गुिरात), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
अिमिाबाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं्या 09/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-40011/2/2020-
- (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Surat-(Gujarat); The Principal General
Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Vyara, Mahaniya, Tapi, M/s. Jay Hanuman Electricals, Mahaniya,
Kaimur-(Bihar), and The President, Gujarat Labour Union, Maan Darwaja, Surat (Gujarat), which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31/05/2024.
[No. L-40011/2/2020– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 09 / 2020
1. The Principal General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ghod Dod Road,
Surat(Gujarat)- 395001
2. The Principal General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. At Post- Vyara,
Tal- Mahaniya, Dist- Tapi- 394680
3. M/s. Jay Hanuman Electricals,
Vill- Ahinira, Po- Harinathpur, Thana- Mahaniya,
Distt- Kaimur(Bihar), Bihar- 821101
.....…….First Parties
V/s
The President,
2254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Gujarat Labour Union, 111,
Dr. Ambedkar Shopping Centre, Ringh Road,
Maan Darwaja, Surat (Gujarat)- 395001 ..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/2/2020-IR (DU) dated 12.02.2020 for adjudication
to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union for regularization of Sh. 1. Maheshbhai Chimanbhai Chaudhari 2.
Gangaram Dhanjibhai Vasava 3. Channabhai Bhilayabhai Gamit 4. Rameshbhai Jalpatbhai Vasava 5.
Veersinghbhai Pachiyabhai Chaudhari 6. Sanjaybhai Rameshbhai Chaudhari 7. Jerambhai Jalubhai Gamit
8. Mehulbhai 9. Umangbhai Chandulal Chaudhari 10. Channabhai Gamit and 11. Ashishbhai Vajesingbhai
Chaudhari in service in the establishment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Surat is legal, proper and just? If
so, to what relief these 11 contract workmen are entitled?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 24th February, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1039.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक,बीएसएनएल, डाबागाडवन्स, जविा ाृत्तनम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और जिला सजचव, राष्ट्रीय
िूरसंचार कमवचारी मिासंघ, बीएसएनएल, एनएफटीई, बीएसएनएल यूजनयन कायावलय, डाबागाडवन्स, जविा ाृत्तनम, के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- िजिराबाि ृंचाट (संिभव
सं्या 12/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-42012/2/2023-
- (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The General Manager, BSNL, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, and The District Secretary, National Federation
of Telecom Employees,BSNL, NFTE, BSNL Union Office, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam,, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31/05/2024.
[No. L-42012/2/2023– IR (DU)]
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2255
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 6th day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 12/2023
Between:
The District Secretary,
National Federation of Telecom Employees,
BSNL, NFTE, BSNL Union Office,
BSNL Bhavan Compound
Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530020.
……Petitioner/Union
AND
The General Manager,
BSNL, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam-530020.
……Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: None
For the Respondent
: Sri S Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-40011/2/2023- (IR(DU)) dated 31.03.2023
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of BSNL and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether demand of National Federation of Telecom Employees, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 5.5.2022
to the management of BSNL, Visakhapatnam for cancellation of punishment order dated 20.10.2021 in
respect of Md Sadiq Parvez, ATT, O/o SDE (Stores & MM), Mulagada, Visakhapatnam, is proper, legal and
justified ? If yes, to what reliefs the disputant are entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the
matter ?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 12/2023 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner/Union absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that
notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner Union. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner
/Union and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner/Union, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is
passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day of
May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
2256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1040.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार के
मु्य ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर िनरल, गुिरात सकवल, ृुष्ृक जबहल्डंग, ानृुर, अिमिाबाि - (गुिरात), और मिासजचव, भारतीय
सामान्य श्रजमक मिासंघ, साबरमती, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं्या 27/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-40011/10/2020-
- (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Chief Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, Pushpak Building, Khanpur, Ahmedabad-(Gujarat), and
The General Secretary, Indian General Labour Federation, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat),which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31/05/2024.
[No. L-40011/10/2020– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 27 / 2020
The Chief Post Master General,
Gujarat Circle, Pushpak Building, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380001
...…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Indian General Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park,
B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 382470
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2257
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause
(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/10/2020-IR (DU) dated 29.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Secretary, Indian General Labour Federation, Ahmedabad to appoint Sh.
Kamlesh B. Turi, S/O Sh. M.V. Turi in the establishment of Post Office at Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad on
compassionate ground with all benefits is proper, legal, fair & justified? If yes, then what relief Sh. Kamlesh B. Turi
S/o Sh. M.V. Turi is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 24th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the
Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed but
none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1041.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार उृ
ृुजलस मिाजनरीक्षक, ग्रुृ केंर, सीआरृीएफ, हृंिौर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री राणा, कामगार,के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संिभव सं्या 35/2021)
को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.06.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-42025-07-2024-102-
- (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2021) 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 to The Dy. Inspector of General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Pinjore., and Shri Rana, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 03.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-102– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 35/2021
Registered on:-14.10.2021
Rana S/o Sharif Mohammad, Islam Nagar, Pinjore, Kalka.
..... ...Workman
2258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Dy. Inspector of General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Pinjore.
......Respondent/Management
AWARD
Passed On:-21.12.2023
1.
The workman Rana has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act
1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement along with full back wages.
2.
Today i.e. 21.12.2023 the case was fixed for filing evidence by way of affidavit by the workman. It is
submitted by the learned AR of workman that the workman is not turning up since long and he is unable to contract
the workman and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition filed by the workman.
3.
Perused the file. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but workman is
not turning up since long, resulting the submissions made by the learned AR of workman for dismissing the present
claim.
4.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long and has left the case unattended, as such, this
Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the
present reference for the non-prosecution of workman.
5.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1042.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, बीएसएनएल, मंडी, जिमाचल प्रिेि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जिया लाल, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संिभव सं्या 2/2019) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.06.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-40012/20/2018-
- (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2019) 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 to The General Manager, BSNL, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, and Shri Jiya Lal, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 03.06.2024.
[No. L-40012/20/2018– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 2/2019
Registered on:-26.02.2019
Sh. Jiya Lal S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal, R/o Anjnu-Balh, P.O.-Behli, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, Distt.-Mandi(HP)-175001.
….…..Workman
Versus
The General Manager, BSNL, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh-175001.
..…Respondent/Management
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2259
AWARD
Passed on:-25.04.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-40012/20/2018-IR(DU) Dated 04.02.2019, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. in terminating the services of
Sh. Jiya Lal S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal in the year 2012 just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?
1.
Today i.e. 25.04.2024 the case was fixed for filing affidavit by the workman. On scrutiny of the order sheets,
it is revealed that the workman has not come present on 18.12.2023 and today also i.e. 25.04.2024 continuously and
the case is fixed for filing affidavit by the workman on 23.11.2021, 9.2.2022, 18.4.2022, 2.6.2022, 11.1.2023,
10.3.2023, 27.4.2023, 18.7.2023, 13.9.2023, 18.12.2023 and 25.04.2024. Since several dates for filing affidavit by
the workman have been fixed by the Tribunal and the workman has failed to file affidavit, which denotes that
workman is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.
2.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filed any affidavit and the workman
has left the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice,
except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference for the non-
prosecution of the workman.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1043.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, िुलिस्ट्ती ृावर स्ट्टेिन, नेिनल िाइड्रो ृावर कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, दकश्तवाड़, िम्मू और कश्मीर, के प्रबंितंत्र
के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मेससव अल्ताफ हमंटू एंड कंृनी, िुल िस्ट्ती ृावर स्ट्टेिन, िम्मू और कश्मीर, के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संिभव सं्या 112/2018) को िजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.06.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा
[सं.
-42011/166/2018-
- (डीयू]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112/2018) 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 to The General Manager, Dul Hasti Power Station, National Hydro Power Corporation Limited,
Kishtwar, Jammu & Kashmir, and M/s Altaf Mintu’s & Company, Contractor of Dul Hasti Power Station,
Jammu & Kashmir, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
03.06.2024.
[No. L-42011/166/2018– IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.112/2018
Registered on:-29.01.2019
M/s Altaf Mintu’s & Company, Contractor of Dul Hasti Power Station, Jammu & Kashmir-182204.
….…..Workman
2260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The General Manager, Dul Hasti Power Station, National Hydro Power Corporation Limited, Kishtwar, Jammu &
Kashmir-182204.
..…Respondent/Management
AWARD
Passed on:-09.04.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-42011/166/2018-IR(DU) Dated 11.01.2019, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management general manager, Dul Hasti Power, Station, Kishtwar(J&K) in
not considering charter of demands viz i) consider Un-skilled workmen as Semi-Skilled having
prolonged length of service ii) Provide Annual/Casual leave to all outsourced workers in line with the
factories Act iii) Implementation of Project Schedule Rates of wages at par with URI Power Station-I
& II to the workmen of Dul Hasti Power Station, Kishtwar(J&K) raised by General Secretary,
Construction workers Labour Union (regd.), Head Office Dul Hasti Power Station, Kishtwar (J&K) is
justified or not? If not, to what relief workman is entitled to and from which date?
1.
Today i.e. 09.04.2024 the case was fixed for hearing on the application filed by the workmen-union for
disallowing the legal practitioners to appear on behalf of management. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed
that the workmen-union has not come present on 21.06.2023, 02,08,2023, 12.10.2023, 11.12.2023 and today also i.e.
09.04.2024 continuously. Several dates for hearing on the application have been fixed by the Tribunal, which denotes
that workmen-union is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.
2.
Since the workmen-union has neither put his appearance for long nor he has argued on the application filed
by them for disallowing the legal practitioners to appear on behalf of management and the workmen-union has left
the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass
a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference for the non-prosecution of
the workmen-union.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1044.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव मजक्स जवजिल जसक्योररटी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव चेकमेट जसक्योररटी सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट
जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और भारतीय िनरल कामिार फेडरेिन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-38/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/25/2021-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Max Vigil Security Pvt. Ltd; M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Checkmate Security Services Pvt. Ltd.
and Max Vigil Security Pvt. Ltd. which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-30011/25/2021– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2261
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 38 / 2021
1. The Director,
M/s. Max Vigil Security Pvt.Ltd; 42,
4th Floor, Aastha Avenue,
Opp RTO, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Circle
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380027
2. The Executive Director,
M/s. ONGC Ltd; Ahmedabad Asset,
5th Floor, Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005
3. The General Manager (Security),
M/s. ONGC Ltd; Ahmedabad Asset,
Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005
4. The Director,
M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,
12-Subhas Nagar Society, Nr. Embassy Market,
B/H Sales India, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380009
. ….…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Bharatiya General Kamdar Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/25/2021-IR (M) dated 30.11.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union for reinstatement in services of Shri Jitendrasingh Vaghela, Security Guar
working with M/s Max Vigil Security Pvt. Ltd, contractor employed by the ONGC Ltd, Ahmedabad alongwith
consequential benefits from the date of termination is legal, just and proper, If so, what reliefs, Shri Jitendrasingh
Vaghela, Security Guard is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 13th December, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
2262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1045.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे 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;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (02/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-41011/45/2019-
- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/45/2019– IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 02 / 2020
The Chief Medical Officer,
Western Railway, New Railway Colony,
Sabarmati, Railway Hospital,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380005
….…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park,
B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380005
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/45/2019-IR (B-I) dated 07.01.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2263
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the, of the management of Chief Medical Officer, WR, Railway Hospital, Ahmedabad in
terminating the services of Shri Tulsi w.e.f. 31.05.2011 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 13th January, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1046.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
ईएसआईसी िॉजस्ट्ृटल; मेससव एम. िे. सोलंकी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अज ल गुिरात िनरल मज़िूर संघ के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 01/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-42011/136/2020-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1046.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to ESIC Hospital; M/s M.J. Solanki and Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Snagh which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-42011/136/2020– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 01 / 2021
1. The Medical Superintendent,
ESIC Hospital, Bapunagar,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380024
2. M/s. M.J. Solanki, 637,
Statr Chambers, Near Temple, Harihar Chawk,
2264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Panchanath Plot,
Rajkot- 360001
….…….First Parties
V/s
The Joint Secretary,
Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh,
2nd Floor, Arab Chamber, Opp. Pattharkuwa Petrol
Pump, Relief Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/136/2020-IR (DU) dated 22.12.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad for regularization of Shri Mahesh
Cheemanbhai Bhunotar and 38 other Nursing Staffs (listed at Annexure-III) and pay at par with the regular
employee, is fair, legal and justified? If so, what relief these 39 Nursing Staffs are entitled to? What other
directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 25th January, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1047.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव चेकमेट सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और गुिरात लेबर
यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.-19/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/19/2021-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and Gujarat Labour Union which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-30011/19/2021– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2265
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 19 / 2021
1. The Executive Director (AM),
M/s. ONGC Ltd;
Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005
2. M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd.,
Ground Floor, 6 to 9, Aman Tower,
Suhas Colony, Fatehganj Main Road,
Vadodara(Gujarat)- 390002
….…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Labour Union,
3/24, Ellora Comm. Centre, Salapose Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/19/2021-IR (M) dated 07.09.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
(1) “Whether the action of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vadodara in transferring Shri Narendra Kumar
Ramjibhai Solanki outside Ahmedabad Asset of ONGC, subsequently dismissing him from service w.e.f.
10.08.2020 is fair, legal and justified? If not, as to what relief the workman is entitled to?
(2) Whether the action of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vadodara transferring Shri Narendra Kumar
Ramjibhai Solanki outside Ahmedabad Asset in violation of MOS dated 18.7.2012 would constitute ULP as
per Sec. 25(T) & violation of MOS entered under 12(3) and pending conciliation he has been dismissed
would constitute violation of Sec. 33(C) of Industrial Disputes Act? If so, what further direction is needed?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 20th September, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
2266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1048.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव चेकमेट जसक्योररटी सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
ृेरोजलयम एम्प्लाइि मज़िूर ृररिि् के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-24/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/8/2021-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Checkmate Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and petroleum Employees Mazdoor
Parishad which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-30011/8/2021– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 24 / 2021
1. The Executive Director-Asset Manager,
M/s. ONGC Ltd; 5th Floor,
Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005
2. The Director,
M/s. Checkmate Security Services Pvt.Ltd.,
28- Gulmahor Bunglow, Nr. Hanuman Temple, B/H
Nehrunagar Circle, Surendra Mangaldas Road,
Ambawadi, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380006
….…….First Parties
V/s
The Secretary,
Petroleum Employees Mazdoor Parishad,
28/B, Narayan Park, B/h Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2267
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/8/2021-IR (M) dated 22.07.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union that there is discrepancies in the Disciplinary Action initiated by M/s.
Checkmate Security Services Ltd. against Shri Rakesh Ramachal Pandey, Security Guard and for reinstatement of
Shri Rakesh Ramachal Pandey, Security Guard engaged by M/s. Checkmate Security Services Pvt. Ltd is fair,
legal and justified? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 12th October, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1049.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव चेकमेट सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और इंजडयन िनरल लेबर
फेडरेिन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 07/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/47/2019-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 07/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and Indian General Labour Federation
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-30011/47/2019– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
2268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 07 / 2020
1. The Executive Director – Asset Manager,
M/s ONGC Limited, Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat), Pin Code- 380005
2. The General Manager (Security), I/C Security,
M/s ONGC Limited, Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat), Pin Code- 380005
3. The Director,
M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,
12, Suhas Nagar Society, Nr. Embassy Market,
Income Tax, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat, Pin Code- 380009
.....…….First Parties
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian General Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470 ..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/47/2019-IR (M) dated 14.01.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Secretary, Indian General Labour Federation, Ahmedabad to grant
increment on the basis of seniority and length of service to Security Guard(s) on contract basis engaged by
Contractor M/s. Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd at ONGC Ltd; Ahmedabad is legal, fair & justified? If yes, then
what relief the workmen are entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 24th February, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2269
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1050.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
सेंरल वेयरिाउहसंग कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सेंरल वेयरिाउहसंग एम्प्लाइि यूजनयन के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 18/2020)
को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024
को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-42011/2/2020-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1050.—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
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Central Warehousing Corporation and Central Warehousing Employees Union which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-42011/2/2020– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 18 / 2020
The Managing Director,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Corporate Office, 4/1, Siri Institutional Area,
Augustkranti Marg, Haus Khas,
New Delhi, Pin Code- 110016
.....…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union,
B-104, Savita Govind Plaza, Bodakdev,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380015
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
2270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/2/2020-IR (M) dated 09.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the two demand of Union (1) Compensation to victim of Acid attack, Sexually harassed woman
employee and (2) Special Leave to victim of Acid attack Sexually harassed woman employee are legal, fair and
justified, If yes, what relief, union is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 17th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1051.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव लायन मजनृावर सोलुिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और इंजडयन
िनरल लेबर फेडरेिन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.-19/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के
सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/1/2020-
- (एम]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Lion Manpower Solution Private Limited and Indian General Labour
Federation which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No L-30011/1/2020– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2271
Reference (CGITA) No. - 19 / 2020
1. The Executive Director,
M/s ONGC Limited, Ahmedabad Asset,
Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad- 380005
2. The General Manager (Security) I/C Security,
M/s ONGC Limited, Ahmedabad Asset,
Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad- 380005
3. The Director,
M/s Lion Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd.,
Shop No. FF-23, Siddhi Chakra Aptt.,
Opp. Visat Petrol Pump, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380005
.....…….First Parties
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian General Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad- 382470
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/1/2020-IR (M) dated 09.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“
Whether the demand of the Zonal Secretary, Indian General Labour Federation, Ahmedabad to reinstate
workman Shri Alpeshsingh Jhala at ONGC Ltd; Ahmedabad through contractor M/s. Lion Manpower Solution
Pvt. Ltd as Security Guard on Contract Basis is legal, fair & justified? if yes, then what relief the workman, Shri
Alpeshsingh Jhala is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 17th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1052.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव लायन मजनृावर सोलुिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससव चेकमेट सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और इंजडयन िनरल लेबर फेडरेिन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-22/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/2/2020-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
2272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Lion Manpower Solution Private Limited; M/s Checkmate Services Pvt.
Ltd. and Indian General Labour Federation which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-30011/2/2020– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 22 / 2020
1. The Director,
M/s Lion Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd.,
Shop No. FF-23, Siddhi Chakra Apartment,
Opp. Visat Petrol Pump, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2. The Zonal Secretary,
Indian General Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park,
B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3. The Chief General Manager (Security),
M/s ONGC Ltd;
Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad- 380005 ...…….First Parties
V/s
M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,
12- Subhas Nagar Society, Nr. Embassy Market,
B/H Sales India, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380009
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/2/2020-IR (M) dated 16.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Zonal Secretary, Indian General Labour Federation, Ahmedabad to reinstate
workman Shri Dharmendra Kumar Yadavat at ONGC Ltd; Ahmedabad through contractor (1) M/s. Lion
Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd and (2) M/s. Checkmate Service Pvt Ltd as Security Guard is legal, fair & justified?
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2273
If yes, then what relief the workman, Shri Dharmendra Kumar Yadavat is entitled to and what other direction, if
any, are necessary in this matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 17th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1053.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससव एम. वी. िेसाई; मेससव मजन रेवल्स; मेससव िेवेंर रांसृोटव के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और ग्लोररयस ृेरोजलयम मज़िूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-24/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-30011/7/2020-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s M.V. Desai; M/s Man Travels; M/s Devendra Transport and Glorious
Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
31.05.2024.
[No.. L-30011/7/2020– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 24 / 2020
1. The Incharge (Transport),
M/s ONGC Ltd;
Transport Section, Sabarmati,
2274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)
2. M/s M.V. Desai,
6, Ashok Nagar Society, Radhanpur Road,
Mehsana (Gujarat)
3. M/s Man Travels,
R- 27, Bhavana Farm, Rajpipla Road, Ankeshwar,
Bharuch
4. M/s Devendra Transport,
H-2, H.B. Commercial Centre, Nr. Visat Petrol Pump,
Sabarmati Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
5. The Executive Director, (AM),
M/s. ONGC Ltd;
Avani Bhavan, Chandkeda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380005
...…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh,
A/3, Priya Darshini Society, Nr. New Railway
Colony, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380019
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/7/2020-IR (M) dated 16.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd. Ahmedabad and their contractors namely M/s. Devendra
Transport, M/s Man Travels and M/s. M.V. Desai in terminating/discontinuing the services of 17 Drivers
(Annexure ‘A3’) during the pendency of Ref. (CGIT) Case No. 21/2016 and 103/2017 before the CGIT
Ahmedabad is legal, proper and justified? If not, then what relief the workmen (17 Drivers as per Annexure ‘A3’)
are entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 17th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2275
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1054.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री चजतन्य साहू के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 13/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया
गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-17012/2/2016-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to LIC of India and Shri Chaitanya Sahu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-17012/2/2016– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 18th day of April, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13/2016
Between:
Shri Chaitanya Sahoo,
S/o Late Narasimha Sahoo,
Mandal Street, Near M. Padmavathi House,
Ex-Chairman, Municipality,
Srikakulam-532001.
…Petitioner
AND
The Senior Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
Jeevita Beema Road,
Jeevan Prakash,
Vishakapatnam-530004.
……Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: Party in person
For the Respondent
: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/2/2016-IR(M) dated 8.2.2016
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of M/s LIC of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Srikakulam Branch in
illegally termination Shri Chaitanya Sahu, Ex-night watchmen after serving for 8 years continuously I.E
from 15.09.2006 to 31.12.2014 is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 13/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner evidence. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him,
the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has
not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 18th day of
April, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1055.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री ृी. िामोिर रेड्डी, इंजडयन नेिनल रेड यूजनयन कांग्रेस के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 19/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-16025/04/2024-
- (एम) -72]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1055.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to LIC of India and Shri P. Damodar Reddy, Indian National Trade Union Congress which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-72]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 6th day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 19/2021
Between:
Shri P.Damodar Reddy,
Organizing Secretary, Indian National
Trade Union Congress, Flat No. 303,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2277
Sri Sai Sadan, 2-1-34, Old Ramalayam Lane,
Old Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500044.
……Petitioner
AND
The Regional Manager( E & OS),
LIC of India,
Jeevan Bhagya, Saifabad
Hyderabad-500063.
……Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: None
For the Respondent
: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.7(9)/2021-B1 dated 10.03.2021 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in terminating the services of Sri B.Anil, ex-worker
in justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 19/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner. Despite sufficient opportunity Petitioner did not file any claim statement. It seems that
Petitioner do not want to purse his case. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the
Petitioner, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 6th day
of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1056.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
ए.ृी. जमनरल डेवलृमेंट कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड (एृीएमडीसी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और एृीएमसी एम्प्लाइि
यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 21/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.
-16025/04/2024-
- (एम) -73]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
2278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited (APMDC) and APMC Employees Union which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-73]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of March, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2023
Between:
The General Secretary,
APMC Employees union,
Mangampet,
Y.S.R., Andra Pradesh-516106.
……Petitioner/Union
AND
The V.C & M.D,
A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (APMDC)
Np.294/D, 100 ft Kanur to; Nidamanur Road,
Vijayawada - 521137
……Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: None
For the Respondent
: M/s. M.Venkata Ramana & B. Naveen Kumar, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.5/2/2023-B1 dated 24.7.2023 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the APMDC management is justified in not granting the promotion to 25 outsource/trainee
workers? If not, what relief the workers are entitled for?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 21/2023 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner/Union absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that
notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner Union. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner
/Union and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner/Union, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is
passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 22nd day of
March, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2279
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1057.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ऑफ इंजडया 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; ua 2
बाि ds iapkV (04/2008) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12011/89/2007-
- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No L-12011/89/2007– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT
Dr.S.K.Thakur,
Presiding
Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO 04 OF 2008.
PARTIES: The Secretary,
Bank of India Employees Union,
C/o Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Main Road, Ranchi
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
Bank of India
P.O. Jharia,
DHANBAD (Jharkhand)
Order No. L-12011/8912007-IR (B-II) dt.02.01.2008
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman/Union :
Mr.D.Mukherjee, Ld.Advocate .
On behalf of the Management :
Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
:
Banking
Dated Dhanbad the 28th August,2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-12011/89/2007-IR (B-II) dt.02.01.2008
2280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in imposing the penalty of reduction by two
stages in the scale of pay and withdrawal of special pay "Head Peon Allowance" on Shri Srikant Pandey,
Head Peon vide order dated 25.06.2005 is legal and just? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e., the Management of Bank of India and its workman claimant herein, under cause (d)
of the Sub. Sec. (1) and Sub-Section (2A)(2) of the Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 vide Reference Order
No. L-12011/89/2007-IR (B-II) dt.02.0I.2008 for adjudication .Subsequently, it was registered as Reference case
No. 04 of 2008 on 15.01.2008 and an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order. notices by the Registered Post were
sent to the parties concerned.
3.
The Sponsoring Union/workman filed the written statement of claim on
its behalf on 23.04.2008 with exchanging copy of the claim with Opposite Party/Management. The brief facts as
narrated in the Written Statement of claim are as follow
i)
That, Sri Srikant Pandey has been working as permanent Head Peon since long with unblemished record of
service.
ii)
That, the workman was promoted due to his sincere and efficiency service.
iii)
That, at the relevant time the Manager of the Bank was very much biased and prejudiced against the
concerned workman for various reasons which was known to everybody and he hatched up a ploy to
entangle the concerned workman in a false case to remove him from service.
iv)
That with the aforesaid ulterior motive the Manger managed to issue a false and frivolous charge-sheet dt.
07.12.2004 to the concerned workman on false and frivolous charges.
v)
That, the charges as leveled in the charge-sheet are not only false and frivolous but also ludicrous and
unfortunate.
vi)
That, on 23. 07.2004 one Smt. Meena Devi had applied for loan under SOSRY Scheme and as allegedly the
same was refused, so she allegedly lodged a complaint against the Manger as per alleged warning of he
concerned the allegation dt. 23.07.2004 and charge sheet issued on 07.12.2004.
vii)
That, the abnormal delay in lodging complaint and drawing charge sheet ipso facto proves the ill-motive
and illegality and on the point of delay alone the charge sheet is illegal and void .
viii) That, the allegation as levelled in the charge sheet does not constitute misconduct and hence, the charge
sheet, enquiry and punishment are illegal and bad in law.
ix)
That, in spite of the aforesaid fact and specific denial of charges the management completed empty
formality through biased and prejudiced Enquiry Officer.
x)
That, the enquiry was conducted in most illegal and arbitrary fashion and in utter violation of principles of
natural justice.
xi)
That, the document called for by the workman concerned was neither produced nor given explanation for
not filing the same.
xii)
That the conduct of the Enquiry Officer ipso facto show his biasness and malafideness which is evident
from the recording of Smt. Meena Devi.
xiii)
That the Enquiry Officer miserably failed to appreciate the evidence and finding of the Enquiry Officer was
perverse and not based on evidence on record.
xiv)
That, on the basis of perverse finding of the Enquiry Officer the Management imposed punishment on the
concerned workman.
xv)
That, concerned workman had represented before the Appellate Authority against the illegal and arbitrary
imposition of punishment, but the Appellate Authority mechanically disposed of the appeal without passing
any speaking order.
xvi)
That the workman concerned after exhausting all avenue of amicable settlement raised an Industrial Dispute
through the Sponsoring Union which is referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal
xvii) That, the action of the Management of Bank of India in imposing penalty on Srikant Pandey by order dated
25.06.2005 was neither legal nor justified.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2281
xviii) That the action of the management of Bank of India is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural
justice.
xix)
That the action of the management of Bank of India is vindictive in nature and smacks of anti-labour policy
of the Management .
xx)
That the punishment inflicted on Srikant Pandey is too harsh and
disproportionate to the alleged offence.
xxi)
That the punishment was imposed by an unauthorized person whereby seeking to answer the Reference in
favour of the workman.
4.
Contrary to it the 0.P. /Management denying all the point of claim and
brushing aside all the allegations brought against the them counter stated with following statement:
i)
That the present reference is not maintainable ether in law or in fact.
ii)
That the workman concerned committed gross misconduct according to the clause 5(J) and 5 (K) of the
Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
iii)
That the accordingly Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet to the workman concerned vide Charge
sheet No. 07.12.2004 and appointed Bharat Kumar Rastogi Sr. Manager, Hirapur, SSI Branch as an Enquiry
Officer.
iv)
That the workman concerned denied the charges levelled against him.
v)
That the Enquiry Officer conducted the domestic enquiry in accordance with principle of natural justice, and
submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding therein the workman concerned as guilty of the
charges.
vi)
The Disciplinary Authority issued a second Show Cause Notice to the workman concerned and supplied the
copy of the said enquiry report.
vii)
That the Disciplinary Authority allowed the workman concerned for personal hearing for his defence .
viii)
Then the workman concerned appeared before the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing
on23.06.2005.
ix)
Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed order of punishment on 25.06.2005 and served the copy of
order on 25.06.2005. .
x)
That thereafter the workman concerned filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of
punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
xi)
That after hearing the workmen concerned the Appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the workman
concerned vide order dated 25.10.2005.
xii)
That the Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enquiry in accordance with principle of natural justice. The
workman concerned participated in the Enquiry along with his defence representative Sri mesh Kumar Das,
Clerk Main Branch, Ranchi.
xiii) That the Management Representative examined Management witness and the Enquiry Officer gave full
opportunity to the workman concerned and hid defence Representative to cross examine the Management
witnesses. The defence Representative cross examined the Management witnesses at length.
xiv)
The Enquiry Officer also allowed the workmen concerned to produce his defence witness. The workman
concerned examined one witness in his defence.
xv)
That the Enquiry Officer afforded full opportunity to the workman concerned during the enquiry to defend
his case.
xvi) That the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.
5.
Furtherin the rejoinder both the parties under reference and the O.P./Management (Bank of India), Jharia
(Dhanbad) filed their pleadings rebutting claims of each other reiterating their stand as fair and proper .
6.
During the course of hearings deposition by the 0.P. /Management side were adduced as MWI on Preliminary
point on 17.04.2014 with following documents which were displayed and exhibited as follows:.
2282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
i)
Ext. M-I relates to the charge sheet dt. 07.12.2004 (in three sheets) issued by Disciplinary Authority
Mr. D.P.Patil .Chief Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Dhanbad to the workman.
ii)
Ext. M-2 stands for enquiry proceedings running into seventy four pages in the pen and signature of the
workman concerned
iii)
Ext. M-3 in relation to written brief summary so submitted by Mr.Muneshwar Ram, a Representative of
the O.P./Management under his own pen and signaturelikewise the workman also filed the brief note of
the case dt.25.04.2005 in eleven sheets under his own pen and signature thereon marked as M-3/ 1.
iv)
M-4 exclusive Enquiry Report covering all the enquiry proceedings of the case under the seal and
signature of the Enquiry Officer therein .
v)
Ext.M-5 represents to the letter dated 07.12.2004 giving specific power to the Enquiry Officer to conduct
the enquiry in the said case apart from appointment of Mr.Muneshwar Rain as Management
Representative to represent the case on behalf of Management.
vi)
Ext.M-6 relating to second show Cause Notice dt.21.06.2005 issued to the workman by the Disciplinary
authority under his signature in two sheets.
vii)
Ext. M-7 denotes the punishment order dated 25.06.2005 consisting of four pages.
viii)
Ext M-8 represents the Appeal dated 25.10.2005 in two sheets preferred by the workman to the Appellate
Authority.
The workman on his testimonial stated that he had all along unblemished service track record .He was
working as Head Peon at the relevant time posted at the Bank of India Jharia An a frivolous charger sheet under
allegation of demanding 1,300/ Rupees in exchange for getting the loan sanctioned a customer namely Meena Devi
was levelled and in a second charge he allegedly demanded Rs,5,000/- from a customer namely Mr. Uttam in
exchange of non-disclosure of facts that that may stand ground for rejection of his application seeking Rs. 50,000/- to
deal in Hardware business. Both of the issues he was charge sheeted and subsequently domestic enquiry was held
holding therein the workman guilty of the charges and, finally the workman was imposed with punishment of
lowering down of two stages in the scale of pay and withdrawing of Head Peon Allowance in a prejudiced and biased
manner.
The Workman ( Srikant Pandey) contended that in his reference to the document which has been the
complainant (Smt. Meena Devi) admitted that she did not complain against the workman in written on the issue of
bribery . Granting loan is the Branch Manager's prerogative. It could not confronted independently. The trial held here
could not do anything of any allegation which could be taken as consideration.
In relation to another charge witness Shri Dilip Kumar Keshri was not called for appearance in the domestic
enquiry. The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner/workman pleaded no relevancy. The 2nd charge of nature resembling the
nature of blackmailing in exchange of some money does not have any basis and throws a great deal of suspicion as
introducing evidence . Sri Dilip Keshri was not called for examination in enquiry .The workman was denied the
opportunity to cross him . So the 2nd charges against the workman does not have any bearing or consequential effect.
7.
The O.P./Management pleading in testimony examined MWI Bharat Kumar Rastogi who testified that said
workman Srikant Pandey was posted as Head Peon at the Bank of India, Jharia Branch, Dhanbad when the charges
had been framed against him on two specific allegation that the workman received bribe of Rs. 1,300/- from Smt.
Meena Devi for total for a sum of Rs. 1,300/ in exchange for getting the rejected loan sanctioned by the Authority
concerned with threat by the workman to then Branch Manager for counter allegation if the workman is not fulfilled,
and secondly Black-mailing the Customer Uttam for payment of Rs. 5,000/ otherwise he would expose the nexus of
the pact between Arrow Industry Owner Dilip Keshri and his compromised settlement to the Branch Manager in
which the application of Uttam for Rs. 50,000/- would be rejected Enquiry Report was submitted containing of
seventy four pages with all the documents as Exhibited. Through the elaborate enquiry proceeding workman was held
guilty of the charges levelled against him with approval of the Competent Authority and the punishment was imposed
upon the workman .
8.
From the enquiry proceedings it is recorded that Ms. Meena Devi did not accuse the workman independently
.There was no material forthcoming to point finger towards the. workman as recipient of bribery. No such materials
surfaced as independent complainant directly accusing the workman,
The 2nd charge brought out by the OP/Management of his involvement which appears based on fictions
does not hold good and merely threatening as nothing concrete has been substantiated to deal with the grounds of
complaints in the charge-sheet. It shows the carelessness on the part of the workman in relation to his work would not
justify serious punishment.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2283
9.
Through the examination of the findings prima fade bribery charge against the petitioner could not be
established for want of any independent evidence in the enquiry. The Enquiry on the preliminary point established as
fair and proper and in accordance with principle of natural justice but workman has scope of being exonerated of the
charges framed as the demand and transaction of bribe has not been exposed. As a matter of fact the punishment
awarded by the O.P./Management appears to be qualifying to be modified in the light of facts that findings of the
enquiry is not logical and conclusive in view of the evidences/proceedings materials available on record, and called
for interference to get justice to the workman as no neutral witness was asked to come and depose . In view of the
above and for the reason stated above that the enquiry itself is not lawful and liable to be quashed and so findings of
the enquiry is not upheld .In consequence the punishment imposed upon the workman cannot be sustained and the
same deserved to set aside for the ends of justice.
10.
In the background of facts and findings mentioned hereinabove the Tribunal hold by exercising the power of
Sec.11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 modifying the impugned order of punishment of the 0.P./Management
(Bank of India), with restoration of the said two stages and "Withdrawal of special pay "Head Peon Allowance" be
taken back to the pay scale of the workman with retrospective date and consequential benefits. The punishment will
be deemed to be set aside from the date the penalty came into force and original status stand restored.
With above direction the Reference is disposed of with further direction to the O.P./Management to comply with
above directives within three months from the date of Notification of this Award after publication in the Gazette of
India.
Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1058.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
ृुंि लॉएड जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िय प्रकाि हसंि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 25/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया
गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-
- (एम)-74]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1058.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Punj
Lloyd Limited and Shri Jai Prakash Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-74]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 25/2021
Date of Passing Order – 22nd March, 2024
Between :-
Punj Lloyed Ltd., at. 335, Ganesh Bhavan,
Kanheipur, Jajpur Road, Jajpur,
Odisha - 746021
… 1st Party-Management.
2284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(And)
Jai Prakash Singh, At. Naglagualariya P.o. Ladpur,
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh - 204101
… 2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), Bhubaneswar vide order No. 8(03)/2020- AGL/Adj-B.II, dated 18.03.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action on the part of management of M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd in terminating the service of
Shri Jaiprakash Singh, Turner (A2) is justified and terminal benefit offered to him is adequate? If not,
what relief the worker is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar 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
each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-workman.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Workman on 20.12.2021 and on dated
06.01.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-
Workman, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Workman. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Workman opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-
Workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Workman has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1059.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससव एचृीसीएल; मेससव माेँ मंगला कंस्ट्रक्िन; आईओटीआई एंड इसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और ईस्ट्ट
ओजडिा ृारािीृ ररफाइनरी वकवसव यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 37/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-30011/69/2017-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 37/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s HPCL; M/s Maa Mangala Construction; IOTI & ECL and East Odisha Paradip Refinery
Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-30011/69/2017– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2285
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 37/2019
Date of Passing Order – 22nd March, 2024
Between :-
1. The Terminal Manager,
M/s. HPCL, Paradip Terminal,
District – Jagatsinghpur (Odisha).
2. M/s. Maa Mangla Construction,
HPCL, Paradip Terminal, Plot No. 457,
Bijaya Chandra Pur, Atharbanki, Paradip – 754 145.
3. The Terminal Manager,
IOTI & ESL, HPCL, Paradip Terminal,
P.B. No. 1010, PPL Township, Paradip,
District – Jagatsinghpur – 754 145.
…
1st Party-Managements.
(And)
The General Secretary, East Odisha Paradeep Refinery
Workers Union, At. Nimidhi, Post. Paradeep Garh,
P.S. Paradeep Lock, District – Jagatsinghpur (Odisha) – 754 141.
… 2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Managements.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-30011/69/2017 – IR(M), dated 25.04.2019 under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,
under the following schedule:-
“Whether the alleged retrenchment of 5 workers and termination of the services of other 18 workmen (list
attached of 23 workmen) w.e.f. 24.05.2017 by M/s. Maa Mangla Construction, Contractor under M/s. IOTI
& ESL as the Principal Employer and Occupier of HPCL, Paradip Terminal, Paradip is fair, legal and
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and what directions (if any) are necessary
in this regard?”
2.
In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New
Delhi 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 each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 29.08.2019, 04.10.2019,
07.01.2020 and on dated 11.02.2020 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article
sent to the 2nd Party-Union, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred to above. It also appears that the 2nd party-Union vide letter
dated 24.09.2019 & 16.03.2020 has stated that they are no more concern with the case. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of
2286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its
behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Managements, it is presumed that there is no claim of Union against the Managements.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1060.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मजक्गाले ृनुमाजतक प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जबजृन जबिारी साहू के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 21/2021) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-
- (एम)-75]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Macgale Pneumatic Private Limited and Shri Bipin Bihari Sahu which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-75]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 21/2021
Date of Passing Order – 22nd March, 2024
Between:-
Mecgale Pneumatic Pvt. Ltd.,
At present NTPC, Po. Deepsikha, Kanhia,
Talcher, Angul, Odisha 759 039
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
Sri Bipin Bihari Sahoo,
At./Po. Jagnnathpur, Dhenkanal, Odisha – 759 039
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2287
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), Bhubaneswar vide order No. 8(08)/2020-AGL (1(17)/2019-B.II/Adj/2021-B.I, dated 19.03.2021 under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication
of a dispute, under the following schedule:-
“Whether the termination of service of workman Shri Bipin Bihari sahhoo by the management of
M/s. Mecgale Pneumatic Pvt. Ltd., through Sub-Contractor M/s. BISI Engineering violating Section 25-F of
Industrial Dispoutes Act, 1947 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar 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
each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-workman.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Workman on 20.12.2021 and on dated
06.01.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-
Workman, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Workman. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Workman opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-
Workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Workman has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1061.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
एचृीसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और आईओसीएल एंड एचृीसीएल ड्राइवसव एंड एम्प्लाइि यूजनयन के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 42/2021) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-
- (एम)-76]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 42/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to HPCL and IOCL & HPCL Drivers & Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-76]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
2288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 42/2021
Date of Passing Order – 22nd March, 2024
Between:-
HPCL, Jatni, Khordha, Odisha – 752 050.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
General secretary, IOCL & HPCL Drivers & Employees Union,
At. Chhanghar, P.O. Kusumati, Via Jatni, Khordha
Odisha – 752 050
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), Bhubaneswar vide order No. 8(01)/2020-B.II/Adj-B.I, dated 08.06.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management M/s. Universal Mechanical, the new contractor of HPCL, Jatni in
not offering employment to the experienced workman Shri Satyabrata Jena who was working in the
establishment of the old contractor just fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar 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 each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 20.12.2021 and on dated
03.04.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union,
referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the
period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served
upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2289
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1062.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
िीवीवी कंस्ट्रक्िंस (ृी) जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री केिारना बेिेरा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 26/2021) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-
- (एम)-77]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 26/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to GVV Constructions (P) Ltd. and Shri Kedarnath Behera which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-77]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 26/2021
Date of Passing Order – 22nd March, 2024
Between:-
GVV Constructions (P) Limited, Contractor At. Railway
12-13-1085/59, Road No. 11, Sai Nagar Colony, Tarnaka
Secunderabad, Angul, Odisha – 751 020.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
Shri Kedarnath Behera, Fr. 71/3, Housing Board Colony,
Phase-II, Chandasekharpur Colony,
Bhubaneswar, Khordha, Odisha – 751 020.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
2290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Bhubaneswar vide order No. 8(542)/2019-B.II/Adj/2021-B.I, dated 29.01.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the following
schedule:-
“Whether Shhri Kedarnath Beheera, project Manager is coming under the purview of workman under
sect. 2(s) (iii) of I.D. Act, 1947, or not?
Whether the demand of Shri Kedarnath Behera Project Manager of M/s. GVV Construction Pvt. Ltd., Contractor,
for reinstatement with back wages is legal and or justified/ if not what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar 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 each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-workman.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Workman on 20.12.2021 and on dated
06.01.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-
Workman, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Workman. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Workman opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-
Workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Workman has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1063.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससव राउरकेला स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और गंगृुर मज़िूर मंच के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 58/2019) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल-26011/8/2019-
- (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 58/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL and Gangpur Mazdoor Manch which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-26011/8/2019– IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2291
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 58/2019
Date of Passing Order – 22nd March, 2024
Between :-
The Chief Executive Officer,
M/s. Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL,
Rourkela, District – Sundargarh, Odisha,
Pin – 769 011.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
The General Secretary, Gangpur Mazdoor Monch,
Qrts. No. E/113, Sector – 8,
Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha, Pin – 769 011.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-26011/8/2019 – IR(M), dated 14.10.2019 under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,
under the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL, Rourkela in terminating the services
of the workman, Shri Jugal Kumar Tete by way of removal vide order dated 04.02.2015 based on
the proceedings of domestic enquiry is proper legally justified and proportionate to the gravity of the
charges? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New
Delhi 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 each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 11.02.2020 and on dated
03.04.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union,
referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away
from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not
interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
2292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required ection 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1064.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक 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 (76/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/33/2019-
- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 76/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/33/2019– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL JUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No.76 of 2019
Ref. No.L-12011/33/2019-IT (B-II) dated 25.9.2019
Assistant General Secretary,
Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P.
117/342, Plot No.44, LIC Society,
Sharda Nagar, Kanpur
-----Applicant
Versus
1. The Chief General Manager,
Punjab National Bank
HRD, Human Resource Development Division,
Corporate Head Office, Sector-10, Dwarika,
New Delhi;
2. The General Secretary,
All India PNB Employee Federation,
47, Nehru Nagar, Model Town,
Ludhiana;
3. The Convenor,
PNB Progressive Employees Association,
E-5/146, Rajajipurum, Lucknow
----Respondents
AWARD
Background of the case:
On 25.9.2019 the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947) referred following industrial dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication which reads as follows :-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2293
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank of non-conducting IRM meeting with the
majority union PNB Staff Association in Uttar Pradesh is illegal and unjustified in the eye of law or not?”
Whether the PNB Staff Association is entitled to conduct IRM meeting with the management of Punjab
National Bank? If, so to what relief the concerned union is entitled to?”
In response to the said reference, on 18.12.2019 the claimant filed their claim statement before this Tribunal.
An application was moved by the claimant praying that the claim statement filed by them may be dismissed as not
pressed and the claimant be allowed to file fresh claim statement.
This Tribunal allowed the same, on 18.12.2019 and the claimant filed another claim statement supported by an
affidavit, also moved an application for stay.
On 28.1.2021 this Tribunal passed an interim award, reproduced herein below:-
“The workmen’s union has filed application, W-12 for interim award duly supported with an affidavit,
wherein the applicant union has submitted that the management is adopting unfair labour practice by not
holding IRM meeting with it, being majority union and has prayed that the management be directed not to
hold IRM meetings with any other union, except the applicant union. The management has filed written
objection, M-13 to the workmen union’s application, however, no affidavit has been filed in support of the
objection.
I have heard the President of the workmen’s union and Sri Neeraj Sharma, advocate for the management at
length and perused the file.
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank of non-conducting IRM meeting
with the majority union PNB Staff Association in Uttar Pradesh is illegal and unjustified in the eye
of law or not?”
Whether the PNB Staff Association is entitled to conduct IRM meeting with the management of
Punjab National Bank? If, so to what relief the concerned union is entitled to?”
The management of the Bank has opposed the application of the workmen’s union on two grounds; firstly,
the relief sought by the applicant union cannot be granted, because it will amount to deciding the reference
and secondly, in the compromise/settlement executed before Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner dated
23.10.2019 in this respect, there is mention of meetings only and not IRM meeting.
Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 reads as under:
2(b)
“award” means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any
question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal
and includes an arbitration award made under section 10A;
The reading of the provision quoted above, itself shows that the Award can be final or interim; hence, the
first objection of the management is liable to be rejected and the same is rejected accordingly.
As regards second objection photocopy of the settlement dated 23.10.2019 reached between the parties
before Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner(C), Kanpur, which is on record reads as follows:
“23rd Oct., 2019 K7(26)/2019 C.1
Present: Shri Arvind Idewar,Sr Manager HR, PNB, RO, Kanpur
Shri Sanjay Trivedi, Dy. Gen Secretary, PNB Staff Association.
The matter has been discussed at length with the representative of the both the parties. After
prolong discussions and suggestions by the Conciliation Officer both the parties are agreed to enter
into an amicable settlement and agreed to abide the same with a view to resolve the issue amicably
on following terms of settlement.
1. That the management of PNB agreed to redress the grievance of PNB Staff Association and
will hold the meeting with them periodically.
2. That, the PNB Staff Association will submit a list of agenda item of the management of PNB
will in advance once a quarter for bipartite discussions to resolve the issues if any.
With the above, Union agreed to withdraw the complaint submitted against the management of
PNB. The first meeting will be schedule in the month of November, 2019 and further in an interval
of 3 months.
-Sd/-
Dy. CLC (C,Kanpur
2294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the above quoted settlement, no difference in ‘meeting’ and ‘IRM Meeting’ has been made and
the management failed to distinguish the same in its objection: and secondly, from perusal of the
settlement itself discloses that the word ‘meeting’ used in the settlement reefers to IRM meeting
only, as it states that the applicant union shall submit a list of agenda items in advance once in a
quarter for bipartite discussions.
Furthermore, it is not disputed by management that the applicant union is majority union: hence, as per the
settlement , any IRM meeting is be held with the applicant union, which holds majority membership.
Unfair labour practices:
“4 To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating against any
workman, that is to say-
(a) Discharging or punishing a workman , because he urged other workmen to join or organize a
trade union;
(b) Discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike(not being a strike which is
deemed to be an illegal strike under the Act);
Unfair labour practices, given fifth schedule, one of which is promoting union of its choice by the
management and discouraging the union which does not take interest in acting as per directives of the
management of the bank in not holding IRM meetings with majority union, which is the applicant union,
amounts to unlawful labour practices and the same require to be checked.
Accordingly, setting aside the objections of the management, the application of the applicant union is
allowed and the management of the bank is directed to hold IRM meetings with the applicant union; and they
are further restrained from holding meeting with any other union applicant union, till disposal of the present
industrial dispute. The applicant W-12 of the workmen’s union is disposed of accordingly.
List on 22.02.2021 for written statement of defence by the management of the Bank.”
Interim award was challenged by the respondent no. 3 by filing a Writ Petition No.4987 (MS) of 2021 (The General
Secretary Punjab Progressive Employees Association Versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal,
Lucknow & others) before the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The Hon’ble High Court vide its
order dated 2.7.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition, reads as under:-
“Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.
Sri I.M.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has raised preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition. He states that this second writ petition has been filed for the same cause
of action. He pointed out that one Writ Petition No.38169 (MB) of 2018 was filed by the petitioners
challenging the order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner during conciliation proceedings on
07.12.2018 the writ petition earlier filed has been withdrawn without seeking liberty by this Court to file
second writ petition. Now second writ petition is filed for the same cause of action.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out para-19 of the supplementary affidavit wherein it has
been stated that Writ Petition No.38169 (MB) of 2018 was filed against initiation and continuation of
conciliation proceeding between the parties as there was no provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act that
such conciliation proceedings could be initiated in a dispute relating to two Associations of employees. The
said petition remain pending without interim order. Later on, the conciliation proceedings failed between the
parties and the dispute was referred for adjudication on merit to the labour court. The writ petition
No.38169 (MB) of 2018 became infructuous and therefore it was withdrawn.
The reference order which has been passed on 25.9.2019 by respondent no.5 has been challenged in the
instant writ petition on the ground that it is passed without jurisdiction. There is no such provision in the
Industrial Disputes Act for referring the dispute between two employees Union to the Labour Court.
Having considered the arguments raised by the parties, this Court is of the opinion no writ petition is
maintainable against an Interim Award passed by the Presiding Officer, therefore, this writ petition cannot
be entertained. However, certain arguments have been raised by the writ petitioner regarding the denial of
opportunity of hearing and pointing out perversity in the Interim Award which refers to opposite party no.2
is majority Union being admitted as majority Union by the bank. It has been submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that perversity in the interim award shall effect the right of the petitioner to place his case
before the Labour Court effectively.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party no.1 to give appropriate opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner to place its objections and to consider such objections while passing the final
award. It shall be open for the petitioner to point out the perversity if any, in the Interim Award at final
hearing before final award, if passed by opposite party no.1
It is provided further that petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments to delay the hearing of the
Reference before opposite party no.1.”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2295
At this stage it is also relevant to state that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings i.e. prior to passing of
reference order the Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association i.e. respondent no.3 filed a Writ
Petition No.38169 (MB) of 2018 (Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association & others Vs. Union of
India & others) before the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow .
In the said writ petition, after institution of present case, an Application No.114677 of 2019, filed and on the said
application an order dated 27.9.2019, passed, quoted below:-
“Hon’ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
(C.M.Application No.114677 of 2019)
The application has been filed for withdrawal of the writ petition.
The application is allowed.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
Case of the Claimant:
In brief the case set up by the claimant i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, UP (hereinafter referred to as
‘claimant’) in the claim petition is as under:-
i)
The issue of constitution and mechanism for resolving the grievances of the Bank Employees through its
Unions came to be considered in the Shastri Award made in the year 1953 which also mentioned that All
India Bank Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIBEA’) existed at the National Level and
Uttar Pradesh Bank Employees Union was existing in the State of U.P., he UPBEU and its constituents at
all India Level and in case of U.P. the UPBEU and its constituents union should be recognized.
ii)
The Ministry of Labour, Government of India also issued code of discipline for recognition of Union by
the Management and provided that the Union with the largest membership is entitled to be recognised.
iii)
At the National Level, the AIBEA is existing having its own rules and bye-laws whereunder, AIBEA
consists of affiliated organization. In the 25th Conference held in November 2004, the AIBEA has
decided that All India Bankwise Organizations, shall provide a clause in their rules that they will give
affiliation only to those Unions which are affiliated to State Organization of AIBEA. The bye-laws of
AIBEA further provides that all decisions of AIBEA are duly binding on all units, State, Federations, All
India Bankwise Organizations and based Unions. Bye-laws 10(a)(iv) further provides that All India
Bankwise Federations shall consist of Unions which are duly affiliated to the respective State
Organizations of AIBEA and vice-versa.
iv)
As per the bye-laws of AIBEA, the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) is affiliated to it and
the U.P. Bank Employees Union is the State Organization of AIBEA in State of U.P. and the Punjab
National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) is also affiliated to the National Organization as well as the State
Organization and in this regard, the letter has also been issued by AIBEA recognizing the Punjab
National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) as the only Union of the employees of Punjab National Bank in
the State of U.P.
v)
State wise Unions of employees of having coming together and constituted the Federation of the Punjab
National Bank just like Federations at the central level of other Banks have been constituted from the
base Unions of their employees of different States.
vi)
AIBEA exist at the Central Level. In the year 1985 the U.P. Bank Employees Union was the unitary sole
body for representing the cause of employees of different Banks in the State of U.P. However, in view of
the requirements of the AIBEA, the Unions of different Banks got themselves registered as separate
entities under the Trade Unions Act 1926.
vii)
In such view of the bye-laws of AIBEA as well as the resolution passed by the U.P. Bank Employees
Union, the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) got itself registered on 22.8.1986, under the
Trade Unions Act, and ever since thereafter, the registration of the Punjab National Bank Staff
Association (U.P.) has been renewed time to time.
viii) In the State of U.P. the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) was the only Union having the
right to raise the grievance of the employees of the Punjab National Bank and had been the Chief
Constituent of All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) and recognized as
such. As it had more than 80% employees of the Bank as its members and in view of the settlements
reached between the Bank and the AIPNBEF, the method of holding of IRM meetings was evolved to
settle out the grievances of the employees at the Circle/Zonal level and it is the Punjab National Bank
2296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Staff Association (U.P.) which for the last about 34 years as PNBSAUP and prior to that as UPBEU has
been participating in the IRM being held by the Bank and for ventilating the grievance of the employees
of the Bank.
ix)
All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation is also a registered body having recognition being
constituent body of AIBEA having its own bye-laws, which provides for affiliation of its Base Unions.
Under the bye-laws, the mechanism has been provided for suspending the affiliation of the affiliated
Unions and the procedure has been provided that if the Union is aggrieved by the decision, it may raise its
grievance further before the Central Committee of the Federation and ultimately before the general body
of the Federation. In the bye-laws of AIPNBEF there exists no provision to de-affiliate a Union rather
only the affiliation can be suspended.
x)
In the present case, the AIPNBEF without giving any opportunity or notice to the Punjab National Bank
Staff Association (U.P.) and without passing any order for either suspending the affiliation or
disaffiliating the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) proceeded to affiliate the Punjab
National Bank Progressive Employees Association for the employees of State of U.P. ignoring
completely that the Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association, nearly has 10%
employees of the Bank as its members.
xi)
In an arbitrary manner, the All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) not only
proceeded to affiliate the Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association in contravention of
its own bye-laws but the PNB also proceeded to issue letter on 1.8.2018 to extend the facility of IRM
meetings through the Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association without assigning any
reason as to why the Punjab National Bank Staff Association, (U.P.) which have been attending the IRM
meetings for the last more than 35 years has been deprived of the same.
xii)
In such manner, the employer i.e. the Bank proceeded to adopt unfair labour practice adversely affecting
the service conditions of the Bank Employees which are members of the Punjab National Bank Staff
Association (U.P.) compelling the Punjab National Bank Staff Association to give strike notice under
Section 22(1) on 10.10.2018.
xiii) After the Shastri Award the Bi-partite settlements have been executed governing the service conditions of
the bank employees and in the matter of disciplinary proceedings it has been provided that the defence
representative shall be the office bearer of the registered union to which employee is the member.
Depriving the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) from attending IRM thus amounts to
changing the service condition of the employees.
xiv) Upon receipt of the strike notice, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow proceeded to
institute the conciliation proceedings and issued notices to the parties, despite the fact that the conciliation
proceedings were pending but yet the Punjab National Bank in an illegal manner proceeded to hold the
IRM meetings in November 2018 with the Punjab National Progressive Employees Association despite
the fact that Section 33 of the Act 1947 mandates that upon institution of conciliation proceeding, the
service conditions of the employees shall not be altered. In such circumstances, the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow issued the letter on 7.12.2018 and while exercising its powers under
Section 33, advised the Punjab National Bank that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings,
such activities either by the opposite party should not be carried out.
xv)
The Bank had complied with the advisory issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Lucknow and issued the letter on 14.12.2018 to the Zonal Manager of all the Zonal Offices operating in
the State of U.P., not to hold the Zonal IRM meeting with the Punjab National Bank Progressive
Employees Association till further instructions.
xvi) Since the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) has not been permitted to participate in IRM
meetings of the Bank held on 17.11.2018, the grievances of more than 80% employees of the Bank who
are members of the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) is yet to be resolved and pending
decision at different circles levels, thus affecting the service conditions of the members of the Punjab
National Bank Staff Association (U.P.).
xvii)
Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association, U.P. for the first time was registered on
25.9.2018 and as such, it cannot be said that it is the majority Association of the employees of the Punjab
National Bank, which is also evident from the fact that the Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees
Association has also filed its reply on 25.12.2018 before th Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Lucknow admitting that as on 17.11.2018, the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) has the
membership of 72.38% of the clerical and subordinate employees in Punjab National Bank, Uttar Pradesh
meaning hereby it is admitted by the Bank that Punjab National Bank Staff Association is the only Union
having the majority of its employees and the members and hence, the facility of IRM meetings would not
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2297
have been withdrawn. Before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow on behalf of
claim, the detailed claim was raised by the letter dated 7.2.2019.
In support of contentions, the claimant along with their claim statement filed the Photostat copies of certain
documents, some of them which are necessary for disposal of controversy involved in the present case are
mentioned herein below:
i)
Extract of Shastri Award;
ii)
Extract of Code of Discipline issued in the year 1958;
iii)
Bye-laws of AIBEA;
iv)
Letter dated 25.9.2018;
v)
Last Renewal Letter dated 1.12.2018 of Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.);
vi)
Registered Bye-laws of Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.);
vii)
Extract of bye-laws of AIPNBEF;
viii)
Strike Notice dated 10.10.2018;
ix)
Letter dated 14.12.2018;
x)
Order dated 27.9.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court;
xi)
Minutes of last IRM meeting dated 19.5.2018 with the participation of the Punjab National Bank
Staff Association (U.P.);
xii)
Reply dated 25.12.2018;
xiii)
Letter dated 7.2.2019.
On the basis of above said averments and documents the claimant prayed that the reference be decided in
their favour and the forum should be provided to Punjab national bank Staff Association (U.P.) only in all the Four
Zones of rating in U.P. as the full majority Union of State/Zone/Circle entitled to hold that IRM meetings with the
Punjab National Bank.
Case of the Respondent No.1:
On 17.2.2022 Punjab National Bank i.e. respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) filed their written
statement supported by an affidavit, categorically denying averments, as pleaded by the claimant in their claim
statement. In addition thereto, the Bank averred additional pleas, in brief they are as under :-
i)
The instant proceeding have been initiated pursuant to the letter dated 25.9.2019 whereby in exercise of
powers conferred by the Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947, the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication which is as
under:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank of non-conducting IRM meeting
with the majority union PNB Staff Association in Uttar Pradesh is illegal and unjustified in the eye
of law or not?”
“Whether the PNB Staff Association is entitled to conduct IRM meeting with the management of
PNB?, if so to what relief the concerned union is entitled to?”
ii)
This Tribunal decided the whole issue in form of interim award which is not just and proper in the eyes of
law and publication of same also not done in Gazette as decided issue.
iii)
As per schedule of reference award applicant union demand is without any basis, moreover as per provision
of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 it is a dispute between two Unions i.e. PNB Staff Association and PNB
Progressive Employees Association.
iv)
The Interim award was passed after referring to the alleged settlement dated 23.10.2019 in the Application
No.K:7(26)/2019/C-1 before Dy.CLC(C), Kanpur wherein Management Representative, agreed and signed
the minutes of conciliation dated 23.10.2019, stating therein, to redress the grievance of PNB Staff
Association. Management Representative under the undue pressure of PNBSA Union, without having
knowledge of the fact that once Dispute No.LKO-7(1-5)/2018 wherein FoC was recorded by RLC(C),
Lucknow on 25.7.2019 has been referred to CGIT, Lucknow on 25.9.2019 and the same is pending for
adjudication agreed to the effect that Management will hold ‘meeting’ with PNB Staff Association,
periodically but not IRM meeting as the IRM meetings have its own genesis in the Memorandum of
2298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Settlement was arrived at between the management of PNB and All India Punjab National Bank
Employees’ Federation (AIPNBEF).
v)
A Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.10.1974 was arrived at between the Management of PNB and All
India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation (AIPNBEF) for creation of Industrial Relations
Machinery, wherein it was agreed upon to resolve the dispute, a machinery consisting of representative (not
exceeding three) of the units of the Federation and the Management shall be constituted, which shall meet
once in eight weeks at all the regional/departmental levels. PNBSA (U.P.) was affiliation of Federation i.e.
AIPNBEF, therefore, in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 1.1.11.183, the meetings were held
with PNBSA (U.P.) but AIPNBEF through their letter dated 28.5.2018 informed the bank about withdrawal
of their affiliation to PNBSA (U.P.).
vi)
Vide its letter dated 3.7.2018 the AIPNBEF requested the Bank to extend the facility of IRM meetings to
the Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees’ Association, U.P. which is a registered unit
(Registration No.10175) in terms of the memorandum settlement signed by and between the management
of PNB & AIPNBEF dated 1.11.1983.
vii)
In this regard an Industrial Dispute No.LKO-7(1-5)/2018 was filed by PNBSA before the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow as regards holding of IRM meeting in the State of Uttar Pradesh
wherein after several rounds of deliberations, failure of Conciliation (FoC) was recorded on 25.7.2019.
Thereafter vide order dated 25.9.2019 having reference No.L-12011/33/2019, Ministry of Labour referred
the matter for adjudication to this Tribunal.
viii)
In order to fulfil their ulterior motive, PNBSA filed Industrial Dispute No.K:7(26)/2019/C-1 before
Dy.CLC(C) Kanpur on 30.7.2019 wherein while acting like a compulsive litigant, various issues including
that of IRM were raised for conciliation discussions. The conciliation discussion was held on several dates
and on 26.9.2019 it was recorded by the Dy. CLC(C) in the proceeding that ‘………… the Union
representative has withdrawn all points of their charter of demands with a liberty to file fresh industrial
dispute relating to other issue separately except the issue of IRM. The management of PNB submitted that
they will take concurrence from their head office in regard to allowing the present union (PNBSA) for IRM
and only after due approval they will allow.’ However, in this regard, no concurrence was ever provided
from the Head office for allowing IRM with PNBSA Union.
ix)
Despite having knowledge of the fact, on the same issue vide order dated 25.9.2019 having reference no.L-
12011/33/2019, Ministry of Labour has already referred the matter for adjudication to this Tribunal and no
settlement in this regard in the State of U.P. can be reach out, settlement was signed before Dy. CLC(C),
Kanpur on 23.10.2019 wherein without having the concurrence of Head office, management representative
was forced to sign upon the notes of conciliation. Thereafter, it was decided to move an Application dated
31.10.2019 before Dy.CLC(C), Kanpur for necessary advisory/rectification in the minutes of conciliation
proceedings held on 23.10.2019 which was duly received and acknowledged by the office of Dy. CLC(C),
Kanpur on 31.10.2019. The said fact was also brought to the knowledge of PNBSA through letter dated
7.11.2019 wherein it was informed that since Bank has filed an application dated 31.10.2019 before Dy.
CLC(C), Kanpur, it is advisable to wait for the outcome of directions of Dy. CLC(C), Kanpur. Till date no
reply from the office of Dy. CLC(C), Kanpur is received.
x)
Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment and order dated 8.10.2009 passed in W.P. No.11988/2009 (All
India Punjab National Bank Workers Federation Vs. Punjab National Bank) has upheld as under:-
“It is not open for him to challenge the impugned settlement in writ proceedings. Even otherwise
the petitioner being the minority union has no locus standi to challenge the impugned settlement
arrived at between the management of Punjab National Bank and the majority union. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in the case of Chairman SBI & another Vs. All Orissa State Bank Officers
Association & others reported in JT 2002(4) SC 537 that right to participate in
discussions/negotiations regarding general issues affecting all employees and settlement, if any,
arrived at as a result of such discussions/negotiations which is binding on all employees is available
only to a majority union. In view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in
holding that the petitioner being the minority union representing only 3.26% workers of clerical
cadre has no locus standi to challenge the settlement dated 13.10.2008 arrived at between the
employer and the majority union of workers.”
xi)
As on 19.1.2022 PNB Staff Association U.P. has a membership of 3302 of workmen employees and
PNBPEA, U.P. has membership of 3997 workmen employees working in PNB in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. As such, PNBPEA has a majority status in the State of U.P. and interim award was passed
without having complete knowledge of the factual aspects as on date, therefore, interim award dated
28.1.2021 passed by CGIT, Lucknow is fit to be modified.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2299
xii)
Discussions were held with All India Punjab National Bank Employee’s Federation in the context of
Industrial Relations Machinery set up in the respondent bank in 1974 by the said settlement. It was assured
by the Federation at that time for efficient and smooth functioning of the Bank, the Federation shall
emphasize the need to inculcate a better sense of discipline and responsibility among the employees. As a
result of detailed discussions, a settlement was arrived at with the Federation on 1.11.1983 in which it was
decided that :-
“In case of any grievance or a feeling that the Manager has acted beyond the rules, the matter shall
be discussed by the aggrieved person/president and/or unit Secretary of the branch with the Branch
Manager. However, the employee will refrain from recourse to mass assembly/deputation on the
branch manager and other officers of the bank.
In the event of any grievance not being at the branch level, the unit may take it up with the
State/Regional body which may in turn take it up with the Regional Managers in IRM.”
xiii) As per memorandum of settlement of 1974 and 1983, it is agreed upon to conduct the IRMs with
AIPNBEF and its affiliated units. The memorandum of settlement has no mention of majority of any
union in State/District/Circle/Zone for conducting IRM. In terms of the memorandum of settlement
dated 1.11.1983, the PNB Staff Association, U.P. being the then Unit/affiliate association was
periodically conducting IRM meeting with the Regional Managers/ Circle Heads/Zonal Managers in
U.P.
xiv) The PNB Staff Association U.P. was unit/affiliate of the Federation i.e. All India PNB Employees
Federation, therefore in terms of settlement dated 1.11.1983 the meetings were held with PNB SA, U.P.
but AIPNBEF through their letter dated 28.5.2018 informed the Bank about the withdrawal of their
affiliation to PNBSA UP and vide letter dated 3.7.2018 AIPNBEF requested the Bank to extend the
facility of IRM meeting to PNB PEA U.P. in terms of the settlement signed by and between the
management of PNB and AIPNBEF dated 1.11.1983.
xv)
The respondent bank vide letter dated 1.8.2018 informed the Zonal Managers of Lucknow, Agra and
Meerut that PNB Progressive Employees’ Association, U.P. has been granted affiliation by AIPNBEF,
as a state affiliate in U.P. and requested to extend the facility of Zonal level IRM to PNB Progressive
Employees’ Association and also to advise all the circle offices under their jurisdiction to extend the
facility of circle IRM meeting to the said Association with immediate effect.
xvi) Since the PNB PEA is a registered unit of AIPNBEF and the PNBSA (U.P.) is no longer a unit of
federation, the instructions to extend the facility of Zonal/circle level IRM to PNBPEA State affiliate of
AIPNBEF in U.P. vide letter dated 1.8.2018 was in terms of the said settlement dated 1.11.1983 signed
by the Bank with the Federation i.e. IRM is conducted with the units of Federation.
Case of Respondent No.2:
On behalf of respondent no.2 i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation, the written statement was filed on 1.2.2022, in
brief it is pleaded as under:-
i)
Being an all India majority Federation/union, AIPNBEF’s nominated workman employee is appointed
on the Board of Directors of the bank, as workman employee Director, in terms of clause (e) of Sub-
Section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act
1970/1980, read with the Sub-clause (1) & (2) of Clause 9 of the Nationalized Banks (Management &
Miscellaneous Provision(s) Scheme 1970/1980, by the GOI/MOF. There is well defined set up over
holding of Industrial Relations Machinery Meetings in PNB, in terms of Bilateral Settlements, signed by
an between the Management of PNB and AIPNBEF, (being the majority Federation/Union), dated
31.10.1974, 01.11.1983 and 13.9.2013.
ii)
In terms of said settlements, Industrial relation machinery meetings are held with the Federation and its
state units/affiliates, at the corporate level and at all circles, at regular intervals and minutes are
signed/exchanged. By the dint of Settlements, PNBPEA (U.P.), being the state unit of AIPNBEF is
holding IRM meetings with the Circle Heads in the State of U.P. vide HRMD/Head Office, Punjab
National Bank letter/Mail No.HRMD/IR/2805/PG dated 1.8.2018.
iii)
After decentralization of administrative set up of the Bank and creation of Zonal Offices, it was
bilaterally agreed by and between the Management of PNB and AIPNBEF to introduce/create forum of
Zonal IRM meetings and a reference in-re, be made to Personnel Division/H.O., Circular letter to the
Zonal Managers dated 1.9.1989 and 2nd PAD/HO circular letter No.11/13 dated 12.9.2013 and
accordingly Zonal IRM Meetings at Zonal Office level are held with AIPNBEF and its state units and
minutes are exchanged.
2300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iv)
All discussions/settlements, in relation to recruitment, manpower, transfers policies, elevation to the
Special pay, Carrying posts, promotion from sub-ordinate to clerical and clerical to JMG Scale I, fitment
of their salaries, etc. are invariably negotiated/signed by and between the Management of PNB and
AIPNBBEF, being a majority Federation/Union for the last more than four decades.
v)
In terms of understanding between the management of PNB and AIPNBEF, Office Bearers and Central
Committee Members of AIPNBEF and Presidents and General Secretaries of its state units, are extended
facilities of 7 days special/organization, leaves, in a year, a reference in re, be made to HRDD/HO
circular letter dated 11.12.2013 and accordingly the facility of 7 days special leave is availed by Sri K.K.
Mishra (Spl. Assistant), Vide HRMD/HO letter No.HRMD:IR: 2805/PG dated July 18,2018.
vi)
A letter no.HRMD:IR:2805:PG dated 8.2.2021 from the Deputy General Manager-HRMD/Head Office,
Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, was written confirming that PNBPEA-UP is representing majority
Workman Employees/Staff in the State of U.P.
vii) The Management of PNB, also hold structured meetings, at regular intervals, with the representative of
AIPNBEF, in the Cor Working Group Meetings, on employee’s Welfare Schemes, at corporate level
and its state units at the Zonal and circle level, to say Customer Service Committee meetings
(31.1.2017), IT Steering Committee Meetings (13.4.2010), Supervisory Committees on Holidays
Homes (5.2.2013), Supervisory Committee at Zonal Training Centres (5.10.2013), etc. and the minutes
of the same are signed/exchanged.
viii) In terms of bilateral understandings/settlements, between the Management of PNB and AIPNBEF (being
all India representative/majority Federation/Union), the Notice Boards of the state units of the AIPNBEF
to say in the State of U.P., PNB Progressive Employees Association are installed in all branches and
offices of the bank et. all. In this regard a circular no.1109 dated 30.9.1988 and Circular No.125 dated
4.1.2003 are referred. Alike facilities are also provided by the PNB management, to the
majority/representative Officers’ organization namely: All India PNB Officers Association (AIPNBOA)
and its circle units at the corporate level, zonal and circle level and not to the minority officers’
Federation (AIPNBOF) in PNB.
ix)
Most importantly, irrefutably, Mr. M.M.Rai, General Secretary, PNBSA (U.P.), the plaintiff union, is
also General Secretary of All India Federation of Punjab National Bank Employees (AIFPNBE) and
both are rival organizations to AIPNBEF and its state units, in PNB. It was principally decided by the
leadership of PNBSA, U.P. to form a union parallel to AIPNBEF in PNB, in their meting held at Delhi
on 12.5.2018 and the said Federation (AIFPNBE) was formally launched on 17.6.2018, having its
Central Office at Agra and a reference may be made in relation to the formation AIFPNBE vide its
circular no.3/18 dated 19.6.2018 and the said Federation may represent even less than 10% of the
workmen in PNB. AIFPNBE also started floating its state units parallel to the state units of AIPNBFE
and its state units, activities affiliation to J&K State Union dated 23.7.2018.
x)
In PNB other than the representative/majority Federation (Aall India PNB Employees Federation),
which represents 80% of the workman staff in PNB there are 5-6 minority Federations/Associations and
none of these represents 5-6% of the workman staff in PNB and one or two may be having even less
than 1% of the membership of workman staff.
xi)
In the Statement of Claim filed by PNBSA, U.P. Leadership of PNBSA (U.P.) has deliberately
concealed/distorted material facts to say that the referred settlement in the Statement of Claim dated
1/11/1983 with the majority union is none other than All India PNB Employees Federation, with whom
PNBSA-U.P. has no relation. PNBSA, U.P. is only a state union and part of All India Federation of
PNB Employees (a Minority All India Union) and accordingly, PNBSA-U.P. and AIFPNBE are rival
unions to AIPNBEF and its state units, to say in the state of U.P., PNBPEA, U.P.
xii) PNBSA (U.P.) a unit of AIFPNB Employees, has no locus standi, in terms of settlements dated
31.10.1974, 01.11.1983 and 13.9.2013 signed by an between the Management of PNB and AIPNBEF
(Majority Workman Staff Organization) and/or any valid, lawful claim to demand Forum of IRM
meeting, in PNB, at any level and we would request in all humility that the claim of PNBSA, U.P. may
filed, in reference to the stated facts and rules/documents.
xiii) Till June 2018, in the State of U.P., Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. was affiliated with All
India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation, an all India body, therefore, applicant/claimant
union was conducting IRM meetings and discussions with Bank Management. Thereafter in the year
2018, the Punjab National Bank, Progressive Employee Association came into existence and the same is
registered under the Trade Union Act 1926 bearing Registration No.10175 of 2018-19 in the State of
U.P. and has been granted affiliation by the Central Committee of All India Punjab National Bank
Employees Federation in its meeting dated 1.7.2018.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2301
xiv) After affiliation of Punjab National Bank, Progressive Employee Association with the Central
Association/Federation a request was made to the Corporate Management of PNB at New Delhi that at
Zonal/Circle level IRM meetings should be conducted with the Punjab National Bank, Progressive
Employee Association(PNBPEA) vide letter dated 3.7.2018 send by the General Secretary of All India
Punjab National Bank Employees Federation. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, vide letter dated 1.8.2018
the General Secretary of the Federation was informed by the Bank authorities i.e. Deputy General
Manager, Human Resource Management Division that necessary directions for holding IRM meeting
with the PNBPEA has been issued.
xv)
Vide letter dated 18.9.2018, the Deputy General Manager, Human Resource Management Division,
PNB Head Office, New Delhi had clarified the position that earlier PNBPEA was the affiliate unit of
State of U.P., however, thereafter vide letter dated 1.8.2018 the facility of the IRM has been extended to
PNBPEA which is the State affiliate of Federation. It was further clarified in the said letter that PNB
Staff Association, U.P. is no more the State affiliate of All India Punjab National Bank Employees
Federation and State affiliate of majority workmen Federation in PNB is Punjab National Bank
Progressive Employee Association.
xvi) The claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. which is not a affiliated unit of All
India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation in order to hamper the peaceful functioning of the
Association/Federation camouflaged and misused the provisions of law. The aforesaid claimant union
i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. issued a notice under Section 22(1) of Industrial
Disputed Act for strike to the Bank. The claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association,
U.P. is not an affiliate of the Central Federation is itself clear from its Letter Head wherein it has
mentioned itself to have been affiliated with some UPBEU.
xvii)
The claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. had approached the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) and Conciliation Officer, Lucknow for alleged complaint against the
Bank to allow it to conduct the IRM Meetings even after its de-affiliation from All India Punjab
National Bank Employees Federation on July, 2018.
xviii)
A perusal of the complaint made by the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association,
U.P. makes it clear that the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. had not
raised any industrial dispute before the authority and in the garb of the industrial dispute the claimant
union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. seeks a declaration for itself to be declared itself
as State affiliate of the National Federation. As per the settlement the management of the Bank is
obliged to conduct the IRM meeting with the State affiliates of the National Federation. Once the
claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. is not an authorized neither State
affiliate of the National Federation, it cannot demand the facility of IRM meeting to be extended to it.
Thus in the garb of the industrial dispute it seeks a declaration for itself.
xix) The dispute raised by the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. itself was not
an industrial dispute in view of the provisions of Section 2 (K) of the Industrial Dispute Act. As the
dispute at hand which in fact a dispute with regard to determination/declaration of actual State affiliate
of the National Federation is neither a dispute between the employer and employer or between employer
and workmen or between workmen to workmen, which is connected with the employment or non
employment or the term of the employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.
xx) After receiving the notice dated 23.10.2018 the All India PNB Employee Federation is the actual State
affiliate of All India Federation and the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P.
has no locus to file the instant complaint.
xxi) The Punjab National Bank had also submitted its reply before conciliation authority and supported the
contentions of the All India PNB Employee Federation and specifically admitted that All India PNB
Employee Federation is presently affiliated with the All India Federation.
xxii)
After completion of conciliation proceeding, the alleged dispute was referred to the Learned Labour
Court for adjudication vide reference order dated 25.9.2019 the schedule of reference is mentioned
hereinafter:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank of non-conducting IRM meetings
with the majority Union PNB Staff Association in Uttar Pradesh is illegal and unjustified in the eyes
of law or not?
Whether the PNB Staff Association is entitled to conduct IRM meetings with the management of
Punjab National Bank? If, so what relief the concerned union is entitled to?
2302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xxiii)
After receipt of the reference order, the notices were issued to the parties and resultantly the summon
dated 19.12.2019 was received at the office of All India PNB Employee Federation and the date of
hearing was fixed on 3.2.2020.
xxiv)
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.11988/2009 in a dispute between All India Punjab
National Bank Federation Vs. PNB had recorded a judicial findings that, PNB employees federation is a
majority union in the Punjab National Bank possess right to enter with settlement and negotiations with
the bank as majority union. The dispute with respect to the Punjab National Bank Staff Association and
Punjab National Bank Employees Union was decided by the Hon’ble Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court New Delhi in I.D. Case No.43/2011. As per the memberships in the State of
U.P. the respondent no.2 union i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation has total number of members
higher than the membership of the claimant’s union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P.
The respondent no.2 union i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation on the basis of above said averments
made preliminary objections, which are as follows:–
(a) the dispute is related to a conflict of interest between two rival unions at State Level. The reference order
does not reflect any industrial dispute as defined under section 2(K) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and such
subject matter would not be referred and reference order is without jurisdiction. Thus on this ground alone
due to lack of jurisdiction the present reference would liable to be answered negatively.
(b) the claimant union had not mentioned the facts that he was working as state union in Uttar Pradesh having
affiliated from All India PNB Employee Federation. Moreover they had also not shared any letter or
confirmation issued by the Bank showing majority membership and also not disclosed the true facts that
answering respondent was majority union on the date of presently. Thus claimant had not come with clean
hands before this Tribunal, therefore, the applicant union committed fraud with Tribunal by misleading and
representing as aforesaid.
(c) the present reference order is legally not maintainable on the ground that the present reference order and
proceedings before this Court are in contradiction with the terms and conditions of the settlements dated
1.11.1983 and 1.9.1989 and also in contradictions with Bank circular dated 13.9.2013, therefore, any
reference which is patently contradicted with the settlement would be itself illegal and contrary to law as
such, reference would be in conflict with Section 19 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, therefore, the present
reference is bad in law.
(d) the present reference is legally not maintainable on the ground that the claimant union has no locus and cause
of action to seek the relief made in the present claim application as they are only state unit who has been
granted affiliation by the national level federation and they would be entitled for conducting IR meetings
with bank and it is admitted fact that claimant union was deaffiliated by All India PNB Employee Federation
vide letter dated 3.7.2018.
In support of their contentions, the respondent no.2 i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation filed the Photostat
copies of following documents:-
i)
Registration Certificate of All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation;
ii)
The copies of communications received by the General Secretary of IPNBEF, from the Corporate
Management of PNB, vide Personnel Administration Division/HO letter No.PAD:IR:2930 dated
30.10.2015 to Federation No.PAD:IR:2930 dated 17.12.2015;
iii)
Registration Certificate of PNB Progressive Employees Association, U.P. under the Trade Union
Act 1926 with Registration No.10175/2018-19;
iv)
Bilateral Settlements signed by and between the Management of PNB and AIPNBEF dated
31.10.1974, 1.11.1983 & 13.9.2013;
v)
Letter/Mail No.HRMD/IR/2805/PG dated 1.8.2018;
vi)
Circulars dated 1.9.1989 and 12.9.2013
vii)
Letter No.HRMD:IR:2805/PG dated 18.7.2018;
viii)
Letter No.HRMD:IR:2805:PG dated 8.2.2021;
ix)
Customers’ Service Committee Meetings dated 31.1.2017;
x)
IT Steering Committee meetings dated 13.4.2010
xi)
Supervisory Committees on Holidays Homes dated 5.2.2013;
xii)
Supervisory Committee at Zonal Training Centres dated 5.10.2013;
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2303
xiii)
Circular No.1109 dated 30.9.1988;
xiv)
Circular No.125 dated 4.1.2003;
xv)
Circular No.3/18 dated 19.6.2018;
xvi)
Affiliation to J&K State Union dated 23.7.2018;
xvii)
Letter dated 1.8.2018;
xviii)
Letter dated 18.9.2018;
xix)
Notice dated 10.10.2018;
xx)
Copy of Complaint;
xxi)
Reply dated 16.11.2018;
xxii)
Reply submitted by the respondent no.1
xxiii)
Copy of reference order dated 25.9.2019;
xxiv)
Summons dated 19.12.2019;
xxv)
Copy of judgment and order dated 8.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition no.11988/2009
xxvi)
Order dated 7.8.2013 passed in I.D. Case no.43 of 2011
Case of Respondent no. 3:
PNB Progressive Employees Association i.e. respondent no.3 on 25.11.2022 filed their written statement before the
Tribunal and following pleadings are taken:
i)
All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation is a single All India Majority/representative
organization of the Punjab National Bank with a federal structure having its unit in all States having the
membership at 80% employees of the Bank;
ii)
In order to bring out the policy, which is in the interest of the employees of the Bank, a meeting was
conducted and a settlement was derived between the management of the Bank and All India Punjab
National Bank Employees Federation in the name of Bilateral Settlement dated 31.10.1974 and
thereafter the revised settlement was adopted on 1.11.1983.
iii)
As per the terms of the settlement the management of the Bank was to hold IRM meetings with the
Federation and its State affiliates at the Corporate Level and at all circles at periodical intervals. As per
the circular of the Bank the IRM meetings are to resolve the dispute, implementation of
Bipartite/Bilateral Settlement and to resolve the grievance of the employees with regard to
implementation of Bilateral Settlement. Till June 2018, in the State of U.P. Punjab National Bank Staff
Association, U.p. was affiliated with All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation, anal India
body. Therefore, applicant/claimant union was conducting IRM meetings and discussions with Bank
management.
iv)
In the year 2018 PNB Progressive Employees Association i.e. respondent no.3 came into existence and
PNB Progressive Employees Association i.e. respondent no.3 is registered Trade Union under Trade
Union Act 1926 bearing Registration No.10175 of 2018-19 in the State of U.P. and has been granted
affiliation by the Central Committee of All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation in its
meeting dated 1.7.2018.
v)
After affiliation of the PNB Progressive Employees Association i.e. respondent no.3 with Central
Association/Federation a request was made to the Corporate Management of PNB at New Delhi that at
Zonal/Circle level IRM meetings should be conducted with the PNB Progressive Employees Association
i.e. respondent no.3 vide letter dated 3.7.2018 sent by the General Secretary of All India Punjab National
Bank Employees Federation. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, vide letter dated 1.8.2018 the General
Secretary of the Federation was informed by the Bank authorities i.e. Deputy General Manager, Human
Resource Management Division that necessary directions for holding IRM meeting with the PNB
Progressive Employees Association i.e. respondent no.3, has been issued.
vi)
Vide letter dated 18.9.2018 the Deputy General Manager, Human Resource Management Division, PNB
Head Office, New Delhi had clarified the position that earlier claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank
Staff Association, U.P. was the affiliate unit of State of U.P., however, thereafter vide letter dated
1.8.2018 the facility of IRM has been extended to the Association which is the State affiliate of
Federation. The claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. is no more the State
affiliate of All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation and the State affiliate of majority
2304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workmen Federation in PNB is Punjab National Bank Progressive Employee Association i.e. respondent
no.3.
vii) The claimant Union which is not a affiliated unit of All India Punjab National Bank Employees
Federation in order to hamper the peaceful functioning of the Association camouflaged and misused the
provisions of Law. The aforesaid claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P.
issued a notice under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act for strike to the Bank. The claimant
union is not an affiliate of the Central Federation is itself clear from its letter head wherein it has been
mentioned itself to have been affiliated with some UPBEU.
viii) The claimant union had approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Conciliation
Officer, Lucknow for alleged complaint against the Bank to allow it to conduct IRM meetings even after
its de-affiliation from All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation on July, 2018.
ix)
A perusal of the complaint made by the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association,
U.P. makes it clear that the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. had not
raised any industrial dispute before the authority and in the garb of the industrial dispute the claimant
union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. seeks a declaration for itself to be declared itself
as State affiliate of the National Federation. As per the settlement the management of the Bank is
obliged to conduct the IRM meeting with the State affiliates of the National Federation. Once the
claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. is not an authorized neither State
affiliate of the National Federation, it cannot demand the facility of IRM meeting to be extended to it.
Thus in the garb of the industrial dispute it seeks a declaration for itself.
x)
The dispute raised by the claimant union itself was not an industrial dispute in view of the provisions of
Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act as the dispute at hand which is in fact a dispute with regard to
determination/declaration of actual State affiliate of the National Federation is neither a dispute between
the employer and employer or between employer and workmen or between workmen and workmen,
which is connected with the employment or not employment or the term of employment or with the
conditions of labour of any person.
xi)
After receiving the notice dated 23.10.2018 the respondent no.3 has duly submitted its reply before the
Conciliation Officer, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow on 16.11.2018. On
16.11.2018 the National Federation, respondent no.2 has also submitted its reply before Conciliation
Officer specifically stating that the respondent no.3 is the actual State affiliate of All India Federation
and the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. has no locus to file the instant
complaint.
xii) The respondent no.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank also stated before the conciliation authority and
supported the contentions of respondent no.3 thereby specifically admitting that the respondent no.3 is
presently affiliated with All India Federation.
xiii) After the completion of conciliation proceedings the alleged dispute was referred to the Learned Labour
Court for adjudication vide reference order dated 25.9.2019, in which the notices were issued to the
parties and resultantly the summons dated 19.12.2019 was received at the office of respondent no.3 and
the date of hearing was fixed on 3.2.2020. On 3.2.2020 the authorized representative of the respondent
no.3 filed its letter of authority seeking time to file its reply and on next date of hearing on 6.3.2020 the
claimant union did not press its claim and filed a fresh claim statement and a copy of same was received
by the respondent no.3. The next date to file written statement against new claim was fixed as 30.3.2020
but due to Covid-19 lock down proceedings was not taken place. Thereafter on 9.6.2020, 15.10.2020,
151.2021 the claimant was not present and viz-a-viz the Learned Presiding Officer was also not
available on 15.10.2020 and on 15.1.2021. But on very next date 25.1.2021 without resorting to
affording any last opportunity to file written statement from the respondent no.3, the matter was heard
and decided.
xiv) On 25.1.2021 the objections filed by the Bank was taken on record and hearing took place without
compliance of principles of natural justice and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
respondent no.3 to the dispute.
xv)
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.11988 of 2009 in a dispute between All India
Punjab National Bank Federation Vs. PNB had recorded a judicial findings that PNB employees
federation is a majority union in the Punjab National Bank possess right to enter with settlement and
negotiations with the bank as majority union. Thereafter the respondent no.3 had been granted
opportunity for filing the present written statement.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2305
Respondent no. 3, in their statement of defence, also raised the preliminary objections, regarding the maintainability
of present reference/claim application. And in support of their contentions, the respondent no.3 i.e. PNB Progressive
Employees Association filed the Photostat copy of following documents along with their written statement:-
a) Registration Certificate of All India Punjab National Bank Employee Federation;
b) Settlements dated 31.10.1974 and 1.11.1983
c) Circulars with regard to IRM meetings dated 1.9.1989 and 13.9.2013;
d) Byelaws as well as Resolution dated 1.7.2018;
e) Letter dt.1.8.2018;
f)
Letter dt.18.9.2018;
g) Notice dated 10.10.2018;
h) Photocopy of complaint ;
i)
Reply of respondent no.3 dated 16.11.2018;
j)
Reply dated 16.11.2018 filed by National Federation;
k) Reply submitted by respondent no.1
l)
Reference order dated 25.9.2019;
m) Summons dated 19.12.2019;
n) Order sheet of proceedings;
o) Banks’ reply filed before the Labour Court on 25.1.2021;
p) Judgment and order dt.8.9.2010 in W.P.No.11988/2009;
q) Order dt.7.8.2013 passed in I.D. Case No.43 of 2011;
r)
Letter dt.8.2.2021 of respondent no.1;
Thereafter on behalf of the claimant, rebuttals to the written statements filed by the respondents and certain
supplement affidavits were also filed by the parties.
In addition to the pleadings on behalf of parties, document which was annexed by the parties to the litigation, in
support of their case, the parties also filed the evidences in the shape of affidavit:-
On behalf of claimant evidences on affidavit in support of their case were filed by the persons namely (a) Sri Kamal
Kumar, Vice President of claimant (W-28); (b) Sri Sanjay Kumar Misra, Deputy Secretary of claimant (W-29) and (c)
Sri Ayaujuddin Ahmad, Assistant General Secretary of claimant (W-30).
On behalf of respondent no.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank, the evidence in the shape of affidavit of Sri Kalyan Kumar
Mishra, Chief Manager (HR) in Punjab National Bank, HRD Department, Circle Office, Lucknow Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow was filed.
Respondent no. 2 i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation, filed an affidavit of one Sri Kamal Kumar Mishra (Vice
President of Respondent No.2). And respondent no. 3 filed affidavit of Sri Subhas Ranjan Bajpai, Chairman of PNB
Progressive Employees Association, U.P.
Thereafter, the persons who have filed their evidence on affidavit in support of the case of the parties (Examination-
in-Chief) were also cross-examined.
Preliminary objections on behalf of respondent No. 2:
Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, (All India PNB Employee Federation) taken a
preliminary objection that in view of the pleadings taken in the written statement by eh claimant, no industrial dispute
exists as per Section 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act rather there is a dispute amongst the Unions namely
claimant’s union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, UP on one hand and on the other hand respondent no. 2
i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation.
So in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment and order dated 2.7.2021 passed in the
Writ Petition No.4987 (MS) of 2021, the preliminary objections that there is no industrial dispute in terms of Section
2-K of Industrial Disputes Act exists in the present case, may be decided first.
Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 while pressing the preliminary objections, placed
reliance on the averments as mentioned in paragraphs-27 to 33 of the written statement, quoted herein below:-
2306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“27.
That the respondent no.1, Punjab National Bank had also submitted its reply before conciliation
authority and supported the contentions of the All India PNB Employee Federation and specifically
admitted that All India PNB Employee Federation is presently affiliated with the All India Federation.
28.
That after completion of conciliation proceeding, the alleged dispute was referred to the Learned
Labour Court for adjudication vide reference order dated 25.9.2019 the schedule of reference is
mentioned hereinafter:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank of non-conducting IRM
meetings with the majority Union PNB Staff Association in Uttar Pradesh is illegal and
unjustified in the eyes of law or not?
Whether the PNB Staff Association is entitled to conduct IRM meetings with the management of
Punjab National Bank? If, so what relief the concerned union is entitled to?
29. That after receipt of the reference order, the notices were issued to the parties and resultantly the
summon dated 19.12.2019 was received at the office of All India PNB Employee Federation and the
date of hearing was fixed on 3.2.2020.
30. That it would be also relevant to mention that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition
No.11988/2009 in a dispute between All India Punjab National Bank Federation Vs. PNB had recorded
a judicial findings that, PNB employees federation is a majority union in the Punjab National Bank
possess right to enter with settlement and negotiations with the bank as majority union.
31.
That it would be also relevant to mention that the dispute with respect to the Punjab National Bank Staff
Association and Punjab National Bank Employees Union was decided by the Hon’ble Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court New Delhi in I.D. Case No.43/2011.
32. That it is also material on record that as per the memberships in the State of U.P. the respondent no.2
union i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation has total number of members higher than the
membership of the claimant’s union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P.
33. That on the basis of above facts, the following preliminary objections had been raised regarding
maintainability of the present reference/proceeding/claim application which are mentioned as under:-
I. Regarding maintainability of reference order:-
The bare perusal of reference order dated 25.9.2019 would show that the dispute is related to a
conflict of interest between two rival unions at State Level. The reference order does not reflect any
industrial dispute as defined under section 2(K) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and such subject
matter would not be referred and reference order is without jurisdiction. Thus on this ground alone
due to lack of jurisdiction the present reference would liable to be answered negatively and relied
upon the following various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court various High Courts :-
i)
Anz Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Union of India 2005 CJ(SC) 77
ii)
Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & others 2011 CJ (All) 659
iii)
Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty 2000 CJ(SC) 115.
Accordingly Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 submits that in the
present as the respondent no.2 de-affiliated the claimant’s union in respect to the IRM facility which they were
availing with the authorities of Bank as per the Memorandum of Settlements dated 31.10.1974, 1.11.1983 & 1.9.1989
entered into between the Management of PNB and All India PNB Employees Federation, the present dispute raised by
the claimant is not an industrial dispute as per the definition of Section 2-K of Industrial Disputes Act, as such, the
present claim filed by the claimant before this Tribunal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
In addition to the above said objections Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.2 also submits that the present claim petition filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed as the
claimant wilfully and deliberately stated incorrect averments, in this regard the submissions made on behalf of
respondent no. 2 are as under:-
II. Regarding perversity and commission of fraud by the applicant’s union:
The claimant union had not mentioned the facts that claimant is state union in Uttar Pradesh
having affiliated from All India PNB Employee Federation. Moreover they had also not shared any
letter or confirmation issued by the Bank showing majority membership and also not disclosed the
true facts that answering respondent was majority union on the date of presently. Thus claimant
had not come with clean hands before this Tribunal, therefore, the applicant union committed fraud
with Tribunal by misleading and representing as aforesaid. The respondent no.2 accordingly relied
upon the following judgement:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2307
i)
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajendra Singh (dead) through Lrs & others
(2019) 14 SCC 449
ii)
Union of India & others Vs. Ramesh Gandhi 2012(1) 2012(1) SCC 476
Submissions of respondent no.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank in respect to the preliminary objections:
Sri Vishwas Saraswat, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank supported
arguments raised by Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 that there is
no industrial dispute in terms of Section 2-K of the Industrial Dispute Act, so the present adjudication case filed by
the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
In addition to the said facts the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1(Punjab National Bank) also
argued as under:-
i)
As per schedule of reference award the demand of applicant’s union is without any basis, moreover as per
provision of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and as per Section 2-K of the Act, it is a dispute between two
unions i.e. PNB Staff Association and PNB Progressive Employees Association, hence, not maintainable
under Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
ii)
As on 19.1.2022 PNB Staff Association, U.P. has a membership of 3302 workmen employees and PNBPEA,
U.P. has membership of 3997 workmen employees working in the PNB in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As on
28.4.2023 PNB Staff Association, U.P. has a membership of 2203 of workmen employees and PNBPEA,
U.P. has membership of 4347 workmen employees working in PNB in the State of U.P. As such, PNBPEA
has a majority status in the State of U.P. to attend IRM meetings.
iii)
A memorandum of Settlement dated 31.10.1974 was arrived at between the management of PNB and All
India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation (AIPNBEF) for creation of Industrial Relations
Machinery, wherein it was agreed upon that to resolve the dispute, a machinery consisting of representative
(not exceeding three) of the units of the Federation and the Management shall be constituted, which shall
meet once in eight weeks at all the regional/departmental levels. The decision arrived at in such meeting
shall be in conformity with the provisions of Awards/Bipartite Settlement, H.O. Circulars including
settlement with the Federations.
iv)
Later, discussions were held with All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation in the context of
the Industrial Relations Machinery set up in the respondent bank in 1974 by the said settlement. It was
assured by the Federation at that time that for efficient and smooth functioning of the Bank, the Federation
shall emphasize the need to inculcate a better sense of discipline and responsibility among the employees. As
a result of detailed discussions, a settlement was arrived at with the Federation on 1.11.1983. It was decided
that :-
-
In case of any grievance or a feeling that the Manager has acted beyond the rules, the matter shall
be discussed by the aggrieved person/President and/or Unit Secretary of the branch with the Branch
Manager. However, the employee will refrain from recourse to mass assembly/deputation on the
branch manager and other officers of the bank.
-
In the event of any grievance not being at the branch level, the unit may take it up with the
State/Regional body which may in turn take it up with the Regional Managers in IRM.
v)
As per Memorandum of Settlement of 1974 and 1983, it is agreed upon to conduct the IRMs with AIPNBEF
and its affiliated units.
vi)
The Memorandum of Settlement dated 1.11.1983 was signed between the Management of respondent bank
and All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation in the context of the Industrial Relations
Machinery set up in the Bank in 1974 by a settlement with the said Federation.
vii)
In terms of the provisions of the said settlement dated 1.11.1983 signed by the management of PNB with All
India PNB Employees Federation, the PNB Staff Association, U.P. being the then unit/affiliate association
was periodically conducting the IRM meeting with the Regional Managers/Circle Heads/Zonal Managers in
U.P.
viii)
The PNB Staff Association U.P. (PNBSA UP) was unit/affiliate of the Federation i.e. All India PNB
Employees Federation (AIPNBEF), therefore in terms of the settlement dated 1.11.1983 the meetings were
held with PNBSA U.P. but AIPNBEF through their letter dated 28.5.2018 informed the Bank about the
withdrawal of their affiliation to PNBSA UP and vide letter dated 3.7.2018 AIPNBEF requested the Bank to
extend the facility of IRM meeting to PNBPEA UP in terms of the settlement signed by an between the
management of PNB and AIPNBEF dated 1.11.1983.
2308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ix)
The respondent bank vide letter dated 1.8.2018 informed the Zonal Managers of Lucknow, Agra and Meerut
that PNBPEA, UP has been granted affiliation by AIPNBEF, as a state affiliate in U.P. and requested to
extend the facility of Zonal level IRM to PNBPEA, U.P. and also to advise all the circle offices under their
jurisdiction to extend the facility of circle IRM Meeting to the said Association with immediate effect.
x)
Since, PNBPEA is a registered unit of AIPNBEF and the PNBSA UP is no longer a unit of the federation,
the instruction to extend the facility of Zonal/Circle level IRM to PNBPEA State Affiliate of AIPNBEF in
U.P. vide letter dated 1.8.2018 was in terms of the said settlement dated 1.11.1983 signed by the Bank with
the Federation i.e. IRM is conducted with the units of Federation.
xi)
Nowhere in Clause (iii) of the Settlement dated 1.11.1983 has the phrase ‘State Unit Association’ been used.
Accordingly, Sri Vishwas Sarswsat, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 requests that the present case was filed by
claimant is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions of respondent no.3 i.e. Punjab National Bank in respect to the preliminary objections taken by the
respondent no.2:
Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 adopted arguments raised on behalf of respondent no.1
& 2 in respect to the maintainability of the Industrial Dispute Act and also argued that the dispute though given the
guise of an industrial dispute between the claimant union and the respondent no.1/Management, however, as a matter
of fact as per the averments as made by the claimant in its claim statement, there is a dispute between the claimant’s
union and respondent no.2 so the same is beyond the jurisdiction of Tribunal to adjudicate as per the definition of
industrial dispute as given under Section 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as such, the present industrial
dispute may kindly be dismissed as not maintainable.
Rebuttal on behalf of Claimant:
Sri I.M. Pandey Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant in rebuttal submits as under:-
i)
The claimant’s union namely Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. (PNBSA, UP) is a Bank
Employees Union duly registered bearing registration no.6820 of 1986-87 dated 22.8.1986 under the
Trade Union Act. The dispute arises out of the action of management de-recognizing the claimant union
from the facility of IRM meeting vide circular dated 30.5.2018 without any opportunity of hearing and
ignoring the majority strength and registered recognized union in the State of U.P. The organizational
structure of workmen Union in the Banking sector of India, starts by formation of All India Bank
Employees Association (AIBEA) at National Level and U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU) at the
State level in 1946 which were duly recognized by the Shastry Award while adjudicating the disputes
governing the service conditions of bank employees between Banking Companies and their workers in
the year 1953 and as such the Bank workmen are represented through All India Bank Employees
Association at National Level and U.P. Bank Employees Union at the State level in Uttar Pradesh.
ii)
After nationalization of banks, the All India Bank Employees Association decided to form Bank- wise
union so as to facilitate the speedy redressal of the grievances of bank workmen and accordingly the ‘All
India PNB Employees Federation(AIPNBEF), the respondent no.2, was formed from amongst the
members of All India Bank Employees Association, for the PNB workmen. The All India PNB
Employees Association Federation (AIPNBEF) being affiliate of All India Bank Employees
Association got recognition by the PNB Management and accordingly All India PNB Employee
Federation, Respondent no.2 , while raising the grievances of PNB Workmen entered into a bilateral
settlement on 31.10.1974 with the management to hold “Industrial Relation Machinery Meeting” (IRM)
with the workmen union for redressal of grievances of the employees of Punjab National Bank.
iii)
All India PNB Employees Federation(AIPNBEF) entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
on 31.10.1974 representing the All India Bank Employees Association because by that time it had no
legal entity due to not being registered under the Trade Union Act as it came to be registered on
15.09.1977 after about three years of the aforesaid settlement dates 31.10.1974 as is evident from its
Registration Certificate contained in Annx.1 to the WS of respondent no.2 and as such the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) dates 31.10.1974 is deemed to have been made between the All India Bank
Employees Association was allowed to participate in the IRM as State Unit in U.P. pursuant to the
aforesaid settlement , despite it not being affiliated to All India PNB Employees Federation(AIPNBEF).
All India PNB Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) is still affiliate of All India Bank Employees
Association on account of which the decisions and bylaws of All India Bank Employees Federation
(AIPNBEF) is still affiliate of All India Bank Employees Association are binding upon the All affiliate
of U.P.B.E.U. at state level and affiliate of All India Bank Employees Association at national level and
as such alleged de-affiliation by All India PNB Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) does not ipso facto
disentitle claimant Union from the recognition and facility of IRM.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2309
iv)
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 31.10.1974 provides to hold IRM Meeting with the
state unit of All India PNB Employees Federation but U.P.B.E.U. which was never affiliated with All
India PNB Employee Federation continued to participate in IRM only because of being State Unit of All
India Bank Employees Association and said facility of IRM was transferred to claimant union because
of being affiliate of UPBEU and All India Bank Employees Association not because of being affiliate of
All India PNB Employee Federation in as much as the respondents have failed to bring on records any
documents to indicate that the facility of IRM was allowed because of being affiliate of All India PNB
Employee Federation. All India PNB Employee Federation had no State unit in all the states rather the
majority strength Bank Union at State level affiliated with AIBEA are still continuing to participate in
IRM Meeting without there being any separate MOU with the management and due to this reason the
UPBEU being the majority strength bank union in Uttar Pradesh was participating in IRM Meeting
irrespective of fact it was neither state unit nor was affiliate of AIPNBEA. The bye-laws of AIBEA
provides under 25th conference dated 27.11.2004 at Page-40 that all bankwise organization will give
affiliation only to those State Organization which are affiliated with AIBEA and all decision of AIBEA
are binding upon all Bank wise organization.
v)
In the year 1985 U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU) also changed its Unitary character and
converted in federal character allowing bank-wise Union on the pattern of All India Bank Employees
Association and accordingly the claimant union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. was
formed and was registered bearing registration no.6820 of 1986-87 dated 22.8.1986 being affiliated to
U.P. Bank Employees Union and as a result thereof the claimant Union continued to participate in IRM
on behalf of PNB workmen in Uttar Pradesh without any disruption in place of U.P. Bank Employees
Union. The Bank Management never issued any letter to the effect of Claimant Union being allowed
recognition because of it’s affiliation with All India PNB Employee Federation.
vi)
The dispute arose for the first time when the PNB Management being indulged in unfair labour practice
started to establishment Management sponsored Trade Union with the connivance of the General
Secretary of All India PNB Employees Federation the respondent no.2 issuing letter dated 30.5.2018.
The
Management
further
pursuant
to
letter
dated
30.5.2018
issued
a
letter
bearing
no.HRMD:IR:2805/PG dated 1.8.2018 and thereby recognized and extended the facility of IRM meeting
to the respondent no.3 in supersession of claimant Union irrespective of the fact the respondent no.3 was
not even registered by that time and was limited to very handful persons having membership of less than
10% as it was registered under the Indian Trade Union Registration Act 1926 on 25.9.2018 having
registration no.10175 dated 25.9.2018. The aforesaid management decision dated 30.5.2018 and
1.8.2018 were taken at the back of the claimant union without giving any opportunity of hearing
although the consequence of those decisions is derecognizing the claimant’s union despite being
majority strength Union at the state level.
vii) The sole ground for de-recognizing/depriving the claimant union from IRM facility, is alleged de-
affiliation of claimant union from All India PNB Employee Federation the respondent no.2, but neither
the respondent no.2 has ever issued any notice or letter to the claimant union for any steps being
proposed to de-affiliate nor any de-affiliation decision/letter has ever been communicated to the
claimant by any authority till date and even no such de-affiliation decision or letter of any competent
authority has been brought on record in any of the proceedings including the present proceeding before
this Hon’ble Court and as such alleged de-affiliation is not binding upon the claimant and no adverse
decision can be taken by any authority on the basis of any such non-existent materials.
viii) The IRM established vide MOU dated 31.10.1974 is mandatory forum provided under Section 9-C of
Industrial Disputes Act for setting up of Grievance Redressal Machinery and as such of the management
depriving the claimant union from the facility of IRM amounts to denying the majority strength of
workman for redressal of grievances of employee which is an industrial dispute relating to ‘condition of
labour’ as defined under section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act in addition to changing the conditions of
service by the management and accordingly it is an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section
2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
ix)
The claimant Union being aggrieved against the arbitrary and unlawful decision of the management, was
left with no option except to take recourse of agitation and accordingly issued a notice dated 10.10.2018
under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act giving call to strike. The Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow taking cognizance of the notice dated 10.10.2018 instituted the
conciliation proceedings by issuing notice dated 23.10.2018. In response of notice dated 23.10.2018 the
respondent no.1 filed objection dated 27.12.2018 wherein the management admitted under paragraph-3
that the strength of membership of claimant Union are 72.38% which make it undisputed that on the date
of occurrence of dispute on 1.8.2018 the claimant union was having majority strength of workmen and
this majority strength could not be disputed by the management/respondent no.1 even while filing
2310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
objection dated 25.1.2021 against the claimant union’s application for interim award, therefore, there is
no reason/justification to deprive the majority workmen of the bank from the facility of grievance
redress forum which amounts to encouraging the management to indulge in unfair labour practice.
x)
Despite initiation of conciliation proceeding the management conducted IRM meeting in November
2018 in violation of Section 33 of the Act 1947, thereupon the Regional Labour Commissioner Lucknow
vide letter dated 7.12.2018 directed the management not to hold IRM meeting with either party during
pendency of conciliation proceedings. In compliance of letter dated 7.12.2018 the management issued a
letter dated 14.12.2018 keeping in abeyance further IRM meeting.
xi)
The respondent no.3 filed a Writ Petition No.38169 (MB) of 2018 challenging the conciliation
proceeding and the letter dated 7.12.2018 but failed to get any interim relief. The conciliation
proceedings arising out of notice dated 10.10.2018 failed and as a result thereof the matter was referred
for adjudication vide letter dated 25.9.2019. After the reference order dated 25.9.2019 the respondent
no.3 withdrew the Writ Petition no.38169 (MB) of 2018 vide order dated 27.9.2019. Thereafter the
interim award dated 28.1.2021 was passed directing the management not to hold IRM meeting with any
other union except the claimant union in view of admitted and undisputed majority strength of the
claimant union. The respondent no.3 further challenged the reference order dated 25.9.2019 along with
interim award dated 28.1.2021 by filing Writ Petition No.4987 (MS) of 2021 on the ground of dispute in
question is not covered by the definition of Industrial Dispute, which was dismissed by judgment dated
2.7.2021. Thereafter the respondent no.3 moved an application for recall of interim award dated
28.1.2021 on the ground of the finding of interim award to the effect of the claimant union being
majority strength union is perverse which was heard and rejected by a detailed order dated 17.1.2022.
In addition to above argument averments Sri I.M. Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant also
opposed the preliminary objection taken by the respondents, in brief, the submissions made by him in this regard, are
as under:
(a) The management decision dated 30.5.2018 being passed without giving any opportunity of hearing is
violative of the principle of natural justice and is contrary to the code of disciplinary 1958 which provides to
recognize the largest membership union in case of there being more than one union. The management
decision dated 1.8.2018 recognizing and giving the facility of IRM to respondent no.3 replacing the claimant
union is violative of Clause 4(1) & 4(2) of Code of Discipline, which requires the union to be registered and
at least one year period satisfactory functioning in addition to possessing minimum 25% of membership.
(b) The claimant union participating in IRM meeting being affiliate of AIBEA and UPBEU which status is still
continuing and as such any act of de-affiliation by respondent no.2 does not ipso facto disentitle the claimant
union from the recognition and IRM. The alleged de-affiliation being taken at the back of claimant and
being un-communicated to the claimant is not binding and no adverse decision can be taken by any authority
on the basis of any such non-existent materials.
(c) The right of recognition and facilities of collective bargaining with management have arisen by the
registration under section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1926 which cannot be taken away by any de-affiliation
with any trade Union unless registration is cancelled under Section 10 of the Trade Union Act, the
registration of the claimant union Trade Union Act still continues and the claimant is still affiliated with
AIBEA at national level and UPBEU at State level even if the alleged de-affiliation by the AIPNBEF is
treated to be correct, irrespective of the fact no such de-affiliation has been received to the claimant.
(d) The respondent no. 3 is neither affiliated with AIBEA nor with UPBEU, hence, it cannot get affiliation with
respondent no.2, All India P.N.B. Federation as Clause 5 and resolution dated 27.11.2004 of AIBEA and as
such any affiliation given by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.3 contrary to the bye-laws of
AIBEA the Parent Union ignoring the strength of membership and its registration cannot give right to
replace the claimant union continuing with majority strength, valid recognition & registration.
Sri I.M. Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of claimant further argued that the present dispute is an
industrial dispute as per the definition of Section 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947; argument advanced on the
point in issue, is summarised as under:-
In the banking sector in India in the order to raise the grievance of its employees working in the various banks at All
India level there is an association known as All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) and at State level i.e. in
the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Union which espouse/agitate the grievances of its employees/workmen working in the
various banks, known as U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU).
Thereafter, in order to raise grievances of the employees/workers, working in the Punjab National Bank, an
association was formed for speedy redressal of the grievances of employees/workers working in the Punjab National
Bank, known as All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) at national levbe.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2311
In the year 1974 All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) i.e. respondent no.2 in order to
raise grievances of employees entered into a bilateral settlement/(MoU) on 31.10.1974 with the Management of
Punjab National Bank to hold ‘Industrial Relations Machinery Meetings’ etc.
Thereafter on 1.11.1983 another memorandum/settlement was entered into between the respondent no.2 and the
Management of Punjab National Bank. Lastly on 1.9.1989 another memorandum/settlement entered into between the
respondent no.2 and the Management of Punjab National Bank.
Learned counsel for claimant further argued that prior to existence/formation of claimant i.e. Punjab National Bank
Staff Association, U.P. the grievance of the employees/workers working in the various Branches in the State of U.P.
were raised by U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU).
Further, as per the provisions of Trade Unions Act the claimant’s union i.e. Punjab National Bank Staff Association
was registered having its Registration certificate No.6820 Year 1986-87 on 22.8.1986 and placed reliance on the
Clause-5 of the Constitution of Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P., quoted below:-
‘5.
Affiliation
Punjab National Bank Staff Association, Uttar Pradesh shall affiliate itself to U.P. Bank Employees Union
and All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation under All India Bank Employees Association’.
Accordingly Sri I.M. Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant submits that after the formation of
the Claimant’s union the grievances of employees working in the State of U.P. which were previously agitated by
U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU) with the Management of Bank i.e. respondent no.1, as per the Memorandum
of Settlements dated 31.10.1974, 1.11.1983 & 1.9.1989 entered into between the respondent no.2 and the
Management of PNB are agitated/raised by the claimant in the same capacity and manner.
Learned Counsel for the claimant also submits that without giving any opportunity and in violation of principles of
natural justice, the respondent no.2 i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation, withdrawn/de-affiliated the affiliation
which Was initially accepted/grated by the respondent no. 2 as per Clause 5 of Constitution of Punjab National Bank
Staff Association to the claimant’s union and wrote a letter to the Bank not to extend the facility of IRM which the
Bank was previously giving to the claimant’s union as per the various memorandums settlement entered into between
the respondent no.2 and the Management of the Bank and the same be extended to the respondent no.3 i.e. PNB
Progressive Employees Association.
Accordingly it is argued by Sri I.M. Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of claimant that said action on the
part of Bank/respondent no. 1 accept the request of All India PNB Employee Federation thereby withdrawing the
IRM facility which was previously extended to the claimant, is nothing but amounts to industrial dispute and falls
within the ambit and scope section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So the preliminary objections taken by the
respondents are liable to be rejected and the matter be disposed of on merits.
In support of his arguments Sri I.M. Pandey, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of claimant placed reliance on the
following judgments:-
a) Paragraph 584 and 585 of Shastry Award 1953 provides that the disputes about recognition of workmen
union is an industrial dispute.
b) 2002 CJ(SC) 145 Chairman SBI Versus All Orissa State Bank held recognition is to be given to largest
strength of membership union (Para-15 & 16).
c) 1961 CJ (SC) 16 All India Bank Employees Association Versus National Industrial Tribunal held that
the right to form Association/Union is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(c) and such union has a
right to achieve the purpose of its creation/formation subject to other law framed thereon (Para-7, 8, 14,
16, 17, 18, 21, 27 & 28).
d) Air Corporation employees Union Versus Air India Limited decided by judgment dated 28.1.2011 by
Delhi High Court order of de-recognizing the workmen union without opportunity of hearing its illegal
(Para-14).
e) Dwarka Parsad Agarwal (D) By LRs and another Vs. B.D. Agarwal and others AIR 2003 SC 2686 – It is
not well settled that an order passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Any order passed or
action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof would also be nullities (Para-37).
Findings & Conclusion:
Before deciding the issue as taken by the respondents that there is no industrial dispute as per the definition of Section
2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 rather is a dispute between the claimant’s union i.e. PNB Staff Association on
one side and on the other side the respondent no.2 i.e. All India PNB Employee Federation and respondent no.3 i.e.
PNB Progressive Employees Association, U.P., so the present dispute is not maintainable.
2312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It would be appropriate to state the ambit and scope as well as relevant provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 in
order to decide the controversy involved in the present case:
The Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced by the Government of India in the Legislative Assembly on the 28th
October 1946. After the Select Committee’s report on 3rd February 1947, with some amendments, it was passed in
March 1947 and became the law from Ist April 1947 repealing the Trade Disputes Act 1929.
While retaining most of the provisions of the earlier law, this Act introduced two new institutions for the prevention
and settlement of industrial disputes; works committees consisting of representatives of employers and workers; and
machinery for industrial adjudication.
A reference to an industrial tribunal under this Act lies where both parties to any industrial dispute apply for such
reference, and also where the appropriate Government considers it expedient so to do. An award of a tribunal has
normally to be enforced by the Government and is binding on both parties to the dispute for such periods as may be
specified, upto a maximum of one year. This Act seeks to give a new orientation to the entire conciliation machinery.
Another important new feature of the Act is the prohibition of strikes and lockouts during the pendency of
conciliation and adjudication proceedings of settlements reached in the course of conciliation proceedings and of
awards of industrial tribunals declared binding by the appropriate government.
Rules, orders or notifications requiring the larger industrial establishments to set up works committees were issued by
the Government of India and most of the State Governments.
The objectives of industrial relations and industrial disputes legislation, may be outlined as under:-
(i)
Industrial Peace: For prosperity of industry, it is necessary that there be a continuous and growing
production which is only possible if (a) there are no interruptions and stoppages in production i.e. absence of
disputes, and (b) if the various agencies of production are satisfied and are in a harmonious bent to work. In
other words industrial peace is very necessary for the vitality of industry.
(ii)
Economic Justice: All interruptions in production arising out of industrial dispute are really caused by the
dissatisfaction of labour with their existing economic condition. The history of labour struggle is nothing but
a continuous demand for fair retrun to labour expressed in varied forms e.g. (a) increase in wages, (b)
resistance to decrease in wages, (c) grant of allowances and benefits etc.(Hariprasad Vs. A.D.Divelkar,
AIR 1957 SC 121)
Social and economic justice which is eh bedrock of our Constitution and economic organisation also requires that any
industrial relations or disputes legislation, to be effective remedial statute, must embrace not only law for regulation
of labour relations with capital, process for channelizing collective bargaining methods for negotiation, mediation,
conciliation and settlements of industrial conflict, but also a system for giving fair play and justice to lbaour and
removal of economic injustice.
The preamble of the Act states that its main object is to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial
disputes. Viewed in the above background, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is a progressive piece of social
legislation and is designed to settle the disputes on a new pattern known under the Act as adjudication machinery.
The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be
adversely affected. (Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 167)
The purpose of the Act is to provide machinery for a just and equitable settlement by adjudication, (G. Claridge and
Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, AIR 1951 Bombay 100) and amelioration of the conditions of
workmen in industry.
Section 2 (j) ‘industry’ means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his
workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including a
contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or
wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not-
(i)
any capital has been invested for the purpose of carrying on such activity; or
(ii)
such activity is carried on with a motive to make any gain or profit and includes-
(a)
any activity of the Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation
of Employment) Act 1948(9 of 1948);
(b)
any activity relating to the promotion of sales or business or both carried but does not include-
(1) any agricultural operation except where such agricultural operation is carried on in an integrated
manner with any other activity (being any such activity as is referred to in the forgoing
provisions of this clause) and such other activity is the predominant one.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2313
Explanation:
for the purposes of this sub-clause, ‘agricultural operation’ does not include any activity
carried on in a plantation as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act 1951 (69 of
1951) ; or
(2) hospitals or dispensaries; or
(3) educational, scientific, research or training institutions, or
(4) institutions owned or managed by organizations wholly or substantially engaged in any charitable,
social or philanthropic service, or
(5) khadi or village industries; or
(6) any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the Government including all
the activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with defence
research, atomic energy and space; or
(7) any domestic service; or
(8) any activity, being a profession practised by an individual or body of individuals, if the number of
persons employed by the individual or body of individuals in relation to such profession is less than
then; or
(9) any activity, being an activity carried on by a co-operative society or a club or any other like body
of individuals, if the number of persons employed by the cooperative society, club or other like
body of individuals in relation to such activity is less than ten;
Section 2 (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 conditions of labour of any person;
Section 2 (ka) “industrial establishment or undertaking” means an establishment or undertaking in which any
industry is carried on:
Provided that where several activities are carried on in an establishment or undertaking and only one or some of such
activities is or are an industry or industries, then-
(a) if any unit such establishment or undertaking carrying on any activity, being an industry, is severable from
the other unit or units of such establishment or undertaking, such unit shall be deemed to be a separate
industrial establishment or undertaking;
(b) if the predominant activity or each of the predominant activities carried on in such establishment or
undertaking or any unit thereof is an industry and the other activity or each of the other activities carried on
in such establishment or undertaking or unit thereof is not severable from and is, for the purpose of carrying
on, or aiding the carrying on of, such predominant activity or activities, the entire establishment or
undertaking or, as the case may be, unit thereof shall be deemed to be an industrial establishment or
undertaking.
2(s) ‘workman’ means any person (including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be
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 prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees or more 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.
“Employer” means –
(i)
in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central
Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is
prescribed, the head of the department;
(ii)
in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer
of that authority.
2314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Sec.2(j), while retaining the substance of clauses (i) and (ii) about as
clauses (ii) and (iii), adds the following more clauses:
“(i) an association of a group of employers;
(iv)
where the owner of an industry in the course of or for the purpose of conducting the industry
contracts with any person for the execution by or under such person of the whole or any part of any work
which is ordinarily part of the industry, the owner of such industry’’.
Industrial dispute:
(i)
Analysis of definition: If we analyse the definition clause, if falls easily and naturally into three parts:
First, there must be a dispute or difference;
Second, the dispute or difference must be between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or
between workmen and workmen;
Third, the dispute or difference must be connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or with the conditions of labour or any person.
Having regard to the scheme and objects of the Act and its other provisions, the expression ‘any person’ in Section
2(k) of the Act must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context; the two crucial
limitations are:
(1)
The dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of
the definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving
necessary relief to the other, and
(2)
The person regarding whom the dispute is raised, must be one in whose employment, non-employment,
terms of employment, conditions of labour (as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or
substantial interest (1958 SC353). A dispute between union and an employer’s association is not
industrial dispute (1996 ILLJ 356).
(ii)
Connection of the dispute with any industrial matter or demand: Demands give rise to industrial disputes. It
is implicit in the demand that it should be made to the employer or employee. In India Paper Pulp Company’s case,
the Federal Court held that notice of strike specifying the demand was necessary in order to constitute the industrial
dispute (1948 F.C. 148). The demand could not be made before the Conciliation Officer or machinery set up by the
government for settlement, but it is not necessary to make it in writing. (State of Bombay vs. Indian Enamel Wall
Co. Ltd. 1953 LAC 689)
A dispute can arise within the meaning of Sec.2(k) only when there exists a demand by workman and that such
demand is refused by the employer. The written demand directly on the management is not in all cases a necessary
condition, the demand can be made even through the Conciliation Officer. (Village Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh 1993 ILLJ 99(HP)
(iii)
Individual and collective industrial disputes: Individual as well as collective disputes may ripen into
industrial disputes. The true nature of an individual dispute is that it is a collective dispute. Though a dispute may at
the inception be initiated by an individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow-workers or a union, or a sufficient number
of workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an industrial dispute. (Standard Vacum Oil
Co. Errakulam Vs. I.Tribunal, Errakulam 1952-II LLJ 612). A dispute which continues to retain its individual
character cannot be regarded as an industrial dispute. This being the basic law, it is within the competence of the
legislature to widen or narrow the coverage of an industrial dispute. The Industrial Disputes Act has also been
amended to cover some individual disputes. It is not necessary that a majority should take u[ an industrial dispute. It
is sufficient if a substantial group of workmen take it up. When thus taken, it becomes an industrial or collective
dispute.
(iv)
Individual dispute an industrial dispute: The important amongst the above are however the amendments
of 1965. By the Act of 1965, a new Section 2A has been added in Act whereby specified categories of individual
disputes are also deemed to be industrial disputes. The section reads as under:
“2A. Dismissal, etc of an individual workman to be deemed to be industrial dispute-
Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an
individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or
arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial
dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.”
This amendment does away with the necessity that to make an industrial dispute it must be taken up or espoused by
substantial section of the workmen or any union of those workmen and gives an individual workman a remedy for
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2315
security of his service and indirectly freedom to join or not to join any union. The dispute originally individual could
be referred under Section 2A after 1.12.1965. (National Productivity Council, 1969-II LLJ 186).
In addition to the above said facts it will also be appropriate to have a glance to the following provisions of Shastry
Award:
Shastry Award Code/Clause 584 to 589 which reads as under:-
“584. We shall deal first with the legal contention. An industrial dispute must be a dispute connected with
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person. The
dispute in this case relates to the question of recognition of the union. On recognition, the union would
acquire a right to negotiate with the employer in respect of the above matters and the employer must receive
and send replies to the executive of the union and grant interviews to that body regarding such matters. The
executive of the recognized trade union will also be entitled to display notices in the premises and the
employer must afford the executive all reasonable facilities for the same. Does this right to negotiate with the
employer on matters connected with the employment or non-employment or terms of employment or
conditions of labour amount to a dispute connected with such matters? If the answer is in the affirmative, then
there is an industrial dispute. If not there is none. The Sen Tribunal decided by a majority judgment that the
right to negotiate on such matters in an antecedent right, the grant of which enables the union to raise any
dispute connected with employment etc. and a dispute regarding the right to negotiate by itself is only a
dispute remotely connected with employment, non-employment etc. particularly because in certain cases the
exercise of the right to negotiate might bring about an understanding between the employers and employees
so as not to reach the stage of a dispute at all and hence a dispute about recognition is not an industrial
dispute. Justice Sen. the Chairman of the Tribunal did not, however, agree with the conclusions of the other
two members. In his opinion, the demand that an union should be recognized for purposes of negotiation is
directly and vitally connected with questions of employment, non-employment, terms of employment and the
conditions of labour etc. of all the members of the union as well as other employees. Such recognition would
secure the advantage of collective bargaining and collective bargaining is obviously connected with
employment etc. of the employees. In this view, the dispute about recognition is an industrial dispute. (See
Gazette of India Part II Section 3. dated 19th August 1950 p. 444).
585. We are of opinion that the reasoning of the dissenting judgment is right and should be followed. There is
no warrant for the view that the right to negotiate can only be an antecedent right, the grant of which enables
the union to raise a dispute. A dispute may well have arisen-already and the question how it is to be decided.
whether by the individual member concerned negotiating with the employer or by an union taking it up and
promoting a settlement, is a matter which is certainly connected with that industrial dispute. The machinery
for settling a dispute relating to the terms of employment etc. is as much connected with the dispute as the
merits of the differences between the parties. This is as important and sometimes even more important than
the merits of the particular controversy. If so, a dispute as to what is the proper machinery is also a dispute
which is connected with the terms of employment etc. A dispute about recognition is therefore undoubtedly an
industrial dispute. We cannot, therefore, agree with the main reasoning in the judgment of the majority of the
Sen Tribunal and we respectfully differ from it and prefer to follow the dissenting view of the learned
chairman of the Tribunal.
586. The question then arises as to whether we should, in the circumstances, give any directions relating to
recognition either of the Association or its constituent units. The banks contended generally that the new
Chapter IIIA of the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926 which has been inserted by the Indian Trade Unions
(Amendment) Act of 1947 lays down a scheme for the recognition of trade unions. It regulates the conditions
pre-requisite for recognition and the rights which flow on recognition under certain circumstances. The
scheme must be taken as a whole and a part alone cannot be given effect to, leaving the rest to be ignored.
The general argument was that it should be left to the Legislature to bring this chapter into force in which
case there will automatically be an appropriate method of recognizing unions subject to well-considered
statutory provisions relating to all connected matters, including withdrawal of recognition. In this view, it
would be most inappropriate for this Tribunal to compel the banks to recognize the unions and confer on them
the rights as under Section 28 (F) of the said’ Act without at the same time making them liable to carry out
their obligations under the Act and to satisfy the conditions pre-requisite for recognition as set out in Section
28(D) of the Act. The demand by the workmen was characterised by the banks as substantially a demand for
bringing the Act into force and at the same time amending it by releasing the unions from their obligations
under the Act. The contention of the workmen was that even though five years have elapsed the Government
have not yet brought the Act of 1947 into force and there is no knowing whether it will be done in the near
future. The whole question of employer/employee relationship and trade union rights is again under
consideration and it might take time for any settled policy to evolve and legislative action to follow. We were,
therefore, asked to deal with this matter in relation to this particular industry of banking and direct
recognition with appropriate conditions. As already stated it was suggested that wherever the conditions
2316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
provided in Section 28 (D) of the Act by the legislature were satisfied, recognition should be made
compulsory with -rights as under Section 28(F) to follow as a matter of course. The absence of the
appropriate machinery envisaged under the Act for granting recognition or withdrawing the same and the
absence of other statutory safeguards were ignored. It does not seem therefore properto adopt in toto the
suggestion of the workmen and to direct compulsory recognition without providing for the withdrawal of
recognition under well defined conditions. It was suggested that a minimum percent age of membership of the
workmen in the union should suffice to demand recognition. 25 percent, was suggested. The general view of
the banks was that no recognition should be accorded to an union which contained employees of other banks
or outsiders. They were willing to recognize unions exclusively consisting of members who are their own
employees subject to certain conditions and with liberty to withdraw such recognition in certain eventualities.
In other words, while they were willing to make an approach in favour of recognition of unions they insisted
on stringent conditions, mainly, it was stated, with a view to preventing outsiders who are not really
interested in the employees from getting facilities to create discord where otherwise there would be harmony.
587. In the present trend of the trade union movement, it is not only proper but almost necessary for the banks
to recognize unions of employees. Too many restrictions should not be placed so as to curtail the benefit of
such recognition. It will be in the interest of the banks themselves to promote settlement of differences through
organized unions rather than in any other way. Even now some of the major important banks have voluntarily
recognized some of the unions in some places at any rate though not in all. The Imperial Bank of India carries
on correspondence with the four Staff Associations though not directly with the Federation. The Chartered
Bank of India. Australia and China have recognized the unions in some of its branches; as also some of the
other exchange banks. The U.P. Bank Employees’ Union which is a regional union and which, it is stated, has
complied with all the conditions laid down by Section 28 (D) of the Trade Unions Act has not, however, been
recognized by these banks.
588. The All India Bank Employees’ Association has not been registered under the Trade Unions Act though
most of its component units are registered. Though in view of the general policy underlying Chapter IIIA of
the Indian Trade Unions Act, it is difficult to give direction to recognize that Association in terms of the Act.
We think that banks should recognize that Association subject to certain limitations. It represents by for the
largest number of bank employees. The Government have recognized it as such and has invited its co-
operation in several conferences as representing bank employees. Even in the proceedings before us majority
of bank employees were represented by that Association and a common demand was put forward on their
behalf. It is obvious therefore that the All India Bank Employees` Association has a representative character
which would ordinarily entitle recognition even though it is not a registered union under the Trade Unions
Act We therefore direct that all banks other than the Imperial Bank of India should recognize this Association
and such recognition should carry with it the rights of negotiation and correspondence and interviews on the
lines laid down in Section 28(F), sub-sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Trade Unions Act such recognition may be
withdrawn however at the bank’s discretion if the executive or the members of the Trade Union have
committed any unfair practice of the kind mentioned in Section 28(J), clauses (a) and (b) of the Act or if It
should cease to be representative of the workmen in any substantial degree. Membership to the extent of 25
per cent, of the employees is in our opinion adequate. We note that the rules of this Association do not provide
for the procedure of declaring a strike. Its practice however is to take a ballot and also give reasonable notice
to Government and to employees beforehand. In the circumstances we think that it would be unwise to wait
until the rules provide for such a procedure and to refrain from giving any directions whatever. We direct its
recognition even now but if within six months of the publication of the award its rules do not provide for the
procedure for declaring a strike the banks may at their discretion withdraw such recognition.
589. With regard to its constituent unions also, we direct that banks should recognize such of the constituent
unions as are able to satisfy the banks that the conditions of Section 28 (D) of the Act aforesaid are fulfilled,
in which case, also similar rights and obligations, subject to the limitations (viz. bank’s right to withdraw the
recognition) as we have provided in the case of the All India Bank Employees’ Association shall apply to such
recognized unions. As regards the U.P. Bank Employees’ Union however we find from documents filed before
us that the conditions of Section 28 (D) of the Act are satisfied and we direct that union should accordingly be
recognized by the banks subject nevertheless to the rights of the banks to withdraw the recognition under
circumstances set out above. We give no directions as regards recognition of unions other than these as the
dispute is confined only to the recognition of the All India Bank Employees’ Association and/or its constituent
units. We think, however, that it will be right on the part of banks to adopt the same policy wherever possible
with reference to the other unions as well. We have ourselves not investigated whether or not any of the
constituent unions of the All India Bank Employees’ Association has complied with the necessary conditions
for recognition as sufficient materials were not placed before us. We have, therefore, given only general
directions to be implemented in the light of the facts relating to each such constituent union of the
Association.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2317
Reverting to the facts of the present case as per the pleadings and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
parties, admitted position which emerges out that in the Banking Sector of India, organized structure of working
unions in order to protect interest of employees/workmen at National level there is an association in the name and
style of All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) and at the State level in the State of Uttar Pradesh there is an
Union/Association called as U.P. Bank Employees’ Union (UPBEU).
Subsequently at National level an Union/Association of employees/workmen working in various branches of Punjab
National Bank throughout India was formed known as All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation i.e.
respondent no.2 (registered Union as per the provisions of Trade Union Act 1926 having registration No.72615).
On 31.3.1974 a Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the Management of Punjab National Bank and All
India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation in the matter of regulation of Overtime etc. in Delhi, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:-
“For efficient and smooth functioning of the Bank, the Federation shall emphasise the need to inculcate
better sense of discipline and responsibility among the employees, the management on their part shall advise
the Regional/Departmental heads to appreciate the need to resolve the employees grievances expeditiously.
It is agreed that to resolve the disputes, a machinery consisting of representatives (not exceeding 3) of the
units of the Federation and the management, shall be constituted, which shall meet once in eight weeks at all
the Regional/Departmental levels. Decisions arrived at in such meetings shall be in conformity with the
provisions of Awards/Bipartite Settlement, HO circulars including Settlements with the Federation.
Where the issues are not resolved, the same will be taken up for discussions and settlement by and between
the HO Personnel Division and the AIPNBEF at regular intervals but not exceeding a period of twelve
weeks. Minutes of the meetings held at Regional/HO level shall be recorded and signed by the parties.”
On 1.11.1983 another Memorandum was entered into between the Management of Punjab National Bank i.e.
respondent no.1 and All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation i.e. respondent no.2 which reads as
under:-
“Short Recital of the Case
Whereas a settlement was signed on 31st October 1974 inter-alia providing for creation of Industrial
Relations Machinery as under:-
“For efficient and smooth functioning of the Bank, the Federation shall emphasise the need to
inculcate better sense of discipline and responsibility among the employees, the management on
their part shall advise the Regional/Departmental heads to appreciate the need to resolve the
employees grievances expeditiously.
It is agreed that to resolve the disputes, a machinery consisting of representatives (not exceeding 3)
of the units of the Federation and the management, shall be constituted, which shall meet once in
eight weeks at all the Regional/Departmental levels. Decisions arrived at in such meetings shall be
in conformity with the provisions of Awards/Bipartite Settlement, HO circulars including
Settlements with the Federation.
Where the issues are not resolved, the same will be taken up for discussions and settlement by and
between the HO Personnel Division and the AIPNBEF at regular intervals but not exceeding a
period of twelve weeks. Minutes of the meetings held at Regional/HO level shall be recorded and
signed by the parties.
Both the parties appreciate the need of discharging their respective organizational responsibilities
towards improvement of industrial relations; progress and development of the Bank and
development of the Bank and for rendering better efficient service to the customers with a view to
fulfilling the objectives of Nationalisation.”
2.
It was hoped that with the creation of the above machinery, there will be no occasion for unruly
behaviour on the members of the Units of the Federation. However, the Management contends that
occasionally there have been instances of unruly behaviour and acts of gross indiscipline in certain areas.
3.
The Federation has contended that while IRM spirit has worked satisfactorily at HO level all these
years and resulted in several mutual settlements and understandings, the IRM spirit has not percolated to the
Zonal and Regional levels to the fullest extent. According to the Federation, the Zonal/Regional level
managements have either sometimes not been holding the meetings or found wanting to implement the
decisions taken in the IRM meetings, thereby leaving some disputes un-resolved.
4.
Discussions were held between the Management of PNB and All India PNB Employees’ Federation.
Both the parties have mutually agreed as under:-
2318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
i)
The members of the Units of the federation would not interfere in the day to day
functioning of the Branches and the authority of the Branch Manager in matters like deployment of
staff on different seats/rotation of staff and enforcement of rules of the Bank in the matter of
punctuality and customer service etc. is accepted.
ii)
In case of any grievances or a feeling that the Manager has acted beyond the rules, the
matter shall be discussed by the aggrieved person/President and/or Unit Secretary of the Branch
with the Branch Manager. However, the employees would refrain from recourse to mass
assembly/deputation on the Branch Manager and other officers of the Bank.
iii)
In the event of any grievance, not being resolved at the branch level, the unit may take it up
with the State/Regional body who may in turn take it up with the Regional Managers in IRM, as
provided.
iv)
The meetings of the IRM at the Regional level shall be held once in 8 weeks regularly. If
either party requests for a meeting earlier for expeditious resolution of the pending issues IRM
meetings shall be held even before the expiry of 8 weeks. Zonal Managers/Regional will take
appropriate steps for speedy decision on the disputes brought to their notice. Where issues are not
resolved at the Regional level, the same will be taken for discussions and settlement in the Central
IRM meetings at Head Office level.
v)
In case of agitation by the employees, there would not be use of abusive language and
vulgar slogans by names against individual officers.
vi)
The Federation reiterates that it is opposed to the use of violence, coercive methods and
does not approve the abusive and vulgar language by the members.
vii)
Regarding the reported acts of indiscipline inter-alia the use of abusive and vulgar
language by a few employees in the demonstrations held on 23.7.1983 in the Zonal Office, Delhi
and acts of indiscipline by two employees of Rewa Branch, the Federation reiterates its belief in use
of peaceful and decent means for resolution of the disputes and does not approve the use of abusive
and vulgar language by employees.”
Thereafter on 1.9.1989 a settlement, arrived/entered into between the Management of Punjab National Bank and
respondent no.2 which reads as under:-
“Reg: Industrial Relations Machinery Meeting –Zonal IRM
Our settlements dated 31.10.1974 and 1.11.1983 with All India PNB Employees Federation, inter alia
provide that :
-
to resolve disputes, a machinery consisting of representatives (not exceeding 3) of the units of the
Federation i.e. All India PNB Employees’ Federation and the management shall be constituted
which shall meet once in 8 weeks at Regional level and departmental level.
-
The decisions arrived at such meetings shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Bipartite
Settlement and Head Office circulars including settlements with the Federation.
-
Where the issues are not resolved the same may be taken up for discussion and settlement by an
between H.O. Personnel Division and All India PNB Employees’ Federation at regular intervals
but not exceeding a period of 12 weeks.
-
Minutes of the meetings held at Regional and HO level shall be recorded and signed by the parties.
-
Grievances/disputes arising out of non-implementation of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement,
H.O. circulars, settlements with the Federation may be discussed in the IRM meeting.
-
The transfer cases of employees are not to be discussed in the IRM meetings.
2.
We had requested the Zonal Managers in their conference held on 24.1.83 that they should monitor
the IRM meetings at Regional level and send their comments on the issues discussed at Regional level if they
considered it appropriate for discussion at Head Office Level.
3.
It has been observed that the residual issues of Regional IRM are not being monitored at Zonal
Office level in the absence of a proper machinery and hence these issues are being directly referred to
Central IRM, which is a policy making body. The grievances/disputes arising out of non-implementation of
the provisions of Bipartite Settlement, HO circulars, settlements with the Federation, are also being referred
by the Federation in the Central IRM meetings, though guidance could be imparted by the Zonal Office in
such matters.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2319
4.
In view of the difficulties experienced as herebefore, the management and the Federation have
agreed that apart from the Regional and Central IRM, one more forum may be created at Zonal level to
discuss unresolved problems of Regional IRM with the Zonal Head.
5.
It is, therefore, advised that Zonal IRM Meetings will be convened henceforth at Zonal level and for
this Zonal IRM Machinery would be constituted as follows:-
a)
Management:
Representatives
-
Zonal Manager
-
Chief Manager/Manager (Staff) in the Zonal Office.
-
Concerned Regional Manager/Chief Managers/Asstt. General Managers of branches,
depending upon the issue.
b)
Union Representatives
-
President or General Secretary of the State level Federation from within the zone.
-
A representative of the unit of the Federation from the concerned Region depending upon
the issues.
-
Total number of Union representatives will not exceed 7.
The meetings of the Zonal IRM may be held thrice in a year.
The residual issues of the Regional IRM will be discussed in the Zonal IRM. However, the transfer
cases, as also disciplinary action cases of employees, are not to be discussed in the Zonal IRM
Meeting.
The minutes of the meeting held at Zonal IRM shall be recorded and signed by the parties.”
Above mentioned settlement/memorandum entered between the respondent no.2 and the Management of
Bank/respondent no.1 in order to settle the dispute of employees/workmen working in the Punjab National Bank, for
the grievance of the workmen etc. as well as industrial relation machinery meetings, got binding effect, in view of
Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, quoted hereunder:
"18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.-- (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement
between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding
on the parties to the agreement.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be
binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.
(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award
in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of Section 10-A or an award of a
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on--
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board
arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they
were so summoned without proper cause;
(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in
respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;
(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were
employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates
on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part."
In M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. The Workmen employed under M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. reported in AIR
1978 SC 828, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"Whereas a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workman otherwise than in the
course of conciliation proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, a settlement arrived at in
the course of conciliation proceeding under the Act is binding not only on the parties to the industrial
dispute but also on other persons specified in Cls. (b), (c) and (d) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 18 of the Act."
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of ITC Limited, Workers Welfar Assocn. Vs. Management of ITC Limited 2002
CJ (SC) 394 has held as under:
2320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“In General Manager, Security Paper Mill v. R.S. Sharma (AIR 1986 SC 954), E.S. Venkata-ramiah, J.
Speaking for the Court explained the rationale behind S. 18(3) thus :-
"Even though a Counciliation Officer is not competent to adjudicate upon the disputes between the
management and its workmen he is expected to assist them to arrive at a fair and just settlement.He
has to play the role of an adviser and friend of both the parties and should see that neither party
takes undue advantage of the situation. Any settlement arrived at should be a just and fair one. It is
on account of this special feature of the settlement sub-sec. (3) of S.18 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 provides that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding under that
Act shall be binding on (i) all parties to the industrial dispute, (ii) where a party referred to in
clause (i) is an employer, his heirs, successors, or assigns in respect of the establishment to which
the dispute relates and (iii) where a party referred to in Cl. (i) is comprised of workmen, all persons
who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment as the case may be to which
the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in
that establishment or part. Law thus attaches importance and sanctity to settlement arrived at in the
course of a conciliation proceeding since it carries a presumption that it is just and fair and makes
it binding on all the parties as well as the other workmen in the establishment or the part of it to
which it relates as stated above."
16. Admittedly, the settlement arrived at in the instant case was in the course of conciliation proceedings
and, therefore, it carries a presumption that it is just and fair. It becomes binding on all the parties to the
dispute as well as the other workmen in the establishment to which the dispute relates and all other persons
who may be subsequently employed in that establishment. An individual employee cannot seek to wriggle out
of the settlement merely because it does not suit him.”
It is not in dispute rather admitted fact between the parties that at State level i.e. in the State of U.P. the grievances of
employees/workmen of PNB were agitated by the U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU) with the Management and
the respondent no.1 i.e. PNB in view of the settlements arrived between the Management of PNB and respondent
no.2.
After the formation of Punjab National Bank Progressive Employees Association/claimant registered under Trade
Union Act having registration no.6820 on 22.8.1986 (copy of registration certificate, by the claimant as Annexure-5
to the claim petition).
And as per clause 5 of the constitution of PNB Staff Association. U.P., annexed as Annexure-6 to the claim petition,
which deals with ‘Affiliation’, reads as under:-
5.
Affiliation
Punjab National Bank Staff Association, Uttar Pradesh shall affiliate itself to U.P. Bank Employees Union
and All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation under All India Bank Employees Association’.
In view of the Clause 5 of constituent of PNB Staff Association, UP/Claimant was affiliated with the respondent no. 2
i.e. All India PNB Employees Federation and the grievances of employees /workmen which were earlier agitated at
the state level/State of UP by the UP Employees Association, UP (UPBEA) in respect to IRM facility etc. have been
raised/agitated by the claimant with the respondent no. 1 on the basis of settlement/MoU entered between the
responded no. 1/Bank and respondent no. 2/All India PNB Employees Federation dated 31.03.1974, 01.11.1983 and
01.09.1989 in respect to IRM etc.
However, certain dispute and difference has arisen between the claimant and respondent no. 2 as a result to which the
respondent no. 2 has deaffiliated the claimant i.e. to say withdrawn the affiliation facility which was initially extended
to the claimant and wrote a letter to the bank that respondent no. 2 has deaffiliated the claimant.
In the said background respondent no. 2/Bank wrote two letters dated 01.8.2018 and 18.9.2018, which are reproduced
below:-
Letter dated 01.8.2018
“Reg: Extension of Facility of circle/zonal IRM meeting to PNB Progressive Employees’
Association, Uttar Pradesh (PNBPEA) Affiliated to AIPNBEF
This is in reference to your letter dated 3.7.2018 on the captioned matter.
3.
In this regard, we have to inform you that necessary instructions have been conveyed to all
Zones/Circle offices to extend the facility of IRM meetings to PNB Progressive Employees
Association, UP (PNBPEA, UP) with immediate effect”.
Letter dated 18.9.2018
“Reg: Extension of Facility of Union’s Notice Boards at the Branches/Offices in U.P. State
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2321
We are in receipt of letter dated 17.9.2018 from Shri P.R.Mehta, General Secretary, AIPNBEF on
the captioned matter wherein Sri Mehta has raised concerns over not extending the facility of
Union’s Notice Board to state affiliate of AIPNBEF (Majority Workmen Union) i.e. All India PNB
Employees Federation in few circle offices/branches.
Earlier, in U.P. State PNBSA (UP) was the state affiliate of AIPNBEF. However, vide our
letter dated 1.8.2018, it was advised to all Circle/Zonal Offices to extend the facility of Circle/Zonal
level IRM Meeting with new state affiliate of AIPNBEF i.e. PNB Progressive Employees’
Association, UP.
Since PNBSU (UP) is no more a state affiliate in UP of AIPNBEF, hence, you are advised
to extend all the facilities available to a state affiliate of Majority Workmen Union as per Bank’s
extant guidelines to PNB Progressive Employees’ Association, Uttar Pradesh including facility of
Union’s notice board with immediate effect and same may be advised to all the circle offices under
your jurisdiction.”
Further, in view of the said factual background i.e. after issue of the letters dated 01.8.2018 and 18.9.2018 by the
concerned authority of the respondent no. 1/Bank the IRM facility which was extend to the claimant/PNB Staff
Association, as per the Settlement/Memorandum of Understanding entered between the Bank and respondent no. 2
(on 31.03.1974, 01.11.1983 and 01.09.1989) the Bank/respondent no. 1 has withdrawn the IRM facility. The said
facts it is evident from paragraph 11 of the claim statement field by the claimant which is quoted herein below:
“11.
That as stated above, in the State of U.P., the Punjab National Bank Staff Association (U.P.) was
the only Union having the right to raise the grievance of the employees of the Punjab National Bank and had
been the Chief Constituent of All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) and
recognized as such. As it had more than 80% employees of the Bank as its members and in view of the
settlements reached between the Bank and the AIPNBEF, the method of holding of IRM meetings was
evolved to settled out the grievances of the employees at the Circle/ Zonal level and it is the Punjab National
Bank Staff Association (U.P.) which for the last about 34 years as PNBSAUP and prior to that as UPBEU
has been participating in IRM being held by the Bank and for ventilating the grievance of the employees of
the Bank.”
Further, from the evidences on affidavit filed on behalf of the claimants (examination in chief viz. of Sri Kamal
Kumar, Vice President, Sri Sanjay Kumar Misra, Deputy Secretary and Sri Ayaujuddin Ahmad, Assistant General
Secretary, which are identical in nature and the relevant paragraph of the evidence of Sri Kamal Kumar, Vice
President of claimant (W-28) are reproduced hereunder:
“6. यि की ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक स्ट्टाफ एसोजिऐिन, उत्तर प्रिेि, आल इजण्डया बैंक एम्ृलाईि एसोजिऐिन
(ए०आई०बी०३०ए०) एवं यु०ृी०बी०इ०यू० से सम्बद्ध व मान्यता प्राप्त िज।
यि दक दिनांक 31.10.1974 को आल इजण्डया ृी०एन०बी० इम्प्लाई फेडरेिन ने ृी०एन०बी० प्रबन्ितंत्र के
सा जद्वृक्षीय समझौता के अंतगवत आई०आर०एम० (इंडजस्ट्रयल ररलेिन मिीनरी) का गठन करते हुए बैंक
कमवचाररयों के समस्ट्याओं का समािान करने का जनणवय जलया जिसके अन्तगवत आई०आर० एम० की बजठक
प्रबन्ितंत्र व मान्यता प्राप्त कमवचारी संघों के नाजमत सिस्ट्यों द्वारा करने का जनणवय हुआ।
10. यि दक यू०ृी०बी०यू० (उत्तर प्रिेि बैंक इम्लाईि यूजनयन) ने अृनी एदकक संरचना को संघीय संरचना में
ृररवर्तवत करते हुए आवेिक / िावाकताव ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक स्ट्टाफ एसोजिऐिन उत्तर प्रिेि को बैंकवाइि इकाई
के प ृ में मान्यता एवं सम्बद्वता प्रिान कर दिया एवं दिनांक 22. 8.1986 को रेड यूजनयन एक्ट के अन्तगवत
इसका ृंिीकरण हुआ तभी से आवेिक / िावाकताव ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक स्ट्टाफ एसोजियेिन उत्तर प्रिेि
आई०आर०एम० मीटटंग में ृी०एन०बी० प्रान्तीय कमवचारी संघ के प ृ में यू०ृी०बी०यू० (उत्तर प्रिेि बैंक
इम्ृलाईि यूजनयन) के स्ट् ान ृर सजम्मजलत िोती रिी।
11. यि दक अचानक दिनांक 30.5.2018 को उृमिाप्रबन्िक मु्यालय नई दिल्ली ने िोनल मजनेिसव, ल नऊ,
आगरा एवं मेरठ को जनिेजित दकया दक आवेिक/ िावाकताव ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक स्ट्टाफ एसोजिऐिन उत्तर प्रिेि से
कोई भी आई०आर०एम० मीटटंग न की िाये िब दक उस समय जनर्ववादित प ृ से आवेिक/ िावाकताव के ृास
िो जतिाई से अजिक कमचाररयों का बहुमत प्राप्त ा। इसके ृिात् दिनांक 1.8.2018 को प्रबन्ितंत्र ने ृत्र िारी
करते हुए प्रजतवािी सं० 3 िो की उस समय तीन-चार प्रजतित कमवचाररयों की सिस्ट्यता के सा उत्ृन्न हुआ ा
एवं यिाेँ तक दक उसका रेड यूजनयन एक्ट के अन्तगवत ृंिीकरण भी निीं हुआ ा, को आवेिक/िावाकताव के स्ट् ान
ृर आई०आर०एम० मीटटंग के जलए अजिकषत कर दिया।
2322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri Kamal Kumar, Vice President of claimant during his cross examination stated as under:-
‘18.
Cross examination of witness Kamal Kumar by O.P.No.2 witness Kamal Kumar swears oath to
depose truth-
Present by I am the Vice President of PNB Staff Association, Lucknow Unit, I do agree that the settlement
31st October 1974, settlement dated 13th September 2013 held between PNB Management and All India PNB
Employees Federation O.P. No.3 force. I do not agree to the suggestions that the Units of O.P. No.3 will
only participate in IRM meetings.’
Moreover, on behalf of respondent no. 2 evidence on affidavit was filed of Sri Kamal Kumar Mishra (Vice President
of Respondent No. 2), relevant paragraph of the same are quoted herein below:
“5.
That after nationalization of private bank by the government of India in 1969, the Punjab National
Bank in consultation with the All India PNB Employee Federation had allowed constituting the State Unit of
Bank Employees Association individually. However, as per the settlement dated 30.10.1974, the Bank and
the All India PNB Employee Federation had agreed for holding IRM meetings with the State unit of
Federation, but since nationalisation was held in he year 1969 and UPBEU was already existing in the State
of Uttar Pradesh, who was also having Punjab National Bank Employees as members and office bearers of
the Association.
6.
That thereafter in pursuance of the settlement dated 31.10.1974, All India PNB Employee
Federation had authorized UPBEU to conduct IRM meetings in respect of the Punjab National Bank
Employees with Punjab National Bank Management as State affiliate unit till the formation of formal State
Union of PNB employees and such system had continued till formations of Punjab National Bank Staff
Association, U.P. in 1986.
9.
That para-5 of the Constitution of PNBSAUP specifically written and mentioned as that Punjab
National Bank Staff Association U.P. shall affiliate itself to Uttar Pradesh Bank Employees Union and All
India PNB Employees Federation and employees of Punjab National Bank, in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
covered under the definition of workmen under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, shall be eligible for ordinary
member.
10.
That being affiliated with All India PNB Employees Federation in the State of U.P. the Punjab
National Bank Staff Association, U.P. was authorized as per the provisions of Settlement dated 01.11.1983
held between Punjab National Bank Management, Corporate Office and employees union i.e. All India PNB
Employees Federation. The Settlement dated 31.10.1974 and 01.11.1983 are annexed with claim
application filed by the applicant and marked as Exhibit No. E-3.
11.
That as per the settlement of 1974 and 1983 the Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P, since
1986 to June 2018 had enjoyed the benefit of exclusive and sole association to conduct IRM meetings on
behalf of exclusive and sole association to conduct IRM meetings on behalf of All India PNB Employees
Federation in the State of Uttar Pradesh for PNB employees.
13.
That, however, during May 2018 the union members of Punjab National Bank Staff Association,
U.P., applicant union and its members had formed an organization in the name of All India Federation of
PNB Employees and Sri M.M. Rai had conducted their meeting at Delhi on 12.5.2018. The copy of Circular
No.31/18 is marked as Exhibit No.E-4.
14.
That Sri M.M. Rai General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. applicant
union had parallel and illegally formed All India Association of PNB Employees called as All India
Federation of PNB Employees and thus violated the terms and conditions of own bye-laws and also created
a parallel organization against the majority union i.e. All India PNB Employees Federation. Moreover the
All India PNB Federation of Employees created by applicant union Punjab National Bank Staff Association,
U.P. against the respondent no.2 is totally unsustainable act and also All India Federation of PNB
Employees had started floating their State unit parallel to the State unit of All India PNB Employees
Federation and started acting against the interest of respondent no.2 i.e. All India PNB Employees
Federation and its members.
15.
That therefore having no alternative, the All India PNB Employees Federation had to secure the
interest of members of union, had written a letter dated 28.5.2018 to the General Manager PNB (HRMD)
Head Office, regarding withdrawal of affiliation from Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P.,
applicant union.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2323
16.
That thereafter the formation of respondent no.2 had begin in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
several members of Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. has resigned from their membership and
formed union as PNB Progressive Employees Association, U.P., Uttar Pradesh.”
Further during the period of cross examination the witness Sri Kamal Kumar Mishra mentioned as under :-
“32.
In June 2018 dispute between claimant union and management arose. Prior to June, 2018 the
claimant union was allowed to participate in IRM meeting.”
On behalf of respondent no.3 evidence by way of affidavit was filed by one Sri Subhas Ranjan Bajpai who is
Chairman of PNB Progressive Employees Association, U.P., the relevant portion of which is quoted below:-
“4.
That during May, 2018 few members of Punjab National Bank Staff Association, U.P. and General
Secretary Sri M.M. Rai had announced to form a National level union named as “All India Federation of
PNB Employees” and thus created a rival union against opposite party no.2.
6.
That in the year 2018, the respondent no.3 union came into existence and the union i.e. Punjab
National Bank Progressive Employees Association, U.P. is the registered Trade Union under Trade Union
Act 1926 bearing Registration No.10175 of 2018-19 in the State of Uttar Pradesh and has been granted
affiliation by the Central Committee of All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation, respondent
no.2 in its meeting dated 3.7.2018. True copies of the Registration Certificate, Bye-laws as well as the
Resolution dated 3.7.2018, are being annexed as Annexure no.4 to written statement filed by the answering
respondent and marked as Exhibit No. E-1.
7.
That after affiliation of the deponent association with the Central Association Federation a request
was made to the Corporate Management of PNB at New Delhi that a Zonal/Circle level IRM meeting should
be conducted with the deponent association vide letter dated 03.7.2018 send by the General Secretary of All
India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, vide letter dated
4.8.2018 the General Secretary of the Federation was informed by the Bank authorities i.e. Deputy General
Manager, Human Resource Management Division, Corporate Office, New Delhi that necessary directions
for holding IRM meeting with the deponent association has been issued. Photocopy of the letter dated
4.8.2018, is annexed as Annexure No.5 to written statement filed by the answering respondent and marked as
Exhibit No.E-2.
8.
That vide letter dated 18.9.2018, the Deputy General Manager, Human Resource Management
Division, PNB Corporate Office, New Delhi had clarified the position that earlier claimant union i.e. Punjab
National Bank Staff Association, U.P. was the affiliate unit of State of U.P., however, thereafter vide letter
dated 1.8.2018, the facility of the IRM has been extended to the deponent Association, which is the State
affiliate Federation. It was further clarified in the aforesaid letter that the claimant union i.e. Punjab
National bank Staff Association, U.P. is no more the State affiliate of All India Punjab National Bank
Employees Federation and respondent no.3, is authorized to conduct IRM meeting in Uttar Pradesh i.e.
Punjab National Bank Progressive Employee Association i.e. deponent union. The copy of the letter dated
18.9.2018 is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.6 to written statement filed by the answering
respondent and marked as Exhibit No.E-3.”
In the cross examination to the above it is stated as under:-
“16.
To my knowledge on 4.8.2018 Bank recognized O.P. No. accepting O.P.No.3 as majority Union.
18.
In 1985 petitioner Union was formed. To formation of petitioner Union U.P. Bank Employees
Union was participating in IRM meeting U.P. Bank Employees Union was affiliate of All India PNB
Employees Federation. I do agree that Bank Employees Union at Central level and at State level have
different.
20.
I assert that on 4.8.2018 O.P.No.3 was a registered union. Our union O.P.No.3 is of State level
affiliated to All India PNB Employees Federation O.P.No.3 in a State Unit. O.P.No.3 was allowed to
participate in IRM meeting as it was affiliate of All India PNB Employees Federation and not became the
majority of Union of State PNB Employees.”
Accordingly, from the pleadings of claimant as well as evidence laid by claimant as well as respondent no. 2, position
which emerge out that at All India, there is a Union/Association to raise the grievances of employees/workers in the
various banks is All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) and at State level there is another Association
known as U.P. Bank Employees Union (UPBEU) and subsequently for the speedy redressal of grievances of the
employees/workers working in the PNB an Association/Federation was formed known as All India Punjab National
Bank Employees Federation (AIPNBEF) i.e. opposite party no.2 and the same entered into Memorandum of
Settlement with the management of the Bank on 31.10.1974, 1.11.83 & 1.9.1989.
2324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On the basis of aforesaid Memorandum of Settlements, the grievances of the employees/workers working in the Bank,
IRM etc. were being agitated at State level by U.P. Bank Employees Union. After creation/formation of claimant i.e.
PNB Bank Staff Association having registration certificate no.6820 year 1986-87 under the Trade Unions Act, the
grievance which were initially agitated by U.P. Bank Employees Union of the employees working in the Punjab
National Bank are agitated by the claimant on the basis of Memorandum of Settlements entered into between the
Management of Bank and the respondent no.2. However, due to certain reasons the respondent no.2 de-affiliated the
claimant’s union as a result of which the Punjab National Bank wrote letters dated 1.8.2018 and 18.9.2018 thereby
withdrawing the IRM facility which was initially given by it to the claimant’s union and extended the same to the
respondent no.3 i.e. PNB Progressive Employees Association.
Accordingly, on the basis of material on record (pleadings and evidence), the fact which came to light that the
Bank/respondent no. 1 has withdrawn the IRM facility not on its own act but in view of the representation made by
the respondent no. 2/All India PNB Employees Federation that it has the affiliated (withdrawn the affiliation facility),
which was extended to the claimant as per the agreement/Memorandum of settlement entered between the respondent
no. 2 and Bank.
Thus, the question which is to be considered not whether in view of the said factual background it can be said that as
per the above said facts there is industrial dispute as per section 2 ‘k’ of the I.D. Act, 1947 between claimant and
Bank.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Gopal
Patwardhan (Civil Appeal No.320 of 1955) decided on 6.11.1956 (AIR 1957 SC 104) held as under:-
“10.
The question whether a dispute by an individual workman would be an industrial dispute as defined
in s. 2(k) of the Act XIV of 1947, has evoked considerable conflict of opinion both in the High Courts and in
Industrial Tribunals, and three different views have been expressed thereon:
(I) A dispute which concerns only the rights of individual workers, cannot be held to be an
industrial dispute. That was the opinion expressed in Kandan Textiles v. Industrial Tribunal
(AIR1951 Mad 611). There, Rajamannar C. J. observed that though the language of the definition
in s. 2(k) was wide enough to include such a dispute, the provisions of S. 18 suggested that
something more than an individual dispute between a worker and the employer was meant by an
industrial dispute. The other learned Judge, Mack J., was more emphatic in his opinion, and
observed that the Act was "never intended to provide a machinery for redress by a dismissed
workman". It became, however, unnecessary to decide the point, as the court came to the
conclusion that the reference itself was bad for the reason that there was no material on which the
Government could be satisfied that there was a dispute. The views expressed in Kandan Textiles v.
Industrial Tribunal (supra) were approved in Manager, United Commercial Bank Ltd. V.
Commissioner of Labour (1951) ILLJ1Mad but here again, the observations were obiter, as the
point for decision was whether a right of appeal conferred by s. 41 of the Madras Shops and
Establishments Act XXXVI of 1947 was taken away by implication by Act XIV of 1947. The
question, however, arose directly for decision in J. Chowdhury v. M. C. Banerjee(1951) 55C.W.N.
256, in which the order of the Government referring the dispute of a dismissed employee to the
adjudication of a Tribunal was attacked as incompetent, and it was held by Mitter J., following the
observations in Kandan Textiles V. Industrial Tribunal (supra) that the dispute in question was not
an industrial dispute, and that the reference was, in consequence, bad.
(II)A dispute between an employer and a single employee can be an industrial dispute as defined in
s. 2(k). That was the decision in Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P.
(1954) IILLJ263All. In that case a reference of a dispute by a dismissed employee and the award of
the Tribunal passed on that reference were attacked as bad on the ground that the dispute in
question was not an industrial dispute within s. 2(k) of Act XIV of 1947, and it was held by
Bhargava J., that an industrial dispute could come into existence even if the parties thereto were
only the employer and a single employee and that the reference and the award were, in
consequence, valid. A similar decision was given by a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal
in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1953)1 L.L.J.757.
(III) A dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot per se be an industrial dispute,
but it may become one if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. That was held by
Bose J., in Bilash Chandra Mitra v. Balmer Lawrie & Co.(1953) OOLLJ337Cal, by Ramaswami
and Sarjoo Prosad JJ., in New India Assurance Co. v. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal(1954)IILLJ21Pat and by Balakrishna Ayyar J., in Lakshmi, Talkies, Madras v.
Munuswami and others(1955) 2 L.L.J.477 and by the Industrial Tribunals in Gordon Woodroffe &
Co. (Madras). Ltd. v. Appa Rao(1955)2 L.L.J.541 and Lynus & Co. v. Hemanta Kumar
Samanta(1956)2 L.L.J.89.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2325
10.
The preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last of the three views stated
above, and there is considerable reason behind it. Notwithstanding that the -language of s. 2(k) is wide
enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes
Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only
disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a
workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same bad not been
taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. If that were the correct position, the respondent was not
entitled to apply under s. 16(2) of the Act as the workmen in the industry had not adopted his dispute as their
own and chosen to treat it as their casus belli with the Company. But then, we are directly concerned in this
appeal not with the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 but with the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial
Disputes Settlement Act XXIII of 1947, and in the view which we take of the rights of the respondent under
that statute, there is no Deed to express a final opinion on the question whether a dispute simpliciter between
an employer and a workman would be an industrial dispute within S. 2(k) of Act XIV of 1947”.
Also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Newspapers Ltd. Vs. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. AIR
1957 SC 532 held as under:-
“19.
The use of the words " workmen" and " workman in the above rule is indicative of the intention of
the Act being applicable to collective disputes and not to individual ones, and this is fortified by the finality
and the binding effect to awards by r. 28 and more specially by S. 18 of the Central Act which makes awards
binding not only on the individuals present or represented but on all the workmen employed in the
establishment and even on future entrants.
24.
In Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. V. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan (1957)
ILLJ27SC, this Court observed that decided cases in India disclose three views as to the meaning
of 'industrial dispute'
(i) a dispute between an employer and a single workman cannot be an 'industrial dispute';
(ii) it can be an industrial dispute; and
(iii) it cannot per se be an industrial dispute but may become one if taken up by a trade union or a
number of workmen.
25.
This Court discussed the scope of industrial dispute as defined in s. 2(k), of the Central Act, and
after referring to the conflict of judicial opinion as to its applicability to the case of a dispute between an
employer and a single workman further observed:
“The preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last three views stated above, and
there is considerable reason behind it. Notwithstanding that the language of s. 2(k) is wide enough
to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial
Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that- the machinery provided therein should be set in
motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute
touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication
under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the union or a number of workmen."
26.
Although the question did not directly arise, this Court in D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and
others(1953)4 SCR302 discussed the meaning of the expression 'industrial dispute' and was of the opinion
that it-
"conveys the meaning to the ordinary mind that the dispute must be such as would affect large
groups of workmen and employers ranged on opposite sides...... But at the same time, having regard
to the modern conditions of society where capital an labour have organised themselves into groups
for the purpose of fighting their disputes and settling them on the basis of the theory that in union is
strength, and collective bargaining has come to stay, a single employee's case might develop into an
industrial dispute, when as often happens, it is taken up by the trade union of which he is a member
and there is a concerted demand by the employees for redress".
27.
This view is in consonance with the basic idea underlying modern industrial legislation. The
interpretation given to the corresponding phrase "trade dispute" in English law and "industrial dispute" in
Australian Law also accords with this view and in the absence of an express provision to the contrary or
necessary intendment there is no reason to give a different interpretation to the expression in the Indian
Statute.
28.
According to English decisions an individual dispute of a workman is not included in 'trade dispute'
which corresponds to 'Industrial Dispute' in the Indian Act. In the English Trade Disputes Act of 1906 and
2326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1919 as also in Reg. 58-AA of the Defence (General) Regulation, 1939, 'trade dispute' was defined in
language very similar to 'industrial dispute' in the Indian Statute. Dealing with a trade dispute, Lord Shaw in
Conway vs. Wade (1909) A.C.506 said:
" But I cannot see my way to hold that "trade dispute" necessarily includes accordingly every case
of person al difference between any one workman and one or more of his fellows. It is true that after
a, certain stage even such a dispute, although originally grounded, it may be, upon personal
animosity, may come to be a subject in which sides are taken, and may develop into a situation of a
general aspect containing the characteristics of a trade dispute; but until it reaches that stage I
cannot hold that a trade dispute necessarily exists."
29.
Lord Wright observed in National Association of Local Government Officers v. Bolton
Corporation (1943) A.C.166
" I think the same may be said of the Industrial Courts Act and of reg. 58-AA, in both of which the
word 'trade' is used in the very wide connotation which it bears in the modem legislation dealing
with conditions of employment, particularly in relation to matters of collective bargaining and the
like.."
30.
Ex parte Keable Press Ltd.(1943)2 All E.R. 633 was an instance of an individual dispute
developing into a 'trade dispute' because of the strike by a union to enforce the rein- statement of dismissed
workman. That was how this term (trade dispute) was interpreted by the Court of Appeal in R. V. National
Arbitration Tribunal (1951)2 All E.R.828 after taking into consideration the definition of the word 'dispute'.
31.
In Australian cases also, without specific reference to any definition of the phrase the courts have
excluded individual disputes from the scope of industrial disputes. In Jumbunna Coal Mine v. Victorian
Coal Miners Association (1908) 6 C.L.R.309, Griffths C.J. observed:
" An industrial dispute exists where a considerable number- of employees engaged in some branch
of industry make common cause in demanding from or refusing to their employers (whether one or
more)
some
change
in
the
conditions
of
employment
which
is
denied
to
them................................................... "
32.
Similarly in Federated Saw Mills & Co. Employees of Australasia v. James Moore & Son
Proprietory Ltd. (1909) 8 C.L.R.465, Griffths C.J. gave the characteristics of an industrial dispute as
follows:
" It is necessary at the outset to consider the meaning which the term 'industrial dispute' conveyed
in 1900 to the, minds of persons conversant with the English language....................."
“The word 'industrial denotes two qualities which distinguish them from ordinary private disputes
between individuals, namely [1909] 8 C.L.R. 465 that on one side at least of the dispute the
disputants are a body of men acting collectively and not individually."
33.
Isaacs J. in George Hudson Ltd. v. Australian Timber Workers' Union(1923)32 C.L.R. 413
stated:
"The very nature of an 'industrial dispute', as distinguished from an individual dispute, is to obtain
new industrial conditions, not merely for the specific individuals then working. It is a battle by the
claimants, not for themselves alone and not as against the respondents alone, but by the claimants
so far as they represent their class.”
34.
According to Griffths C.J. "The term- "industrial dispute" connotes a, real and substantial
difference having some element of persistency, and likely, if not adjusted, to endanger the industrial peace of
the community". Vide Federated Saw Mills Case(1909 8 C.L.R. at p. 488. The same meaning was attached to
the expression by Latham C.J. in Metal Traders Employers Association v. Amwlgamated Engineering
Union(1953) 54 C.L.R. at p. 403:
"Industrial disputes are essentially group contests-there is always an industrial group on at least
one side. A claim of an individual employee against his employer is not in itself an industrial
dispute.”
We shall now refer to the Indian decisions which bear on this question.
35.
Rajamannar C.J. in Kandan Textile Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal,,Madras and another(1949)
NULLLLJ875 Mad held that the definition of industrial dispute is wide enough to cover a dispute between
an employer and an individual workman but taking into consideration s. 18 of the Central Act he was of the
opinion that such an extended definition cannot be given to it in s. 2(k) of the Central Act. Mack J. agreed
with the decision of Rajamannar C. J. but he said that the case of an individual workman if taken up by the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2327
worker's union makes such a dispute an industrial dispute. In that case items of difference were referred to
the Industrial Tribunal., One of the items in dispute was the wrongful removal of a workman, Sundaram by
name. In the', High Court an objection was taken to the legality of the award on the ground that no
industrial dispute existed and that there was no material before the Government on the basis of which it
could make a reference. It was held that the dispute as to a single workman was not an industrial dispute.
Kandan Textile Ltd. case (1949) NULLLJ875Mad was followed in United Commercial Bank, Ltd. v. The
Commissioner of Labour, Madras I.L.R.1952 Mad 43 which was a case under s. 41 of the Madras Shops
and Establishments Act and the right of appeal given to an individual employee against the order of the
employer dispensing with his services under s. 41(2) of Madras Shops and Establishments Act was
challenged on the ground that it had been taken away by the Central Act. It was held that an individual
worker had the right to appeal. Vishwanatha Sastri J. in his judgment referred with approval to the
distinction made between an individual dispute and an industrial dispute in Kandan Textile Ltd. v. Industrial
Tribunal, Madras (supra).
36.
The second view that such a dispute falls within the definition of the word "industrial dispute" is
supported by a decision of a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal- Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Their Workmen (1953)1 L.L.J.757. There the question was mainly decided on the- basis of s. 33-A of the
Central Act (introduced in 1950) which gives the right to an individual workman dismissed or dealt with
contrary to s. 33 of the Act during an industrial dispute to raise the matter before a tribunal. The
introduction of s. 33-A would not alter the construction to be placed on the phrase 'industrial dispute'. On
the contrary it supports the view that an individual dispute is not comprised in that phrase. In view of what
has been said above, we are of the opinion that in so far as that case lay& down that a dispute raised by an
individual workman as to his personal grievance is within an industrial dispute, it cannot be said to have
been correctly decided.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate Vs. The Management of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate (AIR 1958 SC 353), held as under:-
8.
We proceed now to read the definition clause the interpretation of which is the only question before
us. That definition clause is in these terms:
" S. 2 (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;"
9.
It must be stated here that the expression " workman is also defined in the Act, and the definition
which is relevant for our purpose is the one previous to the amendments of 1956; therefore, in reading the
various sections of the Act, we shall read them as they stood prior to the amendments of 1956 and refer to
the amendments only when they have a bearing on the question before us. The definition of 'workman' as it
stood at the relevant time stated :
" S. 2 (s): " Workman " means any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do
any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purposes of
any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a workman discharged during
that dispute, but does not include any person employed in the naval, military or air service of the
Government."
10.
Now, the question is whether a dispute in relation to a person who is not a workman within the
meaning of the Act still falls within the scope of the definition clause in s. 2 (k). If we analyse the definition
clause it falls easily and naturally into three parts: first, there must be a dispute or difference; second, the
dispute or difference must be between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen
or between workmen and workmen; third, the dispute or difference must be connected with the employment
or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. The first
part obviously refers to the factum of a real or substantial dispute; the second part to the parties to the
dispute; and the third to the subject matter of that dispute. That subject matter may relate to any of two
matters-(i) employment or non- employment, and (ii) terms of employment or conditions of labour, of any
person. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the conditions referred to in the first and second
parts of the definition clause are clearly fulfilled in the present case, because there is a dispute or difference
over the termination of service of Dr. K. P. Banerjee and the dispute or difference is between the employer,
namely, the management of the Dimakuchi tea estate on one side, and its workmen on the other, even taking
the expression "workmen " in the restricted sense in which that expression is defined in the Act. The real
difficulty arises when we come to the third part of the definition clause. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the expression " of any person " occurring in the third part of the definition clause is an
expression of very wide import and there are no reasons why the words "any person" should be equated with
2328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
" any workman ", as the Tribunals below have done. The argument is that inasmuch as the dispute or
difference between the employer and the workmen is connected with the non-employment of a person called
Dr. K. P. Banerjee (even though he was not a workman), the dispute is an industrial dispute within the
meaning of the definition clause. At first sight, it does appear that there is considerable force in the
argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is rightly pointed out that the definition clause does not
contain any words of qualification or restriction in respect of the expression " any person " occurring in the
third part, and if any limitations as to its scope are to be imposed, they must be such as can be reasonably
inferred from the definition clause itself or other provisions of the Act.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1960
SC 777), held as under:
“8.
In construing this provision it would be relevant to remember that an industrial dispute as defined
by s. 2(k) of the Act 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. This definition
emphatically brings out the essential characteristics of the dispute with which the Act purports to deal. The
disputes must relate to the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour and they must arise, inter
alia, between workmen and their employer. Ordinarily, an individual dispute which is not sponsored by the
union or is otherwise not supported by any group of workmen is not regarded as an industrial dispute for the
purposes of the Act.”
Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.H. Jadhav Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.1089 of 2005)
a (AIR 2005 SC 998), held as under:-
“5.
The definition of "Industrial Dispute" in Section 2(k) of the Act shows that an Industrial Dispute
means any dispute or difference between an employer 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
the employment or with the condition of labour, of any person. The definition has been the subject matter of
several decisions of this Court and the law is well settled. The locus classicus is the decision in Workmen of
M/s. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. M/s. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) 1965 (3) SCR 394
where it was held that for the purposes of Section 2(k) it must be shown that(1) the dispute is connected with
the employment or non employment of a workman. (2) the dispute between a single workman and his
employer was sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen. The phrase "the
union" merely indicates the Union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a
minority of the workmen. (3) the establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had
joined the Union of another establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to
that Union to take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, despite
the fact that such Union was not exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned. An
illustration of what had been anticipated in Dharam Pal's case is to be found in the Workmen of Indian
Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Management of Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd. AIR 1970 SC 737
where an 'outside' union was held to be sufficiently representative to espouse the cause.
Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Lord Krishna Textiles Mills and others Vs. Rampal Singh and
others W.P.(C) 4468, 4469, 4497 and 4498/2014 decided on 17.4.2015, has held as under:
“14.
The term "Industrial Dispute" has been defined in Section 2(k) of the ID Act as follows:
"2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
xxx xxx xxx
(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;"
15.
The words 'industrial dispute' convey a meaning to the ordinary mind that a dispute must be such
that would affect a large group of workmen and employers ranged on opposite sides on some general
questions on which each group is bound together by a community of interest, such as wages, bonus,
allowances, pensions, provident fund, number of working hours per week, holidays and so on. It is a settled
law that an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the ID Act is raised before the authority concerned on a
collective basis because a dispute not espoused by others of the class to which the aggrieved party belongs is
not an industrial dispute. Therefore, a dispute between an employer and a single workman cannot be an
industrial dispute unless it is taken up by a number of workmen or trade union.
24.
This court is not convinced by the view taken by the trial court. As observed above the tribunal is
competent to decide only on the disputes which come under the definition of Section 2(k) and 2A of the ID
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2329
Act and all other kinds of disputes are outside the realms of the ID Act. An individual dispute, howsoever
genuine it may be, is not a subject matter of adjudication under the ID Act which talks of collective action
and dispute resolution. Thus, the issue of espousal goes to the root of the matter and is not in a nature of a
mere technicality. This court in „Management of Messers Hotel Samrat vs. Government of NCT & Ors‟,
(2007) 2 LLJ 950 Del observed as under:-
"14. ........The Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate only an industrial dispute. The Tribunal came
to conclusion that the cause of the workmen was not espoused. Once the Tribunal decided the issue
of espousal against the workman, the Tribunal lost its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute since no
industrial dispute existed. However, the Tribunal considered that it was a mere technicality. I
consider that the entire jurisprudence of Industrial Disputes Act, is in respect of resolution of
collective dispute of the workmen. It is not a mere technicality. An individual dispute unless covered
under section 2A cannot be raised under Industrial Disputes Act."
25.
It is pertinent to state here even at the cost of repetition that a Tribunal/Labour Court would get
jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when it is properly espoused under the provisions of the ID Act. In such
a case, any objections to non-espousal or improper espousal cannot be brushed aside lightly by the
Tribunal/Labour Court rather, must be heard and decided before hearing the parties on merits. Further,
merely because a party to a dispute had not objected to the terms of reference would not be sufficient enough
a ground not to entertain objections to proper espousal of a dispute. As I have already observed that the
issue of espousal goes to the root of the matter, hence objections, if any to espousal must be decided first
before a tribunal goes any further to decide on the merits of the dispute.
In view of said position of law on Section 2(k) of the Act i.e. "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.
Further, the definition uses the word "dispute". The dictionary meaning of the word "dispute" is: to contend any
argument; argue for or against something asserted or maintained. In Black's Law Dictionary the meaning of the word
"dispute" is: a conflict or controversy, specially one that has given rise to a particular law suit.
In Advance Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Iyer the meaning given is: claim asserted by one party and denied by the
other, be the claim false or true; the term dispute in its wider sense may mean the ranglings or quarrels between the
parties, one party asserting and the other denying the liability.
In the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. P.R. Mankad and others (1979) 3
SCC 123 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term “dispute” means a controversy having both positive and
negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other.
Thus, taking into consideration the above aid position of law, in the present case it cannot be said that withdrawal of
the IRM facility by the Bank from the claimant on the basis of the representation made by respondent no. 2 to
respondent no. 1, which was earlier availed by the claimant as per settlement/Memorandum dated 31.03.1974,
01.11.1983 and 01.09.1989 is an industrial dispute within the scope and meaning of section 2 ‘k’ of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947.
Rather it is dispute between the claimant/Punjab National Bank Staff Association, UP and respondent no.2/All India
PNB Employee Federation i.e. dispute between two unions which does not come with the meaning of section of 2 ‘k’
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Further I carefully gone through the rulings cited on behalf of claimant as mentioned hereinabove are not applicable
in the controversy involved in the present case and the claimant cannot claim any benefit from them in support of
their case as well as from the Clause/para 584 to 588 of the Shastry Award.
Moreover, one of argument, advanced by the learned counsel for claimant Sri I. M. Pandey that the respondent no. 2
deaffiliate/withdrawn the affiliation of the claimant union without providing any opportunity whatsoever; and on the
basis of which the Bank has withdrawn the IRM facility, so, the action of respondent no. 2 & respondent no 1 are in
violation of principles of natural justice cannot be considered in the present case as the same is outside the scope of
reference; and as per settled position of law this Tribunal has to adjudicate and decide a dispute with the terms of
reference. (see State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Om Prakash Sharma 2006 (109) FLR 1203 (SC); Bhogpur
cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Harmesh Kumar (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 128 and Osshiar Prasad & others vs
Employers in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad 2015 (144) FLR 830
(SC).
2330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the reference no. L-12011/33/2019-IR(B-II) dated 25.9.2019 is not maintainable before this
Tribunal as the same does not come within the ambit and scope/purview of ‘Industrial Dispute’ as defined u/s 2 ‘K’ of
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
Lucknow.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
16th April, 2024
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1065.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj उत्तर ृजिम रेलवे 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;]
ds iapkV (08/2007) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41012/189/2005- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North West Railway and their
workmen.
[No. L-41012/189/2005- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-41012/189/2005-IR (B-I) Dated: 04.01.2007
Jh jkedj.k iq= Jh jkesr mQZ jkegsr] fuoklh& xzke phekiqjk] iksLV& dksykuk] rglhy&clok] ftyk& nkSlk ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
1- tujy eSustj] uksFkZ osLV jsyos] jsyos gksLihVy ds lkeus] t;iqjA
2- fMohtuy jsyos eSustj] uksFkZ osLV jsyos] ikoj gkml jksM+] t;iqjA
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh jkedj.k] Lo;a izkFkhZA
% Jh lktu lSuh] vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh fotsUnz flag] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ &foi{khx.kA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2331
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 04-01-2007 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the claimant Shri Ramkaran S/o Shri Ramhet is entitled for
re-employment in Railway, Jaipur w.e.f. 13.03.2002 being his name on the live
register of Engineering Department of Railway, Jaipur? If yes, what relief the
claimant is entitled to and from which date?
2- izkFkhZ us vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 21-08-1985 dks
dStqvy Jfed ds :Ik esa gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ ls fnukad 10-10-1986 rd yxkrkj dqN vkfVZfQf'k;y czsd nsrs gq;s
lsok;s yh xbZA fnukad 27-04-1992 dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkdfLed Jfedksa ls lacaf/kr ykbo jftLVj esa izkFkhZ dk
uke dzekad 1149 ij ntZ crk;k x;kA fnukad 23-04-1992 ls vizkFkhZx.k us lSdM+ksa Jfedksa dks u;h fu;qfDr;kWa nh
fdarq izkFkhZ dks dksbZ lwpuk ,oa izkFkfedrk ugha nh xbZA fnukad 17-09-2001 dks vizkFkhZx.k us vLFkkbZ Jfedksa gsrq
fjfDr;kW fudkyh ftlds dze esa fnukad 11-12-2001 dks izkFkhZ us viuk izkFkZuk i= iqu% fu;qfDr gsrq fn;kA fdarq
ml ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZA rc izkFkhZ us ekuuh; dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k t;iqj ihB ¼ftls vkxs ek=
CAT dgk tkosxk½ ds le{k O.A. 87@2002 izLrqr dhA ftl ij fnukad 13-03-2002 dks CAT us izkFkhZ ds
izkFkZuk i= fnukad 11-12-2001 ds laca/k esa 2 ekg esa ldkj.k Lihfdax vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vkns'k vizkFkhZx.k dks
fn;kA fnukad 24-04-2002 dks vizkFkhZ us ;g vkns'k tkjh dj fn;k vkSj dgk fd izkFkhZ dk uke orZeku jksy esa
miyC/k ugha gSA bl vkns'k ls O;fFkr gksdj izkFkhZ us ,d voekuuk ;kfpdk CAT ds le{k izLrqr dhA ftlesa
CAT us fnukad 05-01-2004 dks vkns'k ikfjr gq;s vizkFkhZx.k dks voekuuk ls eqDr dj fn;kA vizkFkhZx.k us izkFkhZ
dk uke dStqvy jftLVj esa ntZ gksuk eku Hkh fy;k vkSj lSdM+ksa fjfDr;ksa ij izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa dks fu;qDr
fd;k x;k fdarq izkFkhZ dks dksbZ izkFkfedrk ugha nh xbZA izkFkhZ }kjk ckjEckj fu;qfDr dh ekWx vizkFkhZx.k ls dh
tkrh jghA vizkFkhZx.k us izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= xyr :Ik ls fuLrkfjr dj fn;kA blfy, ;g vkS|ksfxd fookn
mBkuk iM+kA fnukad 11-10-1986 ls izkFkhZ csjkstxkj gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dks fnukad
13-03-2002 ls vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa iqu% fu;qfDr fnyokbZ tk;s vkSj leLr vkfFkZd o lsokykHk] lsok dh fujarjrk
lfgr fnyk;s tkosA
3- foi{khx.k us vius oknksRrj esa loZizFke rks ;g vkifRr dh gS fd CAT }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa
fnukad 24-04-2002 dks izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu] foi{kh foHkkx us foLr`r vkns'k }kjk fuLrkfjr dj fn;kA
blh vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k ds fo:} CAT }kjk voekuuk ;kfpdk fnukad 05-01-2004 dks fujLr dj nh xbZA
blfy, izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= ÞiwoZ fu.kZ;Þ ds fl}kar ds vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ ls yxkrkj lsok;s ugha
yh xbZA izkFkhZ us ,oth dkexkj ds :Ik esa dke djus dk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkdfLed Jfedksa
dks foi{kh us dksbZ fu;qfDfr ugha nhA CAT }kjk izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ugha fn;k x;k Fkk oju~
izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s fuLrkfjr djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldk
vuqikyu dj fn;k x;kA foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k gSA vr% okn
fujLr fd;k tkosA
4- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a jkedj.k dks ijhf{kr fd;kA vkSj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ W-1 ls izn'kZ W-42
rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
5- foi{khx.k ds lk{; esa Jh vkj- ih- ;kno] eq[; dk;kZy; v/kh{kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k x;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa
dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ughas fd;k x;kA
6- fnukad 20-08-2019 dks izkFkhZ us vius vfHkHkk"kd Jh ,e- Qk:[k csx }kjk gLrk{kfjr fyf[kr rdZ vf/kdj.k ds
le{k izLrqr fd;sA ftldh izfr foi{khx.k dks nh xbZA foi{khx.k dh vksj ls Hkh fnukad 28-03-2024 dks vius
fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s x;s ftldh izfr izkFkhZ dks nh xbZA mHk;i{k us dksbZ vU; ekSf[kd rdZ izLrqr ugha djuk
pkgkA blfy, mHk;i{k ds fyf[kr rdksZ o miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij bl fookn dk fu.kZ;u fd;k tk jgk gSA
2332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7- izkFkhZ us vius rdksZ esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 23-04-1992 dks ,sls lHkh dkexkjksa ds uke izn'kZ W-1 ykbo
jftLVj esa vafdr fd;s x;s ftUgksusa fnukad 01-01-1981 ds ckn jsyos esa dk;Z fd;k FkkA mDr ykbo jftLVj esa
izkFkhZ dk uke dze la- 1149 ij ntZ gksuk foi{kh us Lohdkj fd;k gSA izn'kZ W-3 fjfDr dk i= tkjh gksus ds
ckn izkFkhZ us izn'kZ W-4 izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k fdarq mls iqu% fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA CAT }kjk izkFkZuk i=
ij ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk ysfdu nqHkkZX;o'k voekuuk ;kfpdk CAT }kjk fujLr
dj nh xbZA fnukad 23-04-1992 ds ckn izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks] tks fd vkdfLed Jfed Hkh Fks] foi{kh us
fu;qfDr;k nh vkSj fu;fer Hkh fd;kA tcfd izkFkhZ dks izkFkfedrk nsrs gq;s muls igys fu;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s
FkkA blfy, okn Lohdkj dj izkfFkZr vuqrks"k fnyk;k tkosA
8- foi{kh us vius fyf[kr rdZ esa ewyr% izkFkhZ ds bl nkos dks CAT }kjk fu.khZr dj fn;s tkus ds dkj.k ÞiwoZ
fu.kZ;Þ ds izHkko ls vkPNkafnr crk;kA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik esa fu;qDr
fd;k tkuk ekuk gS vkSj ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k ftlls izkFkhZ dk ,oth dkexkj ds :Ik esa dk;Z djuk
izekf.kr gks ,oth dkexkj u gksus ds dkj.k Hkh izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldh ,oa izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks
foi{kh us fopkfjr dj Lihfdax vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA ;fn izkFkhZ dks ml vkns'k ls vlarqf"V jgh gksrh rks CAT
ds vkns'k dks pqukSrh nh tk ldrh FkhA izkFkhZ us iwoZ vuqrks"k dks gh bl izdj.k esa ekWxk gS tks fof/k ds vuqlkj
pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
9- mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ds vk/kkj ij bl fookn esa fuEukfdar fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
10-
1- D;k izkFkhZ dk uke foi{khx.k ds ykbo jftLVj esa dze la- 1149 ij vafdr gksus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ
fnukad 13-03-2002 ls foi{kh ds v/khu iqu% fu;kstu izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
--------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k foi{kh us fnukad 13-03-2002 ds mijkar izkFkhZ ls dfu"B vkdfLed Jfedksa dks lSdM+ksa fjDr inksa ij
fu;qfDr nh vkSj izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr gsrq izkFkfedrk ugha nh\
--------------izkFkhZ
3- D;k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ;g okn@ izkFkZuk i= dsUnzh; iz'klfud vf/kdj.k t;iqj ihB ds vkns’k fnukad 21-03-
2002 o 05-01-2004 ds izHkko ds dkj.k ÞizkaxU;k;Þ ¼Res judicata½ ds fl}kar ls vkPNkfnr gS\
-----------------foi{kh
4- vuqrks"k D;k gks\
11- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fu.kZ; bl izdkj gS%&
12-
13- izkFkhZ us vius eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 23-04-1992 dks vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 01-01-1981
ds ckn dk;Z ij yxs leLr dkexkjksa dh ,d fyLV tkjh dh ftls ykbo jftLVj dgk x;kA ;g ykbo jftLVj
izn’kZ W-1 gSA ftlds dzekad 1149 ij izkFkhZ dk uke ntZ gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh }kjk vius i= fnukad
24-04-2002 izn'kZ WW-6 esa bl rF; dh Lohd`fr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dk uke fnukad 23-04-1992 dks tkjh fd;s x;s
dStqvy yscj jftLVj esa dzekad 1149 ij ntZ gksuk ekuk x;k gSA blh dze esa izkFkhZ us fnukad 11-12-2001 dks
,d izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ W-3 fjfDr;ksa dh lwpuk ds lanHkZ esa izLrqr djuk dgk gSA bl lanHkZ esa foi{kh }kjk tkjh
fjfDr lwpuk dk voyksdu vko';d gS foi{kh ds i= izn'kZ W-3 fnukad 17-09-2001 esa ;g vafdr gS fd
Þ;krk;kr foHkkx t;iqj e.My ds orZeku esa jksy ij miyC/k LdzhUM+ ,oth dkexkj@ vLFkkbZ ntkZ izkIr xzh"e
dkyhu ikuh okyk bathfu;fjax foHkkx ds xzqi ÞMhÞ ds in ij tkus ds fy, fodYi ekWxs tk jgs gSa] vr% fodYi
LVs'ku ekLVj@lgk;d LVs'ku ekLVj ds ek/;e ls bl dk;kZy; dks fnukad 01-10-2001 rd vko';d :Ik ls
layXud ¼d½ esa Hkjdj HksatsÞA
14- bl i= esa of.kZr funsZ'k ls Li"V gS fd ek= ,oth dkexkj@xzh"e dkyhu ikuh okyk ftls vLFkkbZ ntkZ izkIr gks
rFkk LdzhUM+ Hkh gks }kjk ;krk;kr foHkkx ds t;iqj e.My esa xzqi ÞMhÞ ds in ij fu;qfDr ds fy, LVs'ku ekLVj
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2333
ds ek/;e ls fnukad 01-10-2001 rd gh fodYi izsf"kr fd;s tkus FksA fdarq izkFkhZ us bl funsZ'k dk ikyu ugha
fd;k ,oa viuk vkosnu i= 2 ekg foyEc ls fnukad 11-12-2001 dks fcuk LVs'ku ekLVj@ lgk;d LVs'ku
ekLVj ls vxzsf"kr djok;s lh/ks gh e.My izca/kd if'pe jsyos t;iqj dks izsf"kr dj fn;kA
15- ;gk ;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk Hkh lqlaxr gS fd izkFkhZ vkdfLed Jfed ds in ij bathfu;fjax foHkkx esa fu;qDr
FkkA og Þ,oth dkexkjÞ vFkok ÞvLFkkbZ ntkZ izkIr xzh"e dkyhu ikuh okykÞ ds in ij ;krk;kr foHkkx esa
fu;qDr Hkh ugha FkkA fQj Hkh foi{kh us izn'kZ W-6 i= fnukad 24-04-2002 ds ek/;e ls izn'kZ W-3 fjfDr lwpuk
fnukad 17-09-2001 dk mYys[k djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks mldh fu;qfDr gsrq vuqi;qDrrk ls voxr djk;k vkSj ;g Hkh
dgk fd egk izca/kd ppZxsV dh iwoZ Lohd`fr fcuk mls dk;Z ij fy;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA mlds ckn Hkh fnukad
16-10-2002 dks foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks iqu% lwfpr fd;k fd izn'kZ W-3 i= fnukad 17-09-2001 }kjk bathfu;fjax
foHkkx esa vkdfLed dkexkjksa dh HkrhZ fd;k tkuk lR; ugha gSA ;krk;kr foHkkx esa fu;fer :Ik ls ,oth
dkexkj dk;Zjr Fks] mudh fu;fer fu;qfDr gsrq Ldzhfuax Hkh gks pqdh Fkh fdarq mUgsa ;krk;kr foHkkx esa in
fol`ftr gks tkus ls fu;fer ugha fd;k tk ldk vkSj og ljIyl gks x;sA orZeku uhfr ds vuqlkj dk;Zjr
ljIyl LVkQ dks vU; foHkkxksa esa igys lekfgr fd;k tkuk gSA foi{kh us ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k fd ;krk;kr
foHkkx esa dk;Zjr LdzhUM ,oth dkexkjksa ls bathfu;fjax foHkkx esa fu;qfDr gsrq fodYi ekxs x;s FksA ftUgksusa
fodYi fn;k mUgsa fu;qfDr nh xbZA mi;qDrZ fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd HkwriwoZ vkdfLed dkexkjksa dks foi{kh }kjk
fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA
16- ;gk ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd CAT us fnukad 05-01-2004 dks vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s foi{kh ds blh i= fnukad
16-10-2002 esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa dks leqfpr ekurs gq;s bl i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks ldkj.k ,oa eq[kj vkns'k ds :Ik
esa ekuk gSA bl fLFkfr esa vf/k'ks"k deZpkfj;ksa dks pWawfda vU; foHkkxksa esa igys lek;ksftr djuk Fkk] blfy, fnukad
17-09-2001 ¼ izn'kZ W-3½ i= }kjk ftu deZpkfj;ksa us fodYi izsf"kr fd;s Fks dks bathfu;fjax foHkkx esa fu;qfDr
nh xbZA bl izdkj ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd ;g fjfDr lwpuk fdlh HkwriwoZ vkdfLed dkexkj dks fu;qfDr nsus gsrq
vk'kkf;r ugha FkhA foi{kh us izkFkhZ ds vH;kosnu fnukad 11-12-2001 dk leqfpr ,oa ldkj.k jhfr ls fuLrkj.k
fd;k gSA fnukad 13-03-2002 dks CAT us izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds v/khu iqu% fu;ksftr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k] oLrqr%
ugha fn;k Fkk oju~ mlds vH;kosnu fnuakd 11-12-2001 dks ldkj.k ,oa eq[kj vkns'k }kjk fuLrkfjr djus ek=
dk vkns'k fn;k FkkA mlh ds vuqlj.k esa foi{kh us fnukad 16-10-2002 dks izkFkhZ dk vH;kosnu fuLrkfjr fd;k
vkSj CAT }kjk bls] muds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh vuqikyuk ekurs gq;s] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr voekuuk ;kfpdk
fujLr dj nh xbZA
17- bl foospu ds mijkar pwfda izkFkhZ izn'kZ W-3 fjfDr lwpuk fnukad 17-09-2001 ds vuqlkj ;ksX;rk ugha j[krk Fkk
rFkk mlus fofgr vof/k vkSj fofgr ek/;e ls izkFkZuk i= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k] og fnukad 13-03-2002 ls foi{kh
ds v/khu iqu% fu;kstu izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr
fd;k tkrk gSA
18-
19- ;g rF; fookfnr ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dk uke foi{kh foHkkx }kjk fnuakd 23-04-1992 dks tkjh fd;s x;s ykbo
jftLVj ds dzekad 1149 ij vafdr gSA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd foi{kh }kjk tks fjfDr;kW foKkfir dh xbZ os izn'kZ
W-9] 10] 11] 12 o 32 gSA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd mls tkudkjh ugha gS fd ykbo jftLVj dh lwph esa
ls fdlh dks fu;qfDr nh xbZ gS ;k ughaA fQj dgrk gS fd ykbo jftLVj esa ftu dkexkjksa ds uke gS muesa ls
cgqrks dks fu;qfDr nh xbZ] ijUrq mu dkexkjks dh lwph mlus izLrqr ugha dh gSA izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd jkepUnz iq=
Jh Hktuh eh.kk dk uke ykbo jftLVj esa Fkk mldks fu;qfDr nh xbZ gSA ysfdu iqu% Lohdkj djrk gS fd mlus
tks ykbo jftLVj dh lwph izn'kZ W-1 is'k dh gS mlesa jkepUnz dk uke ugha gSA bl izdkj ykbo jftLVj esa
izkFkhZ ls dfu"B fdlh O;fDr dks foi{kh }kjk fu;qfDr fn;k tkuk izkFkhZ ds lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA tks
fjDr inksa dh foKfIr;kWa foi{kh }kjk tkjh dh xbZ muds vuq:Ik fu;qfDr pkgus okys vH;FkhZ }kjk] fu/kkZfjr vafre
frfFk ds iwoZ funsZf'kZr jhfr ls vkosnu fd;k tkuk Hkh visf{kr FkkA fdarq] izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh foKfIr ds vUrxrZ
Lo;a }kjk vkosnu djuk u rks dgk gS vkSj u gh lk{; ls izekf.kr fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks ;g
vf/kdkj mRiUu ugha gksrk gS fd og fcuk vkosnu izLrqr fd;s ¼foKfIr ds vuqlkj½ foi{kh ls fu;qfDr gsrq vis{kk
djsA blfy, ;g fcUnq lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
2334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20-
21- ÞizkaxU;k;Þ ds fl}kar ds iz;kstu ds fy, dfri; vko';d rRo fo|eku gksuk visf{kr gSA bu rRoksa esa I'pkrorhZ
okn esa fook| fcUnq izR;{kr% ogh gksus pkfg;s tks iwoZorhZ okn esa FksA nksuksa oknksa esa leku i{kdkj gksuk Hkh
vko';d gSA lokZf/kd egRoiw.kZ ;g gS fd iwoZorhZ okn esa fook| fcUnq ij xq.kkxq.k ij fopkj dj mls l{ke
U;k;ky; }kjk vafre :Ik ls fofu'fpr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA ;fn ;g vko';d rRo fo|eku u gks rks ÞizkaxU;k;Þ
dk fl}kar ykxw ugha gksrkA
22- fof/k ds bl vkyksd esa iwoZorhZ U;k;ky; CAT gS] ftlds vkns'k fnukad 13-03-2002 dk voyksdu djus ij ;g
izdV gksrk gS fd ;g vkns'k mHk;i{k dks lqudj xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k ugha gSA ;g
fu"d"kZ CAT ds vkns'k ds fuEukfdar lqlaxr va'k ls Li"V gS%
23- .“Without going into the merits and the various allegations made by the applicant in the OA, we dispose it of
finally, at this stage, with the direction that the respondent department shall decide the representation of the
applicant dated 11.12.2001 (Ann. A/7) by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two month from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
24- CAT }kjk izdj.k ds xq.kkxq.k ij rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk O.A. esa fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa ij fopkj@ foospu fd;s fcuk
gh izR;FkhZ foHkkx dks izkFkhZ ds vH;kosnu fnukad 11-12-2001 ij ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funsZ'k ek= fn;k
x;k Fkk vkSj ;kfpdk vafre :Ik ls fu.khZr dj nh xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk voekuuk ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ij CAT
us foi{kh }kjk tkjh i=ksa fnukad 24-04-2002 ,oa 16-10-2002 dks vkns'kksa dk lE;d vuqikyu ekurs gq;s ;kfpdk
dks fujLr dj fn;k FkkA bl izdkj iwoZorhZ U;k;ky; ¼CAT½ ds vkns'k fnukad 13-03-2002 o 05-01-2004 pwWafd
mHk;i{k ds e/; fo|eku fook| fcUnq ftlesa izkFkhZ dk uke foi{kh ds ykbo jftLVj esa vafdr gksus ds vk/kkj ij
mls iqu% fu;ksftr fd;s tkus dk fo"k; foospuh; Fkk ij xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fu.kZ;@vkns'k izekf.kr
ugha gksrs gaSA blfy, CAT ds mi;qZDr vkns'kksa dk orZeku fookn ij ÞizkaxU;k;Þ ds :Ik esa vkPNknu ugha ekuk
tk ldrk gSA vr% ;g fcUnq foi{kh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
25-
26- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;s x;s gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s ykbo
jftLVj esa uke vafdr gksus ij Hkh iqu% fu;kstu dk vf/kdkjh ugha ik;k x;k gSA blfy, izkFkhZ foi{kh ds fo:}
dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSa
27- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
28- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1066.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वी. के. कुरे एंड 4 अन्य के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 29/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-26012/07/2006- आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1066.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2335
cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Bhilai Steel Plant and Shri V.K. Kurre and 4 others which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-26012/07/2006-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2007
Present: P. K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri V.K. Kurre & 4 Others
Qtrs. No. 2 B, IMA Type, township Circular
Road, At and PO: Dallirjharas, Durg (CG)
Workman
Versus
The Managing Director
Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg (CG)
Management
(J U D G M E N T)
(Passed on this 21st day of May-2024)
As per letter dated 13/02/2007 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-
26012/07/2006 IR(M) dt. 13/02/2007. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management in relation to Bhilai Steel Plant in granting various lower
scales like L-3, L-4 & L-5 instead of L-6 (i.e. Rs. 1550 – 53 – 1921 – 60 – 2341 in 1990) to their workmen named
in the schedule appended herewith on their selection as Senior Operator (HEME) is justified ? If not, to what
relief are the concerned workmen are entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties
appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
According to the workmen, the management circulated vacancy for post of Senior Operator (HEME) and
invited applications stipulating the L-6 scale (i.e. Rs. 1550 – 53 – 1921 – 60 – 2341 in 1990) in 1990 vide Circular
dated 05.03.1990. The workmen applied and were selected for appointment. They were given offer of appointment for
L-6 scale by management vide letter dated 02.05.1990 but they were granted scale of L-4 instead of L-6 though they
were given designation of senior operator (HEME) vide order dated 19.07.1991 which was arbitrary on the part of
management. Some unions entered into a settlement on this issue on 24.11.1994 wherein they accepted pay scale of
L-4 for senior operators (HEME) which was of L-6 scale. The management issued a Circular on 19.04.2003 and
rectified the mistake by approving original scale of L-6 to L-8. Thereafter, these workmen were also granted L-6
scale. According to these workmen the action of management in granting L-4 scale to them on their appointment as
senior operator (HEME) which was of L-6 scale till 2003 Circular above noted was arbitrary and against law. The
workmen have further challenged the settlement of 1994, above referred between the union and management agreeing
L-4 scale in place of L-6 scale to the senior operators (HEME) on the ground that it was not signed by all the unions.
Accordingly, the workmen have prayed that holding the action of management in granting L-4 scale to them from
19.07.1991 i.e. the date when they were granted L-4 scale arbitrary and illegal, they be held entitled to L-6 scale and
other allowances admissible to L-6 scale from 19.07.1991 till 19.04.2003 i.e. the date of issue of the Circular by
management restoring L-6 scale.
In its written statement of defense, the management has taken a stand that firstly the dispute is not
maintainable and secondly there was a settlement dt. 24.11.1994 between the management and recognized unions
U/S. 18 of I.D. Act in which the unions agreed for L-4 scale to the senior operators (HEME). These workmen are also
bound by the settlement. According to the management, their offers for appointment issued to the workmen clearly
mentioned that on being posted as senior operators (HEME) they will be given L-4 scale which they accepted and
2336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
joined. Now, they cannot raise any dispute in this respect. The management further states that they all were granted L-
6 scale after Circular of 2003 and that they cannot be granted benefit of this Circular retrospectively.
In their rejoinder these workmen have stated that this dispute is maintainable and that the settlement of 1994
was illegal.
The workmen side did not file any oral evidence they filed some photocopy documentary evidence which are
Ex.- W/1 to W/7 the management also filed documentary evidence photocopy which are M/1 to M/31. They also filed
affidavit of their witness which is uncross examined by workmen side because none appeared for the workmen.
At the stage of argument also the workmen side did not appear. They did not file any written arguments. I
have heard argument of Mr. R.C. Shrivastava learned Counsel for management and have gone through the record.
On perusal of record in the light of arguments, following issue comes up for determination :-
1. Whether, the management was justified in granting L-4 scale for the post of Senior Operator
(HEME) which was a post of L-6 scale ?
2. Whether the workmen are entitled to get L-6 scale in the light of the Circular of 2003 restoring
L-6 scale for Senior Operators ?
Issue No.-1 :-
Ex. W/3 the vacancy circular dated 05.03.1990 filed by workmen and admitted by management shows that
the post of senior operator (HEME) is of L-6 scale. The appointment offers Ex. M/1 to M/12 filed by management
and proved by workmen goes to show that they were offered pay scale of L-4 in the offers of appointment. It is not
disputed that they joined the post accepting the offer and the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer. The joining
reports filed by management and admitted by workmen side Ex. M/20 to M/29 established this fact. Hence, there is
substance in the case of management that after accepting the terms and conditions of appointment, the workmen are
estopped from disputing it. As regards the legality of settlement of the 1994, since there is no evidence from the side
of workmen to suggest that the unions were not authorized to enter into the settlement, the settlement cannot be held
against law.
In the light of above discussion, the workmen are held not entitled to L-6 pay scale till Circular of 2003.
Issue no.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2 :-
On perusal of Circular of 2003, it is nowhere mentioned that it will apply retrospectively. Hence, these
workmen are held not entitled to benefit of Circular 2003 retrospectively. Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman
and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 21/05/2024
P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1067.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
अल्रा टेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड (यूजनट जवक्रम सीमेंट वक्सव) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रमेिचंर िाकड़, श्री
जगरिारी लाल गजरी, श्री ृुट्टा नागेश्वर राव, श्री नंिू हसंि िे ावत, श्री समुर हसंि राठौर, श्री अनूृ हसंि िे ावत, श्री
िसवंत हसंि चौिान, श्री रतन िास बजरागी एंड श्री बलवंत हसंि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 06/2023, 07/2023, 08/2023, 09/2023, 10/2023,
11/2023, 12/2023, 13/2023 and 14/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-79]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2337
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S. O. 1067.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 06/2023, 07/2023, 08/2023, 09/2023, 10/2023, 11/2023,
12/2023, 13/2023 and 14/2023) 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 Ultra Tech Cement Limited
(Unit Vikram Cement Works) and Shri Rameshchandra Dhakad, Shri Girdhari Lal Gary, Shri Putta
Nageswara Rao, Shri Nandu Singh Shekhawat, Shri Samudra Singh Rathore, Shri Anoop Singh Shekhawat,
Shri Jaswant Singh Chauhan, Shri. Ratan Das Bairagi & Shri Balwant Singh which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-79]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
1. CGIT/LC/RC/06/2023
Shri Rameshchandra Dhakad
S/o. Shri Kishanlal Dhakad
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department
R/o. Dhakad Basti, Kesarpura Kalan, PO:Kesarpura,
Tehsil-Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram Cement
Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor, Tehsil – Javad
Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
2. CGIT/LC/RC/07/2023
Shri Girdhari Lal Gayri
S/o. Late Shri Narayan Gayri, Category-H.E.O.
Mines Department, R/o. Village Borkhedi Talab,
Khor, Tehsil-Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
3. CGIT/LC/RC/08/2023
Shri Putta Nageshwar Rao S/o. Shri Krishna Rao
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department,
R/o. 6-3-49/1-2, Vidya Nagar, Aamdala-Valosa
Shrikapullam-532185 (AP)
Versus
Factory Manager
2338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
4. CGIT/LC/RC/09/2023
Shri Nandu Singh Shekhawat
S/o. Shri Mahabaks Singh Shekhawat
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department,
R/o. 415, Khadak Singh Wali Dhani, Ward No.-7, Vill.-Jhajar,
Teh.-Navalgarh, Distt.- Jhunjhnu-333304 (Rajasthan)
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
5. CGIT/LC/RC/10/2023
Shri Samudra Singh Rathore
S/o. Shri Bhopal Singh Rathore
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department, R/o. Ward No.2,
Jyoti Nagar, Behind Circuit House, Rajeev Senior Secondary
School, Ganpat ji ki Chakki, Churu-331001 (Rajasthan)
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
6. CGIT/LC/RC/11/2023
Shri Anup Singh Shekhawat
S/o. Shri Moti Singh Shekhawat
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department, R/o. Village & Post
Udavas, Tehsil & Distt.- Jhunjhnu-333304 (Rajasthan)
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
7. CGIT/LC/RC/12/2023
Shri Jaswant Singh Chouhan
S/o. Shri Keshav Singh Chouhan
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department, R/o. Village Juthari,
PO: Javas, Teh.-Kherwara, Distt.-Udaypur-313803 (Rajasthan)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2339
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
8. CGIT/LC/RC/13/2023
Shri Ratan Das Bairagi S/o. Ladudas Ji
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department,
R/o. C.S. 53, J.K. Colony, Nimbaheda
Rajasthan - 312601
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
9. CGIT/LC/RC/14/2023
Shri Balwant Singh S/o. Sardar Singh Sounlaki
Category-H.E.O. Mines Department,
R/o. Rajput Colony, Village & Post Ved
Disst.- Dungarpur, Rajasthan - 314001
Versus
Factory Manager
Ultra Tech Cement Limited (Unit Vikram
Cement Works) Vikram Nagar, Khor,
Tehsil – Javad, Distt.- Neemuch (MP)
(J U D G M E N T)
(Passed on this 17th day of May 2024)
Shorn of unnecessary details, the skeletal facts to be taken note of for adjudication of the lis are that
petitioners in these cases, challenged the action of management in retiring them after completing 58 years in service
whereas they were entitled to continue in service till date attained 60 years of age, as claimed by the petitioners. The
relief sought is that they be awarded salary for 2 years treating them in service till they attained 60 years of age. The
management came with a case that since these petitioners are engaged in Mines in Cement Industry and are governed
by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as well the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946
and not by the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961, their date of retirement shall be the date on
which they complete 58 years of age as provided in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 and not
by the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. R.B. Tiwari and learned Counsel Mr. Uttam
Maheshwari appearing for management. I have gone through the record as well.
Since, the dispute in all these cases is common between the parties, these cases are being disposed by
common Judgment.
For the sake of convenience, the relevant Provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
1946 and M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961 :-
2340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946
1.
Short title, extent and application.-
(1) This act may be called the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
(2) It extends to5 the whole of India.
(3) It applies to every industrial establishment wherein one hundred or more workmen are employed, or
were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months: Provided that the appropriate Government
may, after giving not less than two months’ notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official
Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any industrial establishment employing such number of
number of persons less than one hundred as may be specified in the notification
(4) Nothing in this Act shall apply to-
(i)
any industry to which the provisions of Chapter VII of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,
1946, apply; or (ii) any industrial establishment to which the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 apply :
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all industrial
establishments under the control of the Central Government .
M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961
Application of the Act. –
(1)
This Act shall apply to-
a) Every undertaking wherein the number of employees on any day during the twelve months
preceding or on the day this Act comes into force or on any day thereafter was or is more than
twenty; and
b) Such other class or classes of undertaking as the State Government may, from time to time, by
notification, specify in this behalf :
Provided that it shall not apply to an undertaking carried on by or under the authority of the
Central Government or railway administration or a mine or an oilfield.
(2)
Nothing in this Act shall apply to the employees in an undertaking to whom the Fundamental
and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services
(Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Services Regulations or any other rules or
regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the State Government in the Official Gazette apply.
The Cement Industry is notified in Schedule-1 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the “Act”) over
which this Act applies. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to a Gazette Notification dated 08.12.1977
S.O. No.-826(E) the State Governments have also been made Appropriate Government for the purpose of Section 2 of
the Act. This position has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yovan India Cement Employees
Union Vs. Management of India Cement reported in 1994 (1) SCC 572 holding that though the State Government
and Central Government both shall be Appropriate Government in the light of the aforesaid notification but in case of
Mines and quarries forming part of Cement Industry where Central Government alone has jurisdiction. This
judgment has been relied upon by a Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. Jabalpur in W.P. No.- 10143/2014
in its Judgment dated 05.09.2017.
Though the learned Counsel for petitioners have referred to and other Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
M.P. dated 08.06.2021 passed in W.P. No.- 1442/2020 and connected cases wherein it has been held that both the
Governments are Appropriate Government and may refer dispute with respect to employees of Cement Industry but
this Judgment will not help the petitioners in this case because they claim to be working in the Mines of the
management of Cement Factory. Hence, the Appropriate Government for the petitioners shall be the Central
Government.
This Tribunal established under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, is empowered to adjudicate the disputes
referred to it or arising under this Act. Likewise, Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals established under the M.P.
Industrial Relations Act 1960 are established and have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes referred to them or
arising out under M.P. Industrial Relations Act 1960.
Similarly, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 is applicable with respect to disputes
arising under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961
applies to disputes referred or arising under the M.P. Industrial Relations Act 1960. Relevant provisions have already
been referred above.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2341
In the light of this factual scenario, the petitioners cannot claim protection with regard to their retirement age
provided in the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961 at least before this Tribunal.
Another ground taken by management that since these petitioners have retired, this claim and dispute is not
covered under Section 2-A of the Act.
Section 2-A is being reproduced as follows :-
2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.—
(1)
Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an
individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or
arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial
dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
(2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in section l0, any such workman as is specified in sub-
section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the
dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to
the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of
such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they
apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3)
The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal
before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).
It is clear that dispute regarding or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination
of service of workmen is cognizable by this Tribunal and an illegal premature superannuation is a dispute arising out
of otherwise termination of services of the workmen. Hence, this argument from the side of management fails.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, holding that the claim raised by the petitioners in these
cases on the basis of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961 not cognizable by this Tribunal,
the petitions are held sans merit, liable to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. The petitioners are at
liberty to seek remedy before proper Forum. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 17/05/2024
P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1068.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससव अजभिेक एसोजसएट्स; एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कमलेि चौिान के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-
81/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड -16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-78]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S. O. 1068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 81/2020) 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 M/s Abhishek Associates; Airports Authority of India and Shri Kamlesh Chauhan which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-78]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
2342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/81/2020
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Kamlesh Chouhan,
1046, Hyder Nagar, Hatod,
Dist. Indor (M.P.) – 453111
Workman
Versus
M/s. Abhishek Associates,
Through : Shri Sanjay N. Dubey, Proprietor,
8, Parul Nagar, Shopping Centre,
Near Byuangdev Cross Road, Sola Road, Ghatlodia,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380061
The Director,
Airport Authority of India,
Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Airport,
Indore (M.P.) – 452005
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 16th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 10/12/2020 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-
48)/2020-IR dt. 10/12/2020. The dispute under reference related to :-
“क्या कमवकार श्री कमलेि चौिान (िो दक भारतीय जवमानृत्तन प्राजिकरण, इन्िौर की स्ट् ाृना में ृिस्ट् ा) को मजससव
अजभिेक एसोजसएट व्िारा औद्यौजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 की िारा 25 F की अनुृालना दकए जबना, दिनांक: 19/02/2020 को
नौकरी से जनकाला िाना न्यायोजचत िज? यदि निीं, तो उक्त कमवकार कब से और दकन लाभों के सा नौकरी ृर ृुनः बिाल दकया िाना
चाजिए ?”
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 the 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 the 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.
K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 16/05/2024P.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2343
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1069.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससव
आनंि माइहनंग कंृनी; आरीडोंगरी आयरन ओरे माइंस मेससव गोिावरी ृावर एंड इस्ट्ृात जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोिकों और श्री सुनील कुमार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर,
ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 42/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-29012/49/2013- आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S. O. 1069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 42/2014) 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 M/s Anand
Mining Company; Aridongri Iron Ore Mines M/s Godavari Power & Steel Limited and Shri Sunil Kumar which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-29012/49/2013-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/2014
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o. Ram Lal & 9 Other
At – Lakhan Kirana Stores, 256, Chowk
Shikaribaba Ward No.-5, Dalli-Rajhara,
Distt.-Balod (CG)
Workmen
Versus
The Proprietor/Manager
M/s. Anand Mining Co., Mining Contractor
504, 5th Floor, Dhebar Arcade, Pandari
Raipur (C.G.)
The Mines Owner
Aridongari Iron Ore Mines of
M/s. Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd., Hira
Arcade, Pandari, Raipur (C.G.)
Managements
A W A R D
(Passed on this 24th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 20/02/2014 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-
29012/49/2013/IR(M-I) dt. 20/02/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-
2344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the M/s. Anand Mining Co., Raipur in terminating the services of Sh.
Sunil Kumar S/o. Ram Lal, Rushuv Ram S/o. Fagu Ram, Jhumuk Soni S/o. Dhanu, Bhawani S/o.
Dhuvaram, Gorelal S/o. Latidas, Suresh Neshram S/o. Udai Lal, Brijmohan S/o. Bali Ram, Nakul Kumar
S/o. Sonu Ram, Chhotelal S/o. Chandeshwar Singh, Gore Lal S/o. Raman Singh w.e.f. 23.04.2013 is legal
and justified ? If not, what relief workmen are entitled ?”
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workmen, in short is that they were appointed by M/s. Anand Mining Company who were
contractors and were deputed to work with M/s. Godawari Powers and Ispat Limited. They worked continuously till
21.04.2013 and were dismissed from service without notice or compensation on the ground that they were indulging
with some other associations who were from outside. According to the workmen, their termination is against Section
25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the ‘Act’). They have prayed for their reinstatement with
all back wages and benefits holding their termination against law.
The management of M/s. Anand Mining appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the
management, inter alia, is that they were given contract by the Godawari Power for work allotted to them in the
Mines in Contract Labour (R&A) Act 1970 on the basis of a tender for the period 01.01.2012 to 30.10.2015. They had
employed these workmen who worked with them and were terminated from services when their conduct was found
not proper. The contract terminated on 30.10.2015 and now given to some other contractors.
In evidence the workmen side has filed affidavits of Suresh Neshram, Brijmohan, Sunil Kumar and Nakul
Devangan as their examination in chief out of which Brijmohan, Sunil Kumar and Nakul Devangan have been cross
examined by management no.-1 M/s. Anand Mining. The workmen side has further filed photocopy documents
relating to their appointment with M/s. Anand Mining, their salary slips and PF deduction papers as well order of
termination, admitted by the management. The management side has also filed The memorandum of agreement
between the contractor M/s. Anand Mining and M/s. Godawari Power, the Principal Employer. They have further
filed letter issued by management of M/s. Godawari Power intimating termination of the contract on 31.10.2015.
They have further filed copies of termination order and affidavit of the Director of M/s. Anand Mining Company
Manakchand Jain who has been cross examined by the workman side. The management of Godawari Power did file
their written statement of defense but did not file any evidence.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Dilip Ingle for workmen, Mr. R.N. Kesharwani for M/s.
Anand Mining & representative of M/s. Godawari Power. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments the following issues arise for determination:-
1)
Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmen is justified ?
2)
To what relief he is entitled ?
Issue No.-1 :-
The fact that, the workmen were employees of the contractor M/s. Anand Mining who was given contract by
the Principal Employer M/s. Godawari Power which started from 01.01.2012 and terminated on 30.10.2015 is not
disputed between the parties. The witnesses have also stated this fact in their statements which is corroborated by the
admitted documents regarding appointment, wage payment and other related documents of the workmen. The fact
that the contract started from 01.01.2012 and terminated on 30.10.2015 is established by the statement of the Director
witness and the work agreement as well the contract termination notice filed by the contractor and admitted by the
workmen side. The management of M/s. Anand Mining, the contractor has not disputed the claim of these workmen
that they continuously worked for more than 240 days in every year, which is further corroborated by the statements
of the workmen referred to above.
Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act are being referred to as follows:-
“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;
(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
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2345
(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.
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.”
The Director as a witness has admitted that no notice or compensation was given to these workmen at the
time of their termination. Hence, the termination of services of these workmen is held against law. Issue no.-1 is
answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2 :-
On the basis of finding on issue no.-1, when the termination of services of the workmen has been held
against law, the question is to what relief they are entitled.
Undisputed is the fact that the contract terminated on 30.10.2015 and was awarded to other contractor.
Hence, reinstatement of these workmen will not be legally sustainable.
One more thing required to be noticed here is that though the reference contains the names of 10 workmen,
only five of them i.e. Sunil Kumar, Nakul Namdeo, Gore Lal, Brijmohan & Suresh Neshram signed the statement of
claim and its verification clause. The remaining 5 workmen never appeared and never pursued the case. It is in the
statement of the Director of the M/s. Anand Mining that the remaining workmen are still working at the sight of M/s.
Godawari Power as employees of other contractor. Hence, only those workmen who filed the statement of claim and
pursued the case will be entitled to any relief. In the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand, considering all
the relevant factors, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the 5 workmen will meet the ends of justice
in my view to which these workmen are held entitled. Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.
In the light of above findings, following Award is passed.
AWARD
Holding the action of M/s. Anand Mining Company in terminating the services of the workmen Sunil
Kumar, Nakul Namdeo, Gore Lal, Brijmohan & Suresh Neshram unjustified in law, they are held entitled to a
lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each payable to them within 30 days from the date of publication of Award
in official Gazette, failing which interest @ of 8% from the date of Award till payment.
DATE: 24/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1070.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार लाइफ
इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री इंरिीत सतनामी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 32/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया
गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-17012/14/2012- आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S. O. 1070.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2014) 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 Life Insurance
Corporation of India and Shri Indrajit Satnami which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-17012/14/2012-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
2346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/2014
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Indrajeet Satnami,
S/o Shri Dadan Prasad Satnami,
R/o Amirati Post Devra Via Birsighpur,
Dist. Satna (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
Sr. Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Krishna Complex, Krishna Nagar,
Dist. Satna, (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 16th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 06/05/2014 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-
17012/14/2012-IR(M) dt. 06/05/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action of the Management of Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Indarjeet Satnami, Ex-Choukidar w.e.f. March 2011 is legal
and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Both
the parties submitted their respective 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 evidence, in the
absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the 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.
DATE: 16/05/2024
P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1071.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार गाडवन
रीच जिृ जबल्डरस एंड इंिीनीसव जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमवकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 09/2002) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-32011/5/99- आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2347
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S. O. 1071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 09/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Garden Reach
Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. and Their workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.05.2024.
[No. L-32011/5/99-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No.09 of 2002
Present : Justice K.D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd.
And
Their Workman Sri Baijnath Singh
Appearance :
On behalf of the Management
: Advocate Mr. Ranjay De
On behalf of the Workman
: Advocate Mr.Madhusudan Dutta.
Date: 30th May, 2024
A W A R D
By order No. L-32011/5/99 –IR (M) dated 27-02-2002, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following disputes
to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. in dismissing Sri
Baijnath Singh from service w.e.f. 30-06-1994 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present reference on the issue whether the management is
justified in dismissing the workman Shri Baijnath Singh are that Shri Baijnath Singh was employed in the above
company as a Pipe fitter and later he was assigned the job of multi trade. As per charge sheet, that on 4th March, 1993
immediate after recording attendance, the workman left his place of work and engaged in inciting the other workmen
at various points of the main yard i.e. in front of Medical Department in connection with the death of Naren Manna at
his residence on 03-03-1993.
That the workman along with other co-workmen unlawfully assembled in front of Gate No. 1 hearing the
news of arrival of dead body of Naren Manna. That he and other workmen insisted the dead body should be brought
inside the premises of the company and which was prevented by the security staff on duty. The workman along with
his co-workmen manhandled, abused and threatened security staff. They over powered the security staff on duty and
forcibly broke open the gate and brought the dead body inside and placed in front of GM’s personal office causing
total dislocation of work.
Workman was immediately placed under suspension vide order dated 05-03-1993, for his grave misconduct
in violation of clause 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 24 and 29 of certified standing order. Accordingly, he was charge sheeted on
06-03-1993 on the following charges:-
Clause 10 – riotous disorderly or indecent behaviour threatening, intimidating, interfering with the work
of other employees, assault or threat of assault, either provoked or otherwise.
Clause- 11 – Commission of any act subversive of good behaviour or of the discipline of the company.
Clause-14 -
Wilful or irresponsible action resulting in damage to any goods or property of the company.
Clause-19-
Conduct within the factory which is likely to endanger the life or safety of any person.
2348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Clause- 20 -
Refusal to accept order or other communication on served either in accordance with the
Standing Order.
Clause- 24 -
Conduct prejudicial to the interest or reputation of the company.
Clause- 29 -
Instigation, incitement, abatement or furtherance of the foregoing misdemeanours shall be
punishable as a major misdemeanour.
Enquiry was conducted on the above charges and at the conclusion of the enquiry, report was submitted to
the disciplinary authority, who concurred with the finding of the enquiry authority and considering the seriousness
and gravity of the misconduct of Sri Baijnath Singh, dismissed him from service. Accordingly a letter of dismissal
was served upon him on 30th June, 1994. An industrial dispute was raised at the behest of the workman by GRSE
Ltd. Worker’s Union and the present dispute has been referred by the Government of India to this Tribunal.
The workman concerned has challenged the validity of the enquiry on the ground that the charge sheeting
authority had no authority to issue charge sheet. Relevant documents were not supplied to him to prepare his proper
defense of the case. No copy of alleged report was supplied to him before initiation of domestic enquiry and despite
appeal the workman was not allowed to take help of a legal assistance in domestic enquiry. Neither documentary nor
oral evidence adduced by the management could prove the alleged charges brought against the workman. Evidence of
company’s witnesses also suffered from serious inconsistency and infirmities. The findings of enquiry authority were
not reasoned and was glaring instance of perversity.
However, by passing a preliminary order dated 24.02.2024, this Tribunal held domestic enquiry conducted
by the Management against the workman on the charges of misconduct mentioned above to be legal, valid, proper and
in consonance with the principle of natural justice. However, in view of section 11A of the I.D.Act,1947 fixed the
matter for consideration whether the Management is justified in dismissing workman Baijnath Singh from service.
Ld. Counsel for the workman filed his written notes of argument and referred to the following decisions in
support of his argument:-
1. Mavji C. Lakum –vs Central Bank of India, 2008-III-LLJ-I (SC).
2. The workmen of M/s. Fire Stone Tyre & Rubber & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. –vs- Manik Basudeb &
Ors. 1973 (I) LLJ 278.
3. Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. –vs- Its employees,1978 (II) LLJ SC 474.
4. Bank of India vs Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 2010-IV-LLJ 337 (Cal).
5. K.C.P. Employees Association, Madras –vs- Management of KCP Ltd., 1978 (I) LLJ SC 322.
6. Grindlays Bank Ltd. –vs- Central Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 1981 (1) LLJ 327.
The management to justify the punishment of dismissal of service imposed on the concerned workman to be
just and proper submitted its written notes of argument. The Ld. Counsel in support of its written notes of argument
referred to the following decisions:-
1. South India Cashew Factories Workers’ Union –vs – Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. (2006)
5 SDCC 201.
2. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (2006) 12 SCC 554.
3. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. –vs- Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (2022) 2 SCC 696.
4. A.P. State Road Transport Corpn.. –v-s Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad (2007) 1 SCC 222.
5. CMC Hospital Employees Union & Anrs –vs- CMC Association & Ors and State of Tamil Nadu –vs- CMC
& Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 691.
6. Hombe Gowda Educational Trust & Anrs. –vs- State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006)1 SCC 430.
7. West Bokaro Collery (Tisco Ltd.) –vs- Ram Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 729.
8. K.T. Varghese & Ors. –vs- State of Kerala & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 735.
9. Davalsab Husainsab Mulla –vs- North West Karnataka Road Transport Corpn., (2013) 10 SCC 185.
10. Adinath –vs- Chief General Manager, State Bank of India [2012(5) Mh. L.J.
11. Muriadih Collery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. –vs- Bihar Collery Kamgar Union (2005) 3 SCC 331.d
12. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn –vs- Dawoodbhai I. Ghanchi (2011) SCC OnLine Guj 7635 and
13. Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Deptt., Ranchi –vs- Their
Workmen (2019) 18 SCC 814.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2349
Ld. Counsel for the workman submitted that in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Fire
Stone Tyre & Rubber & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. and Mavji C. Lakum (supra), even if the domestic enquiry is found to be
fair and proper still the Tribunal can set aside or modify the punishment imposed by the management if the evidence
prove the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He further submitted the Tribunal is at
liberty to consider not only whether the findings of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also differ
from the said findings if a proper case is made out and finally decide the matter, if the alleged misconduct is not
established by the evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the workman submitted the evidence given by the alleged victim the Guard Yogia Oraon
does not prove that he being assaulted by the present workman Sri Baijnath Singh. The alleged victim has stated that
he was physically assaulted by Sri Basudeb Das and Md. Daud.
He further submitted that Sri R. N. Dasgupta, Manager- Engineering and In-charge of the Department where
the concerned workman was posted at the relevant time in his evidence stated that he never received any kind of
complaint against Sri Baijnath Singh and Sri Baijnath Singh had no past record of misconduct. That Sri Baijnath
Singh was an obedient and dutiful workman.
He has also stated the evidence of Sri Nurul Haque, a security personnel, prove that the vehicle in which
dead body of Manna was brought had permission from the management to enter inside the factory premises and
therefore the question of breaking open the gate by the workmen by assaulting or abusing the security personnel does
not arise and allegation brought against the workman is false.
He further submits the evidence of the defence witness produced by the workmen during domestic enquiry
prove that concerned workman was not present at the place of occurrence rather he was very much present at the
place of his work at the time of alleged incident. Thus workman has been falsely implicated.
Thus, he submits the above evidence given by both side witnesses during domestic enquiry prove that
allegation of assault upon security personnel by the concerned workman having no past blemished record and who
was not present at the place of occurrence during the entire period of alleged incident to be false. Consequently, the
allegation against the concerned workman for inciting or instigating other workmen to form unlawful assembly to
bring dead body of Naren Manna inside the factory premises or assaulting security personnel who put resistance or
forcibly breaking open the Gate no.1 and dislocating the work inside the factory prove to be false.
Here, I like to put a question to myself why the management would falsely implicate this workman
especially in an incident of assault and man-handling of security personnel at Gate no.1 on 04-03-1993 leaving aside
other hundreds of workmen working in the establishment of the management if he was not present at the place of
occurrence. In fact, in the claim statement, the union has specifically mentioned the concerned workman to be a union
leader and vocal against the management. So, one cannot expect a union leader to keep himself away from the
agitation of workmen/union in the factory premises and that too during the hour when he was very much present in
the factory premises.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the management submitted since the Tribunal has held the enquiry to be
valid, then it should not interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the management in the absence of
allegation of unfair labour practice and victimisation.
He further submitted that the Tribunal cannot substitute its subjective opinion in place what has been arrived
at by the domestic Tribunal while considering the quantum of punishment.
However, he candidly submitted that after the introduction of clause 11A in the I.D. Act, 1947 the
discretionary power has been conferred upon the forums created under the Act to interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed by the management in an appropriate case. The power under Section 11A of the Act, has to be
exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision of
management u/s 11A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment passed by the management is highly
disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned.
He has further submitted while considering the quantum of punishment if two views are possible then
Tribunal should be very slow in coming to a conclusion different from the management. That while re-appraising
evidence of the domestic enquiry u/s 11A Tribunal should not act as an Appellate Court but as a Revisional Court. In
exercising the discretionary power u/s 11A the Tribunal should be very cautious and careful. That severance of
employer employee relationship as a punishment may put an employee concerned into great hardship but at the same
time it has to be considered that discipline is required to be maintained in the organisation.
He has submitted that the concerned workman has been charge sheeted for involving in rioting, assaulting
the security officer and another person and for committing act subversive of good behaviour or of the discipline of the
company. If such workman is allowed to work in the establishment then the other workmen would be encouraged in
2350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
indulging in similar activities in the establishment of the employer and there will be regular law and order problem in
the establishment of the company. Thus, he submits that order of dismissal of the workman may be confirmed.
On such submission of Ld. Counsel for the management, Ld. Counsel for the workman submitted that
punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management is shockingly disproportionate to the charges that
have been brought against the concerned workman as the management has failed to prove physical assault by
concerned workman supported by medical papers of the victim. He in support referred to Marji C Lokum –vs- Central
Bank of India (supra) where Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that “even if the enquiry is found to
be fair, that would only a finding certifying that all possible opportunities were given to the delinquent and principle
of natural justice and fair play was observed, that does not mean that the findings arrived at were essentially the
correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that findings could not be supported on the basis of
the evidence given or further comes to the conclusion that the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate. The
Industrial Tribunal still be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of
punishment”.
He submitted that the victim security guard Yogia Oraon, nowhere in his evidence alleged being assaulted by
the concerned workman, rather he has mentioned the name of Sri Santi Kumar Das and Md. Daud. So, no evidence is
there to prove that Sri Baijnath Singh assaulted him or torn his uniform. The participation in an agitation is not a
grave misconduct to dismiss a workman and which is equal to capital punishment, which has not only affected the
workman for becoming unemployed but his family members too had suffered due to the order of dismissal. Thus, he
has alleged the management without application of mind and arbitrarily dismissed the concerned workman from the
service.
It is settled law the nature of evidence required in departmental enquiry is “Preponderance of probability”
and not beyond all reasonable doubt as required in criminal trial. Preponderance of probability suggest evidence in
favour of the party in whose there is preponderance of proof although evidence may not be entirely free from doubt.
The evidence given by the victims before the Enquiry Officer prima facie prove not only the presence of the
concerned workman in the group of agitating employees but he taking active part in instigating other employees to
assemble in front of Gate no.1 to bring the dead body of Naren Manna unauthorisedly inside the factory premises. It is
also seen that when security personnel tried to disperse the crowd assembling in front of the Gate they were man-
handled by the agitating crowd of the workmen led by this workman.
That Ld. Counsel for workman tried to impress the Court by submitting that management witnesses in their
evidence recorded during domestic enquiry stated that management had already given permission to the union to
bring the dead body of Naren Manna inside the factory premises and as such there was no question of raising any
agitation. If the union was given permission or permit of two vehicles to bring the dead body inside the factory
premises then question arise why there was need of breaking open the Gate no.1 by agitating workmen and that too by
over powering and assaulting few number of security personnel posted at the Gate.
Section 11A of the Act was incorporated w.e.f. 15th December, 1971 to enable a workman aggrieved by
termination of his service to appeal against the termination to a neutral body such as arbitrator, a court or an
arbitration committee or a similar body and that neutral body concerned should be empowered to examine the reasons
given in termination of employment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CMC Employees Union & Anrs. –vs- CMC Vellore Association & Anr.
(supra) has observed :-
“.. Section 11A which has been introduced since then into the Act which confers the power on the Industrial
Tribunal or the Labour Court to substitute a lesser punishment in lieu of the order of discharge or dismissal passed by
the management again cannot be considered as conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour
Court. The power under section 11-A of the Act to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour
Court is expected to interfere with the decision of management under section 11A of the Act only when it is satisfied
that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman
concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision…….”
It has come on record that the concerned workman has left his duty and formed an unlawful assembly near the
gate no. 1 of the establishment of the company. The Sr. Security Officer was prevented from discharging his duty by
obstructing him by showering abuses in filthy language and even attempt was made to assault him. That Mr. Das who
had come to the rescue of Mr. Bhattacharya, Sr. Security Officer from the attack of a mob led by the present workman
was showered with blows. That Mr. Das had suffered blow on his person and due to which he lost balance of his body
and had also suffered vertigo. That security guard Sri Oraon was physically assaulted and his uniform was also torn. It
has also come on record the concerned workman indulged in inciting other workmen to agitate against the
management for the death of one of the workmen and formed unlawful assembly to bring the dead body forcibly
inside the main unit of the factory and to protest before the office the General Manager (Personnel) disrupting the
peace and tranquillity of the establishment of the company and also causing disruption in the running of the factory.
While doing so he and other workmen were indulged in manhandling the security personnel on duty at Gate No. 1 and
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2351
over powered those security personnel and managed to bring the dead body inside the factory and caused total
dislocation of work.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muriadih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. –vs- Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union through Workmen (supra) has been pleased to hold an act of physical violence as an act of grave misconduct
and which call for stringent punishment.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of view the act of indulgence in physical assault upon security personnel or over
powering security personnel by a mass crowd of employees is an act of grave misconduct and such act may put the
safety and security of the factory in stake and also the discipline of the establishment in stake. If no stringent action is
taken against such activities of the employees working in the factory then other employees will be encouraged in
indulging in grave misconduct in violation of standing orders.
In view of the above it is clear that there is no scope of enquiry by Industrial Tribunal into the merit of the
case. Once a departmental enquiry is held to be legal, valid and proper by this Tribunal, the only scope left of the
Tribunal is to examine and re-appraise the action of the management on the point of punishment. It is clear the act of
assault and riot seriously affect industrial environment. Such act should not be taken lightly and punishment awarded
by the management should not be interfered with.
In the circumstances action of the management of Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineering Ltd. in
dismissing Sri Baijnath Singh, a Pipe Fitter from the service w.e.f. 30-06-1994 is held to be legal and justified. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
Accordingly, Reference Case No. 09 of 2002 is disposed of with the finding the action of management of
Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineering Ltd. in dismissing Sri Baijnath Singh from service w.e.f. 30-06-1994 is
found to be legal and justified and award to that effect is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1072.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे 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;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (03/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/39/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S. O. 1072.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/39/2019- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 03 / 2020
The Works Manager,
Signal Factory, Western Railway,
2352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sabarmati, D Cabin,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380019
….…….First Party
V/s
The Jt. Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park,
B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380005
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/39/2019-IR (B-I) dated 10.01.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Jt. Secretary, Indian Railway Labour Federation, Ahmedabad against the
management of Signal Factory, Western Railways, Ahmedabad, to grant promotion, as per seniority list, to Shri
Ramkishan C is legal, fair & justified? If yes, then what relief Shri Ramkishan C is entitled to and what other
directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 20th January, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer(I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1073.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (11/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/13/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No . L-41011/13/2020- IR(B.I]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2353
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 11 / 2020
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Bhavnagarpara,
Bhavnagar(Gujarat)- 364003
.....…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28/B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380005 ..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/13/2020-IR (B-I) dated 26.06.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Secretary, Indian General Labour Federation, Ahmedabad to grant
Family Pension to Smt. Gitaben Nanji, Divorced daughter of Late Shri Nanji Nagji from the Railway
Administration, Western Railway, Bhavnagar is legal, fair & justified? If yes, then what relief the workmen, Smt.
Gitaben Nanji, Divorced daughter of Late Shri Nanji Nagji is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are
necessary in this matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 04th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
2354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1074.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे 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;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (12/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/15/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/15/2020- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Directo
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 12 / 2020
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Vadodara Division,
Pratap Nagar,
(Gujarat)- 390004
2. The Sr. Section Engineer (P.Way),
Western Railway,
Anand(Gujarat)- 388001
.....…….First Parties
V/s
The Divisional Secretary,
Western Railway Track Maintainer Association,
Office at Shivam Residency, 94-B, NH 8,
Tarsali Bypass,
Vadodara (Gujarat)- 390009 ..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2355
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/15/2020-IR (B-I) dated 26.06.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Sr. Section Engineer (P.Way), Western Railway, Anand is not paying the
Overtime allowances, stoppage of increment for two years and non-grant of grade pay to the employee concerned
working at Railway Gate No. 249 is legal, just and proper? If not, to what relief, the employee working at
Railway Gate No. 249, is entitled to ?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 04th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1075.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (13/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/14/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.13/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/14/2020- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 13 / 2020
1. The Assistant Divisional Material Manager,
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
2356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Near Chamunda Mata Mandir, Opp. GCS Hospital,
Post- Saijpur Bobha,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382345
2. The Manager,
M/s. Dynamic Enterprises, 65, Globus Township,
Near Indralok Nagar,
Ratlam(MP)- 457001
.....…….First Parties
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian General Labour Federation, Western Office,
28/B, Narayan Park, b/h Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005 ..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by
the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/14/2020-IR (B-I) dated 08.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union viz., Indian General Labour Federation, Ahmedabad for the payment
of minimum wages, Overtime allowance for extra work, Provident fund, ESIC, medical allowances to contract
employees working through contractor, M/s. Dynamic Enterprises, Ratlam in the establishment of Divisional
Materials Manager, Western Railway, Divisional office, Ahmedabad is legal, just and proper? If so, to what
relief, the contract employees working through contractor, M/s. Dynamic Enterprises, Ratlam in the
establishment of Divisional Materials Manager, Western Railway, Divisional office, Ahmedabad, is
entitled to ?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 04th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1076.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (02/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2357
[सं. ,y-41011/02/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[N.o L-41011/02/2021- IR(B.I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 02 / 2021
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016
2. The Sr. Coach Depo Officer,
Western Railway, Kankaria,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380008
….…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/02/2021-IR (B-I) dated 15.02.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh, Ahmedabad for reinstatement in service
with all consequential benefits to Shri Narsingh Balu, Elect Fitter Gr.- I, Kankaria Coaching Depot., Ahmedabad by
the Railway Administration, is fair, legal and justified? If so, as to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 25th February, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1077.— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे 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;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (03/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/03/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/03/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 03 / 2021
1. The Sr. Divisional Engineer (CO) ,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016
2. The Chief Principal Engineer,
Western Railway, Churchagate,
Mumbai- 400020
….…….First Parties
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2359
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/03/2021-IR (B-I) dated 15.02.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Indian Railway Labour Federation for harassment and threatening of transfer in respect
of Shri Durgpal Singh Protected worker of union by Railway Administration, is fair, legal & justified? If so, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 25th February, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1078.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
जनिेिक, उष्णकरटबंिीय वन अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, िबलृुर (म.प्र.); मेससव आयवन जसक्यूररटी सर्ववस, श्रीमती मनोरमा हसंि,
प्रोृराइटर, भोृाल (म.प्र.), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री प्रिीृ सोनी,कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या CGIT/LC/R/50/2021) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-103-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/50/2021) 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, Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur (M.P) ; M/s Aryan Security Service,
Smt. Manorma Singh, Proprietor, Bhopal (M.P), and Shri Pradip Soni, Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-103-IR (DU]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
2360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Pradip Soni,
R/o Gauraiya Ghat,
Mandla Road,
Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482021
Workman
Versus
The Director,
Tropical Forest Research Institute,
PO- R.F.R.C. Mandla Road,
Jabalpur (M.P) – 482021
M/s Aryan Security Service,
Rep. by Smt. Manorma Singh, Proprietor,
SO- 02, 2nd Floor, Windsor Plaza, Plot No. 47,
Sector-A, Banjari Housing Co-op-society,
In front of Bank of Baroda, Kolar Road,
Bhopal (M.P) - 462042
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 27th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 05/10/2021 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(4-
2)/2021-IR dt. 05/10/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether the action of the management of T.F.R.I., Jabalpur of termination the services of Shri
Pradip Soni, Contract Labour engaged through M/s Aryan Security Service is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the contract labour 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 the 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.
I have heard the argument of Management Counsel Adv. Manoj Singh and perused record. 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 the 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.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 27/05/2024
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1079.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
जनिेिक, उष्णकरटबंिीय वन अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, िबलृुर (म.प्र.); मेससव आयवन जसक्यूररटी सर्ववस, श्रीमती मनोरमा हसंि,
प्रोृराइटर, भोृाल (म.प्र.), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री गंगा राम,कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या CGIT/LC/R/52/2021) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-104-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2361
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1079.—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/52/2021) 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, Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur (M.P) ; M/s Aryan Security Service,
Smt. Manorma Singh, Proprietor, Bhopal (M.P), and Shri Ganga Ram, Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-104-IR (DU)
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ganga Ram,
R/o. Pipariya Khurd, Bilhari,
Mandla Road, Nearby Delhi Public School,
Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482021
Workman
Versus
The Director,
Tropical Forest Research Institute,
PO- R.F.R.C. Mandla Road,
Jabalpur (M.P) – 482021
M/s Aryan Security Service,
Rep. by Smt. Manorma Singh, Proprietor,
SO- 02, 2nd Floor, Windsor Plaza, Plot No. 47,
Sector-A, Banjari Housing Co-op-society,
In front of Bank of Baroda, Kolar Road,
Bhopal (M.P) - 462042
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 27th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 06/10/2021 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(4-
3)/2021-IR dt. 06/10/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether the action of the management of T.F.R.I., Jabalpur of termination the services of Shri
Pradip Soni, Contract Labour engaged through M/s Aryan Security Service is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the contract labour 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 the 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.
2362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I have heard the argument of Management Counsel Adv. Manoj Singh and perused record. 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 the 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.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1080.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
प्रबंिक, जनिेिक, मेससव स्ट्काईलाकव इंफ्रा इंिीजनयटरंग प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, गुरुग्राम, िररयाणा; ृररयोिना प्रबंिक, मेससव िुगव
जिवना एक्सप्रेसवे प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िुगव, छत्तीसगढ़, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सजचव ,ठेका मििूर संघ,
आकािगंगा, रजनबसेरा, सुृेला, जभलाई,िुगव (छ.ग.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-
श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या CGIT/LC/R/82/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित
करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-105-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1080.—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/82/2021) 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 Managing Director, M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Gurugaon, Haryana ; The
Project Manager, M/s Durg Shivnath Expressway Pvt. Ltd.,Durg, Chhattisgarh , and The General
Secretary,Theka Mazdoor Sangh, At Akashganga, Rainbasera,Supela, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.), which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-105-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/82/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Theka Mazdoor Sangh, At Akashganga, Rainbasera,
Supela, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)
490023
Workman
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 4th floor,
Plot No. 814, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugaon,
Haryana – 110038
The Project Manager,
M/s Durg Shivnath Expressway Pvt. Ltd.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2363
At Durg Bypass NH- 53, Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdha Nak,
Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490020
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 22nd day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 07/12/2021 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 L-
42011/163/2021 (IR(DU)) dt. 07/12/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether action on M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Under Durg Shivnath Expressways Pvt.
Ltd. (the Concessionaire & Principal contractor of National Highway Authority of India) to transfer Sh.
Mohan Kushwaha from Durg bypass NH-53, Toll plaza, near Dhamdha Naka, Durg, Chhattisgarh to Rewa-
Toll Plaza situated at village Jognihai, Tehsil- Raipur Karchuliyan, Dist. Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, vide transfer
order dated 11.01.2021, as raised by Theka Mazdoor Sangh, Bhilai letter dated 4.2.2021 is just and legal and
devoid of any malafide intensions on the part of the employers? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled and
what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
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 the 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 the 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.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 22/05/2024
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1081.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
कायवािक जनिेिक, अटल जबिारी वािृेयी भारतीय सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी एवं प्रबंिन संस्ट् ान (आईआईआईटीएम),
ग्वाजलयर (म.प्र.); जनिेिक, मेससव रजव जसक्योररटी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, सवविमव कोलार रोड, भोृाल (म.प्र.), प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री ृल्लव जत्रृाठी,द्वारा - श्रीमती. डॉली सेन,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या CGIT/LC/R/25/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया
गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-106-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1081.—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/25/2022) 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 Acting Director,Atal Bihari Vajpayee Indian Institute of Information Technology &
Management (IIITM),Gwalior (M.P.) ;The Director,M/s Ravi Security Private Limited, Sarvdharam Kolar
Road,Bhopal (M.P.), and Shri Pallav Tripathi, Through : Smt. Dolly Sen,Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-106-IR (DU)
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
2364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/25/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Pallav Tripathi,
Through : Smt. Dolly Sen,
76, Yamuna Nagar, Darpan Colony,
Thatipur, Gwalior (M.P.) – 474001
Workman
Versus
The Acting Director,
Atal Bihari Vajpayee Indian Institute of Information Technology & Management (IIITM),
Polise Station, Opposite Hazira,
Gwalior (M.P.) – 474001
The Director,
M/s Ravi Security Private Limited,
B-463, “C” Sector, Sarvdharam Kolar Road,
Bhopal (M.P.) – 462030
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 16th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 16/06/2022 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(1-3)/2022-IR dt. 16/06/2022. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ (1) "क्या आवेदिका श्रीमती डोली सेन, ग्वाजलयर, मजससव रजव जसक्योररटी से लॉकडाउन अवजि (िून, 2020 एवं िुलाई, 2020) का
वेतन ृाने की िकिार िज, यदि िॉ. तो वि दकन लाभों के सा वेतन ृाने की िकिार िज ?"
(2) क्या आवेदिका श्रीमती डोली सेन, ग्वाजलयर प्रबंिन संस्ट् ान अटल जबिारी बािृेयी आईआईटीएम, ग्वाजलयर संस्ट् ान में ृुनः
सुृरवाइिर के ृि ृर नौकरी ृाने की िकिार िज? यदि िों, तो वि दकन लाभों के सा नौकरी ृाने की िकिार िैं ?" ”
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 the 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 the 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.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2365
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1082.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
जनिेिक, मेससव िौलतराम इंिीजनयटरंग सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, जसमराई, औबेिुल्लागंि, रायसेन (म.प्र.),प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िजलेन्र.के. मालवीय,कामगार ,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-
सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या CGIT/LC/R/44/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया
िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-107-आईआर (डीयू]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1082.—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/44/2022) 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. Daulatram Engineering Services Private Limited, Simrai, Obedullaganj,
Raisen (M.P.), and Shri Shailendra K Malviya, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 05.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-107-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Shailendra K Malviya,
Ward Number 15, Satalpur, Mandideep,
Dist. Raisen (M.P.) - 462046
Workman
Versus
The Director,
M/s. Daulatram Engineering Services Private Limited,
Simrai, Obedullaganj,
Dist. Raisen (M.P.) - 462046
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 17th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 01/09/2022 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-
12)/2022-IR dt. 01/09/2022. The dispute under reference related to :-
“क्या कमवकार / आवेिक श्री िजलेन्र के मालवीय को मजससव िौलतराम इंिीजनयटरंग सर्ववसेस प्रायवेट जलजमटेड कंृनी व्िारा
दिनांक 15.05.2021 को काम से जनकाला िाना उजचत िज? यदि निीं, तो कमवकार / आवेिक दकस अनुतोृ को ृाने का िकिार िज ?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the Workman, were returned back with
an endorsement that the address was incorrect. There was no other address available, and there was no provision for
publication of Notices. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of
2366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 8, 2024/JYAISHTHA 18, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 the 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.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का. आ. 1083.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
कायवृालक जनिेिक, बीएचईएल, भोृाल (म.प्र.),अध्यक्ष, ठेका मििूर संघ, भोृाल (म.प्र.), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और अध्यक्ष, ठेका मििूर संघ, भोृाल (म.प्र.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम
न्यायालय, िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभव सं्या CGIT/LC/R/44/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित
करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-108-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S. O. 1083.—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/44/2023) 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 Executive Director, BHEL, Bhopal (M.P.), and The President, Theka Mazdoor Sangh, Bhopal
(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.06.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-108-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The President,
Theka Mazdoor Sangh,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 462026
Workman
Versus
The Executive Director,
BHEL, Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 22nd day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 03/07/2023 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 RLC-
8(19)2020 dt. 03/07/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 8, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 18, 1946
2367
“ Whether the non payment of wages to the contract worker employed through Societies in BHEL
Bhopal for the month of April-2020 during the Covid-19 is justified? If not what relief they are 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 the 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 the 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.
P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA
NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by
GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Date: 2024.06.21 15:16:33
+05'30'