4075 GI/2024
(3169)
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. 28]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 14—िुलाई 20, 2024, िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 23—आषाढ़ 29, 1946
No. 28]
NEW DELHI, JULY 14—JULY 20, 2024, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 23– ASHADHA 29, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 2 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1411.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10
के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्री अप्रयक क्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क रोड के अिीन, जनम्नजलज त
का ा ल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कम चारर ों ने जिन्िी का का सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत
करती िज:
1. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, मंडल-I
2. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, मंडल-II
3. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, सतना मंडल
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28072024-255828
CG-DL-W-28072024-255828
3170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, रीवा मंडल
5. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, कटनी मंडल
6. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, िमोि मंडल
7. उृ/सिा क आ ुक्त का का ा ल , केंरी िीएसटी एवं केंरी उयकृाि िुल्क, छछंिवाड़ा मंडल
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जिन्िी-2-अजिसूचना]
ले. कन ल एम. के. छसंि, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2024
S.O. 1411.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Board of
Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge
of Hindi:
1. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Division-I
2. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Division-II
3. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Satna Division
4. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Rewa Division
5. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Katni Division
6. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Damoh Division
7. Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Chhindwara Division
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]
Lt. Col. M.K. SINGH, Director (OL)
जवयक त मंत्राल
(जवयक ती सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 10 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1412.—जनक्षेृ रीमा और प्रयक गारंटी जनगम अजिजन म, 1961 (1961 का 47) की िारा 6 की उृ-
िारा (2) के ंड (ii) के सा ृर त िारा 6 की उृ-िारा (1) के ंड (घ) द्वारा प्रियक त िज त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए,
केन् री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, डॉ. तरुण अग्रवाल को नाजमत दकए िाने संरंिी अजिसूचना की तारी से तीन वष के जलए
अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जनक्षेृ रीमा और प्रयक गारंटी जनगम के जनिेिक मण्डल में जनिेिक नाजमत
करती िज।
[फा. सं. 8/03/2017
-
री
ओ
-
II]
सुषमा दकन्डो, जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2024
S.O. 1412.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of section 6 read with
clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of
1961), the Central Government hereby nominates Dr. Tarun Agarwal as a Director on the Board of Directors of the
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for a period of three years from the date of notification
of his nomination or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 8/03/2017-BO-II]
SUSHMA KINDO, Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3171
नई दिल्ली, 10 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1413.—जनक्षेृ रीमा और प्रयक गारंटी जनगम अजिजन म, 1961 (1961 का 47) की िारा 6 की उृ-
िारा (2) के ंड (ii) के सा ृर त िारा 6 की उृ-िारा (1) के ंड (घ) द्वारा प्रियक त िज त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए,
केन् री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, डॉ. तरुण अग्रवाल को नाजमत दकए िाने संरंिी अजिसूचना की तारी से तीन वष के जलए
अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जनक्षेृ रीमा और प्रयक गारंटी जनगम के जनिेिक मण्डल में जनिेिक नाजमत
करती िज।
[फा. सं. 8/03/2017
-
रीओ
-
II]
सुषमा दकन्डो, जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2024
S.O. 1413.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of section 6 read with
clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of
1961), the Central Government hereby nominates Prof. Partha Ray as a Director on the Board of Directors of the
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for a period of three years from the date of notification
of his nomination or until further orders, whichever is earlier
[F. No. 8/03/2017-BO-II]
SUSHMA KINDO, Director
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1414.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मेसस जस ोररटी एंड इंटेजलिेंस सर्व सेि इंजड ा) जलजमटेड) 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; dksydrk ds iapkV (a02/2022) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y - 12011/22/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The M/s. Secrurity & Intelligence
Service ( India ) Ltd. and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/22/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.02 OF 2022
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
The M/s. Security & Intelligence Services (India) Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
3172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated 5th January, 2023
A W A R D
Parties are found absent when the matter is called.
In fact the record reveal the Union, who has espoused the present industrial dispute on behalf of contractor
workman Shri Utpal Kumar Mal has failed to put its appearance even after due service of notice reference.
Similarly, the Management/Contractor employer has failed to put its appearance inspite of having received
notice of reference and appearance like the Union, which has espoused the dispute.
Under the circumstance, this Tribunal assume the Union who has raised the dispute is no more interested to
conduct the case or proceed with the reference case. More so, it has failed to file any statement of claim.
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred by Sec. 10(1)(d) & (2A) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Security & Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. in
changing legitimate duties from regular to reliever of Sri Utpal Kumar Mal, ICICI Bank Security Guard, is
legal and / or justified? If not, as to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
The Union who has raised the above dispute before the Govt. and on whose initiative the dispute has been
referred to this Tribunal vide order No. L-12011/22/2021-IR(B-1) dated 09.11.2022 failed to appear to pursue the
reference case.
Since there is no statement of claim also and as such there is no dispute to adjudicate by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Reference case No. 02 of 2022 is disposed. An award is passed accordingly.
Send copy of Award to the Ministry.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1415.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मेसस फ्रंटलाइन (एनसीआर) जरिनेस सॉल् ूिन प्रा. जलजमटेड 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; dksydrk ds iapkV (a22/2022) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/15/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1415.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.22/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Forntline (NCR) Business
solution Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/15/2022- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.22 OF 2022
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3173
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated 13th February, 2023
A W A R D
Today too both side are found absent when the matter is called for hearing.
The Union which has espoused the present dispute has failed to appear and proceed with the hearing of the
present case inspite of due service of notice upon it.
Notice issued to the Management in the address given in the reference order has returned undelivered with
postal endorsement “Left”.
In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan & Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand reported in
(1989) S. C. C (1) 264, the notice returned undelivered with postal endorsement ‘Left’ is a good service as it is the
duty of the addressee to leave behind the address where he is traceable or moved either with the landlords of the
address or authorised someone to receive postal delivery on his behalf.
In the present case, the employer having failed to do so, it can be safely presumed that notice of this case has
been duly served upon it.
The Govt. of India, through Ministry of Labour and vide Order No. L-12011/15/2022 [IR (B-I)] dated
28.04.2022 has referred the following dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of Employer (M/s Frontline Business Solution Pvt. Ltd., Contractor of Axis Bank Ltd.)
is legal and justified by way of terminating the 19 contractual workmen (list enclosed)? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
Unfortunately, the Union Bank Employees Unity Forum, West Bengal, which has espoused the present
dispute on behalf of these 19 retrenched contractor’s employees has failed to appear and pursue with the dispute by
filing claim statement and by adducing evidence. In fact, it has failed to appear before the Tribunal inspite of
receiving notice.
Under the circumstance, there is nothing in the record to decide the issue referred by the Ministry for
adjudication.
Accordingly, no dispute award is passed and Reference Case No. 22 of 2022 is disposed of.
Send copy of order to the Ministry for doing the needful.
Supply copy of this award to the parties.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1416.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार
ृरर ोिना जनिेिक, भारती राष्ट्री रािमाग प्राजिकरण; मेसस दिनेि चंर अग्रवाल इंफ्रास्ट्रचर जलजमटेड; मेसस
ईगलिीृ कोलाघाट ओएमटी प्रोिेट प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेसस मा ा एंटरप्राइि; मेसस गौर गुचजत सर्व स प्रोवाइडस , के
प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कामगार द्वारा -ृूव मेदिनीृुर जेला सुरक्षा सेवा और संरद्ध श्रजमक संघ
(सीआईटी ू), के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल ,कोलकाता,ृंचाट(संिभ
सं् ा REF. NO.16 OF 2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-122-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
3174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16 OF 2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India; M/s. Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Infrastructure
Ltd.; M/s. Eagledeep Kolaghat OMT Project Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Mayrya Enterprise ;M/s. Gour Guchait Service
Providers, and Their Workmen represented by Purba Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Workers
Union (CITU), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.07.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-122-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 16 OF 2023
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
1. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India.
2. M/s. Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Infrastructure Ltd.,
3. M/s. Eagledeep Kolaghat OMT Project Pvt. Ltd.,
4. M/s. Mayrya Enterprise and
5. M/s. Gour Guchait Service Providers
AND
Their Workmen represented by Purba Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Workers Union (CITU).
Appearance :
On behalf of Contractor Employer No. 1, 2 & 3 :
Absent
On behalf of Contractor Employer No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Affan Ali , Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of the Union/Workmen : Mr.Uddipan Banerjee, Ld. Advocate.
Dated: 23rd April, 2024
A W A R D
Ld. Counsel for Contractor Employer nos. 4 & 5 is present.
The Union is also present through its Ld. Counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the Union submits the dispute under present reference is already a subject matter of dispute
in Reference Case No.25 of 2019. That due to inadvertence the Central Govt., Ministry of Employment &
Employment has once again referred the same dispute to this Tribunal and which give rise to the present reference
case. The Reference Case no.25/2019 is pending for hearing. Therefore, he prays for passing necessary order
regarding disposal of the present reference case. Ld. Counsel for contractor employer no.5 and 6 too agree with the
submission made by Ld. Counsel for the union.
Considered.
Perused the schedule of Reference Case No.25 of 2019. The Central Govt., Ministry of Labour by order No.
L-42011/156/2019 –IR (DU), New Delhi dt.05-06-2023 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication and the schedule read as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Dineshchandra R. Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. contractor of
NHAI, Howrah in terminating the service of 7 workers (as per list attached), as raised by Purba Medinipur Zilla
Security Service and Allied Workers Union, is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the disputant workers are
entitled to and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
While the present dispute has been referred by Dy. Labour Commissioner, Kolkata vide Order No.Kol-
700020/08/2023-Dy.CLC (C) dt.23-08-2023 and the schedule of such reference read as follows:
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3175
“Whether the action of the Management of the contractors of NHAI and the Management of NHAI is
justified in terminating the services of the 7 workmen in a manner not laid down in the provisions? If not, then what
relief these 7 workers are entitled to?”
In both the above Reference Orders, the names of the Contractor of NHAI appears to be M/s. Dineshchandra
R. Agarwal, Infracon Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Eagledeep Kolaghat Haldia OMT Project Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Maurya Enterprise (Sub
Contractor) and M/s. Gour Guchait, and principal employer to be NHAI.
Therefore, it appears the subject matter of dispute in both the above mentioned Reference Cases are same
and it relates to termination of 7 contractor employees of NHAI. In view of pendency of Reference Case no. 25/2019
on the same subject matter, the present Reference on the same subject matter or on the same dispute is not
maintainable.
Accordingly, Reference Case no.16 of 2023 is disposed of being not maintainable and an award to that effect
is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1417.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
कुलृजत, िाजम ा जमजल ा इस्ट्लाजम ा जवश्वजवद्याल , िाजम ा नगर, ओ ला, नई दिल्ली; िमा एंटरप्राइिेि, नवािा मेरो
स्ट्टेिन के ृास, नई दिल्ली, के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और आई.डी. सं् ा 103/2023 श्री श् ाम, कामगार , द्वारा-
अज ल भारती आम मििूर रेड ूजन न के माध् म से, कालकािी, नई दिल्ली; आई.डी. सं् ा 121/2023 श्री सुनील
कुमार, कामगार , द्वारा-अज ल भारती आम मििूर रेड ूजन न, कालकािी, नई दिल्ली, के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट
केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट(संिभ सं् ा. 103 & 121 of 2020) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 09.07.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-123-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103 & 121 of 2020) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi ;
Sharma Enterprises, Near Nawada Metro Station, New Delhi , and, I.D. No. 103/2023 Shri Shyam, Worker,
Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi ; I.D. No. 121/2023 Shri Sunil Kumar,
Worker, Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 09.07.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-123-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 103/2023
Sh. Shyam,
Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
I.D. No. 121/2023
Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Brahampal,
Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
3176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The Vice Chancellor,
Jamia Millia Islamia University,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2.
Sharma Enterprises,
92-B, Plot No-01, Ground Floor, Nawada,
Near Nawada Metro Station, New Delhi-110059.
AWARD
The appropriate government, Sh. P.K. Venu Gopal, under Secretary had sent two references referred dated
06.06.2023 and 25.07.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words.
“Whether the Claims of Sh. Shyam and Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Brahampal through All India
General Mazdoor Trade Union, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.10.2021 against the management
of M/s Sharma Enterprises, New Delhi (Contractor) under Jamia Milia Islamia University, New
Delhi that their services were terminated w.e.f. 01.09.2020 and 01.10.2020 without notice,
without reason and without due payment which is violation of Section 33 and 25 F of the I.D
Act, 1947 as their common demand through Union is pending in CGIT cum LC, No.-2, New
Delhi bearing ID No. 155/2020, is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs as sought
vide letter dated 11.10.2021 are the disputant worker entitled and what directions, if any, are
necessary in the matter?”
Notices were issued to both the parties. AR for the management-1 & 2 have been appearing before this
tribunal. Both claimants have not been appearing since long. They have not come forward to file their claim
statements before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the workmen are not interested in pursuing their claim. This tribunal has no
option except to pass the no disputant award. Hence, no disputant award is passed. Awards are passed accordingly
Files are consigned to the record room. Copies of these awards are hereby sent to the appropriate government for
notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.
Date 08th, July, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1418.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मिाप्ररंिक (एचआर), भारत िेवी इलेजरकल्स जलजमटेड, रानीृुर, िररद्वार, के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और
मिासजचव, िजवी इलेजरकल्स वक स रेड ूजन न, (एचईईृी), िररद्वार; मिासजचव, सीएफएफृी कम चारी संघ
(एआईटी ूसी), िररद्वार; मिासजचव, िजवी इलेजरकल्स मििूर ूजन न, (एचईईृी), िररद्वार; मिासजचव, एचईएल वक स
एसोजसएिन (एआईटी ूसी), (एचईईृी), िररद्वार; मिासजचव, रीएचईएल श्रजमक ूजन न, (एचईईृी), िररद्वार;
मिासजचव, सीएफएफृी श्रजमक ूजन न, िररद्वार; मिासजचव, सेंरल फाउंड्री फोि वक स ूजन न, सीएफएफृी, िररद्वार,
के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट(संिभ
सं् ा.157/2020& 158/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 09.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-125-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 157/2020& 158/2020) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager (HR), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipur, Haridwar, and,
The General Secretary, Heavy Electricals Workers Trade Union, HEEP, Haridwar; The General Secretary,
C.F.F.P. Employees Associations (AITUC), Haridwar ; The General Secretary, Heavy Electricals Mazdoor
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3177
Union, HEEP ,Haridwar; The General Secretary, HEL Workers Associations (AITUC), HEEP ,Haridwar;
The General Secretary, BHEL Shramik Union, HEEP ,Haridwar; The General Secretary, CFFP Shramik
Union, Haridwar ;The General Secretary, Central Foundry Forge Workers Union, CFFP, Haridwar, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 09.07.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-125-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE HONB’LE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, I.T.O., NEW DELHI–110002.
I.D. No.157/2020 & I.D. No.158/2020
1. The General Secretary,
Heavy Electricals Workers Trade Union, HEEP,
161/3/1, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403.
2. The General Secretary,
C.F.F.P. Employees Associations (AITUC),
219/3/5–B, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403.
3. The General Secretary,
Heavy Electricals Mazdoor Union, HEEP ,
117/3/1, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403.
4. The General Secretary,
HEL Workers Associations (AITUC), HEEP ,
59/3/5–B, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403.
5. The General Secretary,
BHEL Shramik Union, HEEP ,
S–406, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403.
6. The General Secretary,
CFFP Shramik Union,
127/3/1, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403.
7. The General Secretary,
Central Foundry Forge Workers Union, CFFP,
215/3/3, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar –249403. … Applicant/Claimant
VERSUS
The General Manager (HR),
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Ranipur, Haridwar –249403. … Managements/Respondents
AWARD
DATED 20.02.2024
ID No. 157/2020, 158/2020
20th February, 2024
Present:
Sh. Vikas Singh, Ld. AR for the Claimant.
Sh. A.K Roy, Ld. AR for the management.
3178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Both the parties had stated that matter has been compromised. The AR for the management has placed on record the
authority letter by which he was authorized by the president of the Union to withdraw these cases because of the
settlement arrived between the Union and management. Statement of the AR of the managemet Sh. Vikas Singh has
been recorded separately.
In view of the above said statement for these matters/claims stand dismissed as withdrawn as settled. Awards are
accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under
section 17 of the ID act 1947. Files are consigned to record room. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.
20th February, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1419.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्ली जवश्वजवद्याल , दिल्ली, के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री गिराि छसंि, कामगार , द्वारा-दिल्ली
मििूर संघ, तीस ििारी, दिल्ली, के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2
नई दिल्ली ृंचाट(संिभ सं् ा. 159/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 09.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-126-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1419.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 159/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Registrar, University of Delhi, Delhi, and, Shri Gajraj Singh, Worker, Through – Delhi Labour Union,
Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 09.07.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-126-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE HONB’LE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, I.T.O., NEW DELHI–110002.
I.D. No.159/2020
Sh. Gajraj Singh, S/o Late Sh. Bidha Ram,
Through – Delhi Labour Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,
Delhi–110054.
…Applicant/Claimant
VERSUS
The Registrar,
University of Delhi,
Delhi–110007. …Managements/Respondents
AWARD
DATED 07.02.2024
ID.NO. 159/2020
7TH February, 2024
Present:
Sh. Siddharth Sapra, Ld. AR for the claimant.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3179
Sh. Rajat , proxy Ld. AR for the management.
Siddharth Sapra stated that he has instructions from the workman to withdraw the present claim as he has started
receiving the pensionary benefits from the management which he had claimed in the present dispute. Statement of
Sh. Siddharth Sapra is recorded separately below:
Siddharth Sapra, the present General Secretary of the Delhi Labour Union on oath
I hereby affirm that the claimant has started receiving the pensionary benefits as claimed by him in the present dispute
and therefore I (on instructions from the claimant) am willing to withdraw the present dispute as nothing remains in
present case.
In view of the above statement, No dispute award is passed herein. Copy of this award is sent to the appropriate
government for notification under section 17 of the ID Act. Record of this file is consigned to record room.
RO & AC
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1420.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जलजमटेड 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 (a31/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/13/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/13/2014- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-12012/13/2014-IR (B-I) Dated: 09.04.2014
Jherh ccyh nsoh iRuh Jh dSyk’k pUnz R/o D- 91-92, Qst&2] bafnjk uxj] >kykuk Mwaxjh] t;iqj] ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
1- phQ eSustj] ICICI Bank Ltd.] pksew lfdZy] lh&Ldhe] t;iqjA
2- 'kk[kk izca/kd] ICICI Bank Ltd.] chl nqdku] vkn'kZ uxj] t;iqjA
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh dq.kky jkor] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh equs’k pUnz 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh :fiu ds- dkyk] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ foi{khx.kA
3180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 09-04-2014 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
fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“
S? ’’
2- fnukad 30-06-2014 dks izkFkhZ }kjk nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gSA
3- izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr o"kZ 1990 esa ikVZ VkbZe lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :Ik esa jktLFkku cSad] vkn'kZ uxj 'kk[kk esa gqbZ FkhA
izkFkhZ dks 225@& :- ekfld osru fn;k tkrk FkkA bl cSad dk foy; 13-08-2010 dks ICICI cSad esa gks x;kA
13-08-2010 ls izkFkhZ foi{kh la- 2 ds ;gk fu;fer dk;Z dj jgh gS vkSj fu;fer gksus dk vf/kdkj j[krh gSA izkFkhZ
us {ks=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ ds le{k fu;fer djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k ysfdu foi{khx.k us dksbZ
larks"k tud tcko ugha fn;k blfy;s {ks=h; Je vk;qDr us 05-03-2014 dks vlQy okrkZ ?kksf"kr dj izfrosnu
Hkst fn;kA fdarq 45 fnuksa dh vof/k esa Hkh jsQjsUl cuk dj Je U;k;ky; dks ugh HkstkA izkFkhZ 1990 ls cSad esa
fu;fer dk;Z dj jgh gSA izkFkhZ ls ckn okys Jfedksa dks fu;fer Jfed ds :Ik esa fu;qDr dj fn;k gS] foi{kh dk
;g O;ogkj vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gSA vr% okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dks o"kZ 1990 ls fu;fer djus dk vkns'k ikfjr
fd;k tkos vkSj ns; ifjykHk fnyk;s tkoasA
4- foi{khx.k us oknksRrj fnukad 19-01-2015 dks izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nkok vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 2 (k) ds vUrxZr vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gSA foi{kh laLFkku ds deZdkjksa us izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa fookn mBkus
ds fy;s dksbZ izLrko ikfjr dj fdlh O;fDr vFkok ;wfu;u dks vf/kd`r ugha fd;k gS bl fy;s ;g fookn
vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 A ds vUrxZr] lsok lekiu u gksus ds dkj.k ;g fookn dh Js.kh
esa ugha vkrkA izkFkhZ iwoZorhZ cSad vkWQ jktLFkku dh deZpkjh ugha FkhA og ek= >kMw& iksNk o Vk;ysV dh lQkbZ
ds fy;s 30&40 feuV izfrfnu dk;Z djrh FkhA foi{kh cSad us lQkbZ dk;Z dks ,stsUlh ds lqiqnZ fd;k gqvk gS
blfy;s izkFkhZ dks foi{kh cSad ds fu;kstu esa ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA orZeku esa vkbZfjl lfoZlst daEiuh esa izkFkhZ
fu;ksftr gS vkSj osru Hkqxrku Hkh blh daEiuh }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh cSad dk dksbZ fu;a=.k vkSj gLr{ksi
izkFkhZ ij ugha gSA izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad esa LFkkbZ fu;qfDr ikus dh vf/kdkjh ugh gSA izkFkhZ 6 ?kUVs ls de izfr lIrkg
lQkbZ dk;Z djus cSad vkWQ jktLFkku esa vkrh Fkh bl nkSjku og vU; LFkkuksa ij Hkh dk;Z djus dks Lo=ar FkhA
vkbZfjl lfoZlst daEiuh dks bl fookn esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA foi{kh vkSj izkFkhZ ds e/; deZdkj vkSj
fu;ksDrk ds laca/k ugha gSa vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosA
5- fnukad 25-05-2015 dks izkFkhZ us oknksRrj ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq;s vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr fd;s gSA
6- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a ccyh nsoh ¼izkFkhZ½ dks ijhf{kr fd;kA fdarq dksbZ izys[k lk{; esa iznf'kZr ughas fd;kA
7- foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa yfyr eksgu 'kekZ] eq[; izca/kd ,oa lqfjUnz flag 'ks[kkor dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk
izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa izn'kZ M- 1 ls izn'kZ M- 6 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
8- fnukad 17-01-2024 dks esusa mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k rFkk miyC/k lk{; ,oa izLrqr fd;s
x;s U;kf;d n`"Vkarks esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu fd;kA
9- mHk; i{k ds vfHkopuksa ,oa rdksZ ds vk/kkj ij bl fookn esa fuEukfdar fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gSa%
1- D;k izkFkhZ fnukad 13-08-2010 ls foi{kh la- 2 ds v/khu fu;fer dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds
e/; deZdkj vkSj fu;ksDrk dk laca/k gS\
----------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ ds ckn okys Jfedksa dks foi{kh us fu;fer Jfed ds :Ik esa fu;qDr dj fn;k ,oa izkFkhZ dks
fu;fer fu;qfDr u nsdj vuqfpr Je O;ogkj fd;k\
----------------izkFkhZ
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3181
3- D;k izkFkhZ vuqcaf/kr QeZ eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst dh deZpkjh gS rFkk lkQ lQkbZ ds dk;Z gsrq foi{kh cSad dh
vkn'kZ uxj] 'kk[kk esa dk;Z djrh gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad dh deZpkjh ugha gS\
----------------foi{khx.k
4- D;k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nkok vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (k) ds vUrxZr foi{kh laLFkku ds
deZdkjksa dh lkjoku la[;k }kjk dksbZ izLrko ikfjr dj izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa fookn izLrqr djus gsrq izkf/kd`r u
djus rFkk Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk gh fookn izLrqr djus ds vk/kkj ij vkS|ksfxd fookn ugh gS rFkk bl vf/kdj.k
}kjk U;k;&fu.kZ;u ;ksX; ugha gS\
----------------foi{khx.k
5- vuqrks"k D;k gks\
10- mi;qDrZ fcUnqvks ds lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ o"kZ 1990 ls 2010 rd jktLFkku cSad
esa rFkk mlds ckn ICICI cSad esa] foy; ds mijkar yxkrkj dk;Z dj jgh gS bl rF; dks foi{kh ds lk{kh yfyr
eksgu 'kekZ }kjk Lohdkj djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ viSsy] 2011 ls ICICI cSad esa Msyh ostst ds vk/kkj
ij dk;Z dj jgh gSA foi{kh ds lk{kh lqfjUnz flag 'ks[kkor us Hkh dgk gS fd Qjojh] 2011 ls izkFkhZ cSad esa
yxkrkj dk;Z dj jgh gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ dks vkS|ksfxd
fookn izLrqr djus dh vuqefr nh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ }kjk viuh f'kdk;r vkWy bafM;k VsªM ;wfu;u dkaWxzsl dh rjQ
ls is’k dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ pwfda jktLFkku cSad dh deZpkjh jgh gS bl fy;s jktLFkku cSad dk foy; ICICI cSad esa
gksus ij izkFkhZ dk foi{khx.k dh deZpkjh gks tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dk eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst ls dksbZ ysuk
nsuk ugha gSA og jkst 6 ?kUVs dk;Z dj jgh gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk vkbZfjl lfoZlst ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dh PF/ ESI
dh jkf'k dVokuk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gSA izkFkhZ dk fu;std foi{kh cSad gS] ftldk izkFkhZ ij okLrfod fu;a=.k
,oa Ik;Zos{k.k gSA bl fy;s izkFkhZ yach lsok vof/k ds vk/kkj ij fu;fer fu;qfDr dh vf/kdkjh gSA mUgksaus vius
rdZ ds leFkZu esa SB CWP No. 6216/2002 Jherh ccyh nsoh cuke cSad vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; vkns'k
frfFk 02-09-2009 izLrqr fd;kA
11- vizkFkhZx.k ds vfHkHkk"kd dk ;g fojks/kh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us ;g fookn Lo;a gh fcuk fdlh ;wfu;u ;k foi{kh ds
deZdkjksa dh lkjoku la[;k }kjk lefFkZr fd;s fcuk izLrqr dj fn;k gS tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (k) ds v/khu
vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gSA okLro esa izkFkhZ eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst uked lsok iznkrk QeZ dh deZpkjh gS tks foi{kh
cSad dks deZpkjh miyC/k djokrh gSA ;g rF; foi{kh cSad dh vkSj ls eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst ds e/; fu"ikfnr
vuqca/k izn'kZ M- 3 ls izekf.kr gSA izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; fu;ksDrk vkSj deZdkj dk laca/k ugha gSA blfy;s ;s
okn iks"k.kh; ugha gSA foi{khx.k us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu fyf[kr U;k;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&
1- 2007 ¼113½ FLR 395 ¼fnYyh½ Management of Messers Hotel Samrat v/s Government of
N.C.T. and others.
2- 2012 (135) FLR 993 (enzkl) Vh- ,e- jkeewfrZ cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ baf.M;k o vU;A
3- ¼2009½ 13 SCC 374 International Airport Authority of India v/s International Cargo
Workers Union and Another.
4- 2001 (91) FLR 182 Steel Authority of India and others v/s National Union Water Front
Workers and others.
12- rdksZ ,oa fof/k ij fopkj fd;s tkus ds mijkar fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij fofu'p; bl izdkj gS%&
13-
14- mi;qDrZ nksuksa fcUnq ijLij vUrjofyr gSA blfy;s bu nksuksa fcUnqvksa ds laca/k esa lk{; ,oa rF;ksa dk foospu ,d
lkFk djrs gq;s fofu'p; fd;k tk jgk gSA
15- izkFkhZ us vius l’kiFk dFku esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr o"kZ 1990 esa ikVZ&VkbZe lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :Ik esa
cSad vkWQ jktLFkku vkn'kZ uxj] 'kk[kk esa gqbZ FkhA 13-08-2010 dks jktLFkku cSad ICICI cSad esa lekfgr gks xbZ
bl izdkj og vizkFkhZ la- 2 ds ;gk Hkh 23 lky ls yxkrkj dk;Z dj jgh gSA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS
3182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fd mls fu;ksDrk us dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k rFkk 1990 ls 12-08-2010 rd dk;Z djus laca/kh dksbZ nLrkost
mlus izLrqr ugha fd;kA mls ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd mldk P.F. dk iSlk eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst }kjk tek
fd;k tkrk gks rFkk ;g Hkh Kkr ugha gS fd izn'kZ M- 1 izys[k esa of.kZr rF; okLrfod gaS ;k ughaA og Lohdkj
djrh gS fd ICICI cSad }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr i= mls ugha feyk gSA mls ;g Hkh Kkr ugha gS fd ICICI cSad us
lQkbZ dk dk;Z Bsds ij ns j[kk gksA
16- blds foijhr foi{kh lk{kh yfyr eksgu 'kekZ us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ICICI cSad esa ckgjh ,stsUlh
eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst }kjk lkQ lQkbZ ds dk;Z gsrq vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh cSad dh vkn'kZ uxj] 'kk[kk esa
lkQ lQkbZ djus vkrh gS vkSj izfrfnu mldk dk;Z vk/ks ?kUVs dk jgrk gSA lk{kh us ;g Hkh dgk fd izkFkhZ
foi{kh cSad dh deZpkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds osru dk Hkqxrku vuqcaf/kr QeZ vkbZfjl lfoZlst ds }kjk gh fd;k tkrk
gSA vkbZfjl lfoZlst ds }kjk izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa cSad dks izLrqr fd;k x;k fooj.k izn'kZ M- 1 gSA bl izn'kZ
M- 1 i= esa foi{kh ds 'kk[kk izca/kd dks vkbZfjl lfoZlst }kjk 01-10-2013 dks ;g lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd
izkFkhZ ccyh nsoh vizsSy] 2011 ls mudh deZpkjh gS rFkk foi{kh dh vkn'kZ uxj] 'kk[kk esa lkQ lQkbZ dk dk;Z
dj jgh gSA mldk lIrkfgd dk;Zdky ek= 3 ?kUVs gSA izkFkhZ dk osru foi{kh dh cSad esa la/kkfjr cpr [kkrs esa
tek fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dk P.F./ E.S.I. va'knku muds }kjk dkVdj lacaf/kr izkf/kdkjh ds ;gk tek fd;k
tkrk gSA ;g egRoiw.kZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk bu dFkuksa dk dksbZ [kaMu ugh djrs gq;s] ek= vufHkKrk O;Dr dh xbZ
gSA blh dze esa izn'kZ M- 2 izkFkhZ ds ekfld osru dk fooj.k gS tks viSzsy] 2012 ls flrEcj] 2013 rd dk gSA
17- blh lanHkZ esa foi{kh ds lk{kh lqfjUnz flag 'ks[kkor ds dFku Hkh miyC/k gSa tks foi{kh ds dFkuksa dks iq"V djrs gSA
lqfjUnz flag dk dFku gS fd os QslsfyVh esustj ds in ij vkbZfjl lfoZlst esa dk;Zjr gSA ;g laLFkku esu ikWoj
lIykbZ djrh gSA foi{kh cSad ds lkFk Hkh vkbZfjl lfoZlst da- dk ,d vuqca/k Out Sourcing ds vk/kkj ij gSA
blds vUrxZr deZpkjh miyC/k djokus dk djkj viSzsy] 2011 esa gqvk Fkk tks izfro"kZ uohuhdj.k gqvk] rFkk
orZeku esa Hkh gSA ;g vuqca/k izn'kZ M- 3 gSA bu rF;ksa ds izek.k Lo:Ik izn'kZ M- 4, izn'kZ M- 5 ,oa izn'kZ
M- 6 iznf'kZr fd;s x;s gS ftudk dksbZ [kaMu izkFkhZ us ugha fd;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa Hkh ;g lk{kh dgrk gS fd
izkFkhZ vuqca/k ds ckn 2011 ls vc rd foi{kh cSad esa dk;Zjr gSA
18- ;gkWa ;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk vlaxr ugha gS fd mDr eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst laLFkku dks fookn esa i{kdkj ugha
cuk;k x;k gS u gh izkFkhZ us bl laca/k esa vf/kdj.k ls dksbZ fuosnu fd;k gSA tcfd] foi{khx.k ds oknksRrj
fnukad 19-01-2015 ds Ik’pkr ;g rF; vkSipkfjd :Ik ls izkFkhZ dh tkudkjh esa vk pqdk FkkA bl rF;kRed
ifjn`’; esa ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ iwoZ esa nh cSad vkWQ jktLFkku dh vkn'kZ uxj] 'kk[kk esa lkQ lQkbZ
dk dk;Z djrh Fkh rFkk cSad vkWQ jktLFkku ds ICICI cSad esa foy; ds mijkar foi{kh cSad us eS- vkbZfjl
lfoZlst esu ikWoj lIyk;j ls lkQ lQkbZ gsrq deZpkjh miyC/k djokus ds fy;s ,d vuqca/k fd;k tks izn'kZ
M- 3 gSA bl vuqca/k ds vUrxZr lsok iznkrk QeZ deZpkfj;ksa ds p;u] fu;qfDr] dk;Z lkSaius] Ik;Zos{k.k ,oa
lrdZrk vkfn nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gSA lsok iznkrk QeZ deZpkfj;ksa ds osru@ ifjykHkksa ds
Hkqxrku ,oa vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ds fy;s Hkh nkf;Rok/khu gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk International
Airport Authority of India v/s International Cargo Workers Union ds fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd
deZpkfj;ksa ij fu;a=.k vkSj funsZ'ku dk nkf;Ro laosnd ij gS ;k iz/kku fu;kstd ij] bu rF;ksa ij fopkj dj ;s
iz'u mRrfjr djuk gksxk fd osru Hkqxrku dkSu djrk gS ,oa lsok lekfIr gsrq vuq'kklfud 'kfDr fdls izkIr gSA
bl fofu'p; ds izdk'k esa izn'kZ M-
vuqca/k dk ifj'khyu ;g n'kkZrk gS fd foi{kh cSad] lsok iznkrk eS-
vkbZfjl lfoZlst ds fdlh deZpkjh ds fdlh Hkh izdkj ds Hkqxrku vFkok {kfriwfrZ gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gksxhA
foi{kh cSad vkSj eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst ds e/; fu"ikfnr vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh cSad ds e/;
fu;ksDrk ,oa deZdkj ds laca/k vfLrRo esa gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS] oju izkFkhZ vuqcaf/kr laLFkku eS- vkbZfjl
lfoZlst }kjk fu;qDr deZdkj izekf.kr gksrh gSA bl fu"d"kZ ds mijkar fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 izkFkhZ ds fo:} rFkk
fcUnq la- 3 foi{kh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;s tkrs gSA
19-
20- bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mlds ckn okys Jfedksa dks fu;fer Jfed ds :Ik
esa foi{kh us fu;qDr dj fn;k gS tcfd og muls igys fu;fer gksus dh ;ksX;rk j[krh gSA bl izdkj foi{kh us
izkFkhZ ds izfr vuqfpr Je& O;ogkj fd;k gSA izkFkhZ tks dke djrh gS og LFkkbZ izd`fr dk gSA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3183
21- bl laca/k esa izFke rks ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; fu;ksDrk vkSj deZdkj ds laca/k mRiUu gksuk
gh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS] nwljs izkFkhZ us vius lEiw.kZ dFku esa ;g of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd mlds ckn okys vFkkZr
izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj dkSu&dkSu O;fDr gS ftUgsa foi{kh us fu;fer Jfed ds :Ik esa fu;qDr fd;k gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a rks
foi{kh cSad }kjk fu;qDr u gksdj vuqcaf/kr lsok iznkrk QeZ eS- vkbZfjl lfoZlst dh deZdkj gksuk izekf.kr gqvk
gSA blfy;s foi{khx.k ij izkFkhZ dks fu;fer fu;qfDr iznku djus dk dksbZ nkf;Ro vkjksfir ugh fd;k tk ldrkA
foi{khx.k }kjk bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds izfr vuqfpr Je O;ogkj fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA
blfy;s ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
22-
23- izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku ds iSjk&7 esa ;g dgk gS fd ßizkFkhZ dk fu;fer djus dk fooknß Jheku ds le{k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 A la'kksf/kr vf/klwpuk fnukad 15-09-2010 ds rgr izLrqr fd;k tk jgk
gSA
24- foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (k) ds vUrxZr vkS|ksfxd fookn dh
ifjHkk"kk esa ugh vkrk D;ksafd foi{kh laLFkku ds deZdkjksa dh lkjoku la[;k us izkFkhZ ds fookn dks mBkus gsrq dksbZ
lHkk vk;ksftr dj vFkok izLrko ikfjr dj fdlh Jfed la?k dks vf/kd`r ugha fd;k gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
2 A ds vUrxZr izkFkhZ fookn rHkh izLrqr dj ldrh gS tc ,slk fookn izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr@mUeksfpr@NaVuh
ls lacaf/kr gksA foi{kh cSad esa rks dksbZ ekU;rk izkIr Jfed ;wfu;u Hkh ugha gSA izkFkhZ viuh izfr ijh{kk esa Lohdkj
djrh gS fd mlus tks nkok is'k fd;k gS og O;fDrxr :Ik ls is'k fd;k gS] nkok is'k djus ds laca/k esa ;wfu;u
ds laca/k esa dksbZ i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] u gh ;wfu;u us mldk fookn mBkus ds fy;s dksbZ izLrko ikfjr fd;k
FkkA
25- bu dFkuksa ds foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 A ds izko/kku 15-09-2010 ls izofrZr gq;s gS rFkk
bl izko/kku }kjk ek= ,sls deZdkj dks ftldh lsok dk lekiu@ mUekspu@inP;qfr ;k NaVuh ds ek/;e ls
fd;k x;k gksA le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr vkosnu ds 45 fnu mijkar rFkk lsok lekfIr ds 3 o"kZ dh lekfIr
ds iwoZ Je U;k;ky; ds le{k lh/kk vkosnu djus gsrq leFkZ cuk;k x;k gSA bl izko/kku ds vuqlkj lsok lekfIr
ls lacaf/kr fookn ds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; fookn dks deZdkj lh/ks gh Je U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha dj
ldrk gSA ;gkW ;g rF; fookfnr ugha gS fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a Hkh lsok lekfIr vFkok NaVuh ls lacaf/kr fookn izLrqr
ugha fd;k gSA blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 A ds vUrxZr izkFkhZ O;fDrxr :Ik ls ;g fookn izLrqr djus gsrq
l{ke ugha gSA
26- vc foi{kh dh bl vkifRr ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (k) ds vUrxZr ;g fookn
vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gSA izkFkhZ us Lo;a ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus O;fDrxr :Ik ls viuk fookn izLrqr fd;k
gS ,oa ;wfu;u dh rjQ ls bl laca/k esa dksbZ leFkZu izkIr ugha gSA
27- ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; Management of Messers Hotel Samrat v/s
Government of N.C.T. and others esa ;g Li"V vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd ,d O;fDrxr fookn dks U;k;
fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr djokus ds fy;s ,d deZdkj dks ;g n'kkZuk gksxk fd mlds fookn dks deZdkjksa ds ,d la?k
}kjk leFkZu fn;k x;k gS ;k iz;ksftr fd;k x;k gSA fdlh deZdkj dk fookn lkewfgd :Ik ls Jfed la?k ds
dk;Zdkjh fudk; }kjk bl laca/k esa ,d fofu'p; djds mBk;k tk ldrk gSA dk;Zdkjh fudk; dk dksbZ ,d
lnL; lexz la?k dk pfj= ugha cu ldrk gS rFkk la?k dk xBu ugha djrkA bl fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/k ds
izdk’k esa pwfda izkFkhZ ds fookn dks ¼tks fd lsok lekiu@NaVuh ls lacaf/kr ugha gS½ fdlh Jfed ;wfu;u }kjk
vFkok cgqla[;d deZdkjksa }kjk izLrko ikfjr dj lefFkZr ugha fd;k x;k gS] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (k) ds
vUrxZr vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA blfy;s bl fookn dks tks fd ,d O;fDrxr fookn gS rFkk
fdlh Jfed la?k }kjk iz;ksftr Hkh ugha gS] leqfpr ljdkj }kjk U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr djuk
fof/k lEer ugha gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Jherh ccyh nsoh cuke cSad vkWQ jktLFkku o vU;
esa fjV ;kfpdk ij ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 02-09-2009 esa ;g vf/kfu.khZr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds oS;fDrd
fookn dks fdlh Je la?k }kjk lefFkZr fd;s fcuk Hkh vkS|ksfxd fookn ekuk tkdj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkosA vr%
;g fcUnq foi{khx.k ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
3184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
28-
29- mi;qDrZ fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- ¼1½ o ¼2½ izkFkhZ ds fo:} ,oa fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- ¼3½ o ¼4½ foi{khx.k ds i{k esa
fofu’p; gksus ij ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ o foi{khx.k ds chp deZdkj ,oa fu;kstd dk laca/k ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds
laca/k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr oS;fDrd fookn fdlh Jfed la?k }kjk lefFkZr@iz;ksftr u gksus ds dkj.k
bl vf/kdj.k }kjk U;k; fu.kZ;u ;ksX; Hkh ugha gSA bl fy;s izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
30- dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
31- 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, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1421.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार
राष्ट्री नमूना सवेक्षण का ा ल , डाटा प्रोसेछसंग प्रभाग, के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मिन िास, श्री रेननुल िक
और श्री उज्ज्वल भट्टाचा , कामगार, के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम
न् ा ाल ,कोलकाता,ृंचाट(संिभ सं् ा REF. NO. 18 OF 2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित
करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-124-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18 OF 2018) 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 National Sample Survey Office , Data Processing Division, and Shri Madan Das, Shri Renanul Haque and
Shri Ujjal Bhattacharjee, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 11.07.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-124-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
CGIT-18 OF 2018
Sri Madan Das, Sri Renanul Haque and Sri Ujjal Bhattacharjee
……..Applicant/Employee
Versus
National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division. … Opp. Parties
Appearance
:
On behalf of the Applicants
: In persons.
On behalf of Opp. Party
: Mr. Saurabh Kr. Dubey, Authorised Representative.
Date: 01st February, 2024
A W A R D
This is the case under section 2A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 filed by Sri Madan Das, Sri Rezanul
Haque and Sri Ujjal Bhattacharjee (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) through Vice President of All
Bengal Security and Allied Workmen’s Union for reinstatement of their services with full back wages.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3185
It is the case of the workmen/union, they were engaged by National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing,
Kolkata through M/s. Panther Security Services, M/s. Inter State Security Agency and lastly through M/s,. Command
Security Service, all sham and bogus contractors. They have rendered their services to the office of the National
Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata since 1st March, 2010 till their payment of salary was
stopped from the month of January, 2017 and which they alleged to be termination of their service.
They have also alleged, all those three contractors through whom they were engaged by National Sample
Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata were sham and bogus contractors. Thereby, National Sample
Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata has indulged in unfair labour practice. Therefore, they have prayed
for their reinstatement with back wages.
National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata have contested the case by filing written
statement, where it has categorically stated that it never engaged those three workmen as security guards rather it
had/has outsourced the job of security guards to private contractors through tender process as per the Govt.
guidelines. That those three workmen were the employees by M/s. Panther Security Service who provided security
services to its guest house from 2010 to 2014. That those three security guards continued to work under another
security agency named M/s. Inter State Security Agency from 2014 to 2016. That from January, 2017 M/s. Command
Security Service has been providing security guards to its establishment. That M/s. Command Security Service did
not engage those three workmen with the termination of the contract with M/s. Inter State Security Agency and the
services of those three contractor employees had come to an end.
It has alleged those workmen not being the employees engaged by National Sample Survey Office, Data
Processing Division, Kolkata directly, question of their termination by National Sample Survey Office, Data
Processing Division, Kolkata does not arise and alleged the relief sought by those three workmen against it is not
maintainable and pray for dismissal of the same.
The record shows that contractor M/s. Command Security Service has failed to put appearance and contest
the case and as such present proceeding has been proceeding exparte against it.
The record shows the workmen/union has examined Sri Mani Dey, the representative/President of the union
as W.W. No.1. They have also filed evidence in chief on affidavit of Sri Rezanul Haque, but failed to examine him.
Therefore, evidence in chief on affidavit of Sri Rezanul Haque dated 21-11-2022 stands rejected.
Documents filed by the union have been marked as Exhibit –W-1 to Exhibit-W-8 on formal proof being
dispensed with as per the order dated 19-07-2019 and which are as follows:-
1) copy of union’s letters dated 20-01-2017 and 31-01-2017 addressed to the Manager, M/s. Command
Security Service,
2) copy of letter addressed to ALC-Central dated 17-02-2017,
3) office memorandum issued by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation dated 29-08-2017,
4) record of the proceeding before the ALC-Central, Kolkata in Case No.5/12/2017,
5) certificate issued u/s 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act by the ALC-Central, Kolkata, copy of
representation dated 09-04-2018 written by Sri Madan Das, Sri Rezanul Haque and Sri Ujjal
Bhattacharjee before the Additional Director General, Data Processing Division, Head Quarter, Kolkata.
On the other hand the authorities of National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing, Kolkata have failed to
adduce any evidence or produced any documentary evidence.
The question arises whether a dispute u/s 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 can be raised by Union?
Section 2A does not declare all individual dispute to be industrial dispute, but only in respect of a dispute
connected with discharged, dismissed, retrenched or termination of a workman and such dispute can be raised by an
individual workman if it is not sponsored by the majority of the workmen or by the trade union, but it does not
prohibit body of workman or the union to raise a dispute concerned the discharged, dismissed, retrenched and
termination of a workman. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the union is justified in raising the present dispute u/s
2A of the Act of 1947 in respect of the alleged termination.
Second question that needs to be decided is whether the concerned workmen were the employees of National
Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata?
It is admitted by the union in its written claim statement that those three workmen were engaged to work as
security guards in the establishment of National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata by one
M/s. Panther Security Services. That said fact has been corroborated by Sri Mani Das, President of the Union, in his
cross examination and stated those three concerned workmen were working for National Sample Survey Office, Data
Processing Division, Kolkata on behalf of security services agency for more than 10 years. The contractors/security
3186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
services agency used to pay wages to those three persons. That he never saw any appointment letter issued by
National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata to those three persons. That after the termination
of those three persons he contacted the newly appointed security service provider and also approached it for
reinstatement of those three workmen. That he never came across any letter of termination issued by National Sample
Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata terminating the services of the concerned three security guards.
Such admission made by W.W. No.1, the representative of the three workmen and the President of the Union
before the Tribunal under oath leaves no room for doubt that those three concerned workmen were the employees of
the service provider or the agency engaged by National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata on
contract basis. Such admission also proves the fact that National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division,
Kolkata had outsourced the security job to private contractors through tender process. Those private contractors
whose bid was accepted used to supply required number of security guards to the establishment of National Sample
Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata.
It has been admitted by the principal employer that it had engaged M/s. Panther Security Service for the
period from 2010 to 2014 and which had deputed those three security guards along with other security guards to its
establishment. After the expiry of the contract with M/s. Panther Security Service another contactor named M/s. Inter
State Security Agency was given the contract and who provided security guards to its establishment from 2014 to
2016. That M/s. Inter State Security Agency engaged those three security guards and deputed them to work in its
establishment as security guards. That on expiry of the contract with M/s. Inter State Security Agency in the month of
December, 2016 another service provider M/s. Command Security Service was engaged. That M/s. Command
Security Service did not engage those three security guards of M/s. Inter State Security Agency and deputed its own
new set of security guards.
It is true that National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata did not exhibit or examine
any witness, but the documents which it has filed prima facie show that it had outsourced the job of security guards to
private service provider by virtue of tender and by accepting the lowest bidder. It is also seen that initially the contract
was executed between the principal employer and the contractor for a period of one year and it was renewed from
time to time. The attendance register produced by the union prove the attendance of those security guards was
maintained by the contractor M/s. Panther Security Service, their employer and not by the principal employer.
Exhibit-3, a letter to the ALC-Central by the Union, shows that the service of those three security guards
were not taken into consideration by M/s. Command Security Service as they had already attend the age of 50 years
and still the union insisted to take those three persons who have already attend the age of 50 years in the service of the
security guards and has raised an industrial dispute.
Thus, from such exhibited document it appears M/s. Command Security Service did not take the service of
those three erstwhile security guards of previous contractor as they had already attended the age of 50 years. That as
per terms and condition of contract executed between the principal employer and the contractor employer no person
above the age of 50 years is eligible or fit for the post of security guard.
It further appears from exhibit that out of 8 security guards M/s. Command Security Service had taken the
service of other five security guards earlier engaged by M/s. Inter State Security Agency and a presumption can be
drawn as those five other security guards had not attend the age of 50 years.
Thus, from the above documents it is seen service of those three guards were not terminated rather their
service as security guards in the establishment of National Sample Survey Office has come to an end on the expiry of
the contract of their immediate contractor employer M/s. Inter State Security Agency on 31st December, 2016 and
further being disqualified to work as security guards on attaining the age of 50 years. They being the employees of the
contractor of National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata they cannot demand reinstatement in
service from the principal employer with whom they had no employer-employee relationship. Further, they not being
engaged by M/s. Command Security Service at any point of time to work in the establishment of National Sample
Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata they cannot demand reinstatement in service of security guards
from M/s. Command Security Service. If they feel aggrieved or considered to be terminated from the job of the
security guard in the establishment of National Sample Survey Office on expiry of the contract between their the then
employer M/s. Inter State Security Agency and National Sample Survey Office, their remedy lies with their
immediate the then employer M/s. Inter State Security Agency to provide them job elsewhere and cannot demand
reinstatement in the establishment of National Sample Survey Office with whom the contract of their immediate
employer had expired. Surprisingly, they did not implead their such immediate employer as party to this case and did
not seek any relief against it.
Further, National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing Division, Kolkata being a Govt. organisation it
cannot absorb its contractor’s employees against the post which does not exist as sanctioned post in the organisation.
Even if there is a sanctioned post of security guard in the establishment of National Sample Survey Office, then
appointment has to be made through Staff Selection Commission as National Sample Survey Office, Data Processing
Division, Kolkata is a Central Govt. organisation or by following the prescribed recruitment rules and regulations.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3187
Further, the union/workmen have failed to prove that contractors engaged by National Sample Survey
Office, Kolkata for supply of security guards to its establishment is sham and bogus. In fact, evidence of W.W. No.1
and exhibited documents prove that National Sample Survey Office, Kolkata had and has been outsourced or
outsourcing the security guards job to private agencies through tender process and their terms of contract was/is
extended in view of terms and conditions contained in the agreement executed between them.
In view of the above this Tribunal holds the relief claimed by three contractor employees whose service have
come to an end on the expiry of the contract of their the then employer with the principal employer is not
maintainable against the principal employer and as well against a new contractor who never engaged them.
Accordingly, the workmen are not entitled to get the relief of reinstatement with back wages as prayed for. Thus,
CGIT-18 of 2018 is dismissed and an award to that effect is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1422.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार
प्ररंि जनिेिक, ररला ंस जि ो इन्फोकॉम प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िोरी तालार, मुंरई; मानव संसािन प्रमु , स्ट्रेटेजिक
मजनृावर सॉल् ूिंस जलजमटेड, जवि नगर, इंिौर (म.प्र.); अध् क्ष, िालीमार ृाक , भोृाल (म.प्र.), प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध
जन ोिकों और श्री जवनोि कुमार छसंि, कामगार, के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-
श्रम न् ा ाल , िरलृुर ृंचाट(संिभ सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/101/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा
िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 40012/22/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2024
S.O. 1422.—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/101/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to The Managing Director, Reliance Jio Infocom Pvt Ltd, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai; HR Head, Strategic
Manpower Solutions Limited, Vijay Nagar, Indore (M.P.) ;The Chairperson, Shalimar Park, Bhopal (M.P.),
and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 11.07.2024.
[No. L-40012/22/2017-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/101/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh
S/o. Sh. LalBaksh Singh
Saman Bandh, Ukhari Tola, Shardapuram
GSS, Behind Christ Church School
Reewan (M.P.) - 486001
Workman
Vs
The Managing Director
3188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reliance Jio Infocom Pvt Ltd
3rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak
Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002
HR Head
Strategic Manpower Solutions Limited
7th Floor, Metro Tower, A-Wing, AB Road
Vijay Nagar, Indore (M.P.) – 452010
The Chairperson
New Distinct Services, D-9, Kolar Road
Shalimar Park, Bhopal (M.P.)-462042
Management
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 24th day of June-2024)
As per letter dated 12/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
as per Notification No. L-40012/22/2017 IR (DU) dt. 12/12/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Reliance Jio Infocom Private Limited and their contractors
Manpower Solutions Limited & New Distinct Services in terminating the services of workman Sh. Vinod Kumar
Sing, who was working as Field Executive Officer from 09.09.2014 until date of termination i.e. 22.03.2016, is fair,
legal & justified ? If so, to what benefits the workman is entitled to & to what extent ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. Many speed post
notices were sent to the workman on the address mention in the reference but were returned unserved with the
endorsement that he was not found on the address. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for publication of
notices nor is any budget allotted for this. Notices were served on management no.-1, 2 & 3.
Only management no.-1 & 2 filed their written statement of defense. Management no.-3 i.e. New Distinct
Services did not care to file their written statement of defense.
Since, there is no statement of claim filed by the workman, this Tribunal has no option except to
answer the reference against the workman and the reference is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 24/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1423.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार मेसस
जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और जभलाई इस्ट्ृात कम चारी ूजन न के रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट
केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िरलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 98/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 26011/4/2018-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2024
S.O. 1423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 98/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL and Bhilai Ispat Karmachari Union which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 12.07.2024.
[No. L-26011/4/2018-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3189
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/98/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The Dy. General Secretary,
Bhilai Ispat Karmachari Union,
2/C, Street-13, Sector-04, Bhilai Nagar,
District – Durg, Chhattisgarh – 490001
Workman
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer,
M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL,
Post – Bhilai, District – Durg,
Chhattisgarh - 490001
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 19th day of June-2024)
As per letter dated 29/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
26011/4/2018-IR(M) dt. 29/11/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether the action of the Management of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai in arranging excess recovery of
HBA i.r.o. Shri Malalng Pasa, Sr. Tech. (TEED-TSD) is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman represented through Bhilai Ispat Karmachari Union 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 filed its written statement
of claim/defence.
Management has taken a case in their written statement of defence that the workman was granted home
building advance of Rs. 1,74,000/- ( Rupees One lakh seventy four thousand ) on 31th October, 1996, which was
released in this account. It was found that no house was build on the site for which the advance was granted. Prayer of
the workman for change of site was refused, and recovery order were passed with regard to his building advance.
I have heard the argument of Management Counsel Adv. R.C. Srivastava and perused record. 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.
DATE: 19/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1424.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
ए रृोट अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और इंजड ा ए रृोट कामगार ूजन न (इंटक) के रीच
अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िरलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-97/2012) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.07.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 11011/6/2012-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2024
S.O. 1424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 97/2012) 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 Airports Authority of India and Indian Airport Kamgar Union (INTUC) which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.07.2024.
[No. L-11011/6/2012-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/97/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri G.A. Rudrappa
General Secretary,
Indian Airport Kamgar Union (INTUC)
Camp Office-B-11, DDA Janta Flat,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Workman
Versus
The Regional Executive Director,
Airports Authority of India
Eastern Region-NSCBI Airport, Kolkata
The Airport Director
AAI, Raipur Airport Mana
Raipur (CG).
Management
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 14th day of June-2024)
As per letter dated 11/09/2012 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-11011/6/2012/IR(M) dt. 11/09/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“(i).
Whether the departmental inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer against the workman Shri
M.R. Giripunje is fair, impartial and conforms to the principles of natural justice ? What relief the workman is
entitled to ?
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3191
(ii).
Whether the penalty of “Reduction to one stage lower in time scale of pay being drawn by him for
a period of one year and the period of suspension from 23.3/2.4.2007 to 3.8.2009 not being treated as the period
spent on dury” imposed on Shri M.R. Giripunje, Sr. Asstt. (Wireman) by the management of Airport Authority of
India
vide
order
No.- AAI/ER-Kol/DISC/MRG/486
dated
24/29.11.2010
and
order
No.
AAI/ER-
Kol/DISC/MRG/515 dated 25/1/2011 respectively is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties
appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.
According to the workman, he was served a charge sheet on 23.03.2007 under Regulation 29 of Airport
Authority of India Employees (CDA) Regulations 2003, wherein it was alleged that he was indulged in assaulting Mr.
Sanjay P. Oberoi and Pelting Stones on building as well fire vehicle on 04.03.2007. He was placed under suspension
vide order dated 23.03.2007.
A departmental enquiry was conducted by management in which the workman was found guilty of the
charges. He was awarded punishment of reduction to one stage lower in time scale of pay being drawn by him for a
period of one year and the period of suspension not being treated as period spent on duty for the charges.
In the meanwhile he was convicted for the criminal charges U/S. 323/34 of I.P.C. after trial before Special
Court.
The workman, in his statement of claim alleged that the enquiry was conducted against rules and principles
of natural justice. The charges were not proved and also that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge.
Hence, according to him the management committed illegality. He prayed that setting aside his punishment order, he
be granted all back wages and benefits.
Rebutting the allegations of the workman, management has taken a case in their written statement of defense
that a charge sheet under Regulation 29 of Airport Authority of India Employees (CDA) Regulations 2003, wherein it
was alleged that he was indulged in assaulting Mr. Sanjay P. Oberoi and Pelting Stones on building as well fire
vehicle on 04.03.2007. was issued by management for misconduct and after finding that his explanation was not
satisfactory, management was decided to conduct an enquiry. The workman participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry
Officer submitted his report holding the workman guilty of misconduct. This report was sent to the workman with
show cause notice. After considering his representation on the enquiry report and show cause the Disciplinary
Authority passed the punishment order of reduction to one stage lower in time scale of pay being drawn by him for a
period of one year and the period of suspension not being treated as period spent on duty for the charges.
Accordingly, the management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
Following preliminary issue was framed as follows :-
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper or not?
Parties adduced their evidence on this preliminary issue the copy of enquiry papers was filed by
management, admitted by workman.
Vide order dated 18.11.2019, preliminary issue was decided holding the departmental enquiry legal and
proper. This order is part of this award.
Following additional issues were also framed on 18.11.2019:-
2. Whether the alleged misconduct proved from the evidence in enquiry ?
3. Whether the punishment of reduction to one stage lower in time scale of pay being drawn by him for a
period of one year and the period of suspension not being treated as period spent on duty for the
charges is legal and justified ?
4. Relief to which the workman is entitled ?
Parties were directed to file their evidence on these additional issues in form of documents/affidavit. The
workman filed his affidavit and some documents with it, to be referred to as and when required. Management did not
file any affidavit or document.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Praveen Yadav for workman and learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Anoop Nair, assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kewat for management. I have gone through the record and the written
arguments.
Issue No.-2 :-
Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that the basis of the charge before the Criminal Court during
trial and in the departmental enquiry was one and the same Learned Counsel has referred to different contradictions in
3192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the statements of witnesses examined during the enquiry and before Court to buttress his argument that charges were
wrongly held proved.
Learned Counsel has referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of
Gujarat (2006) 4 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. P. Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC 657 and Ramlal vs. State
of Rajasthan AIR Online 2023 SC 1038 in this respect.
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the standard of proof required for charge to be
proved in a departmental enquiry is not the same as it is in a criminal trial. He further submits that the workman was
convicted of the charges by Criminal Court after trial.
The settled proposition of law is that the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a
departmental enquiry. Following judgments are being referred to in this respect.
Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and
independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs.
K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255
Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although
the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who
upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to
prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.
State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India,
(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)
In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State
Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7
SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417
(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,
it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are
two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a
departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of
proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and
the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."
In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct,
exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.
In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High
Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the
distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings
i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The
object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule
relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot
be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent
officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of
proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules
of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental
enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for
breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry
and trial of criminal case. "
In the cases referred to by the workman side the facts are found different from the case in hand. In the case of
Ramlal (Supra) the charge against the employee was that be made alteration in his 8th Standard Marksheet in the date
of birth column to project him a major at the time of his appointment. The Marksheet showed no such alteration rather
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3193
there was over writing in the application form which was held in advertent. In the other case of G.M. Tank (Supra)
the employee was honorably acquitted from the charges by Criminal Court and not on the basis of reasonable doubt.
From perusal of statements of witnesses recorded during the enquiry, it is clear that the statements of
witnesses fully support the charge as it has been found after perusal of enquiry papers, the argument of learned
Counsel for the workman that the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding the charges proved was wrong cannot be
accepted. It is also noticed that the workman was held guilty for offences under Section 323/34 of I.P.C. on the same
set of evidence. Accordingly, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the charges against the workman are held
proved.
Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3 :-
Learned Senior Counsel for management has submitted that discipline is the core value that has to be
maintained by an employee while in service. No employer can afford to have an employee on its rolls who is
indisciplined.
On the other hand learned Counsel for workman has submitted that the fact that the workman was released
on probation after trial should have been taken into account by management in awarding the punishment and atleast
the workman should not have been awarded harsh punishment.
The settled proposition of law is that the punishment can be interfered by this Tribunal only when it is so
disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Following judgments are being referred
to in this respect.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the
scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed
by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a
conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining
all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty
imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness
expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the
delinquent person concerned works.”
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long
line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal
position in the following words:
“11.
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of
logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not
go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should
not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial
review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position
as follows:
“8.
The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only
if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
3194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the
disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the
imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material
procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The
exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or
appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past
conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that
the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained
in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would
not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587
7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of
the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to
find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters,
if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be
arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G.
Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5
SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1
SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)
In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:
“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of
confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from
challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires
absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.”
In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of
confidence in the employee, observing that:
“Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management.
Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the
management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and
proved.”
No doubt an employee has to maintain absolute integrity and discipline while in service. There can be no
compromise on these two core values of an employee in any institution. The fact that the workman was released on
probation, loses its significance when the matter relates to internal discipline in an institution. Hence, in these
circumstances, the punishment to the workman inspite of the fact that he was released on probation after trial cannot
be faulted in law or fact. Holding the punishment justified in law.
Issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-4 :_
On the basis of findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3195
A W A R D
The departmental inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer against the workman Shri M.R. Giripunje
is fair, impartial and conforms to the principles of natural justice. The workman is entitled to no relief.
The penalty of “Reduction to one stage lower in time scale of pay being drawn by him for a period of
one year and the period of suspension from 23.3/2.4.2007 to 3.8.2009 not being treated as the period spent on
dury” imposed on Shri M.R. Giripunje, Sr. Asstt. (Wireman) by the management of Airport Authority of India
vide order No.- AAI/ER-Kol/DISC/MRG/` respectively is legal and justified. The workman is entitled to no
relief.
No order as to costs.
DATE:- 14/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1425.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
सिारा इंटरनेिनल ए रृोट प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रािेि कुमार गुप्ता के रीच अनुरंि
में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (एलसीए न.-03/2017) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.07.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड - 16025/04/2024-आईआर (एम)-83]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2024
S.O. 1425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (LCANo. 03/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Sahara International Airport Private Limited and Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.07.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR (M)-83]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
LCA No. 03/2017
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta,
R/o C-3/140,
Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow, UP-226010,
Versus
1.
Accountable Manager,
Sahara International Airport Pvt. Ltd.
Hotel Sahara Star,
Opp. Domestic Airport, Vile Parle (E).
2.
CEO,
Sahara International Airport Pvt. Ltd,
Hotel Sahara Star,
3196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Opp. Domestic Airport, Vile Parle (E).
Mumbai-400099.
Counsels:
For Claimant: Kunal Awana & Pratik Gaur, Ld. AR
For Respondent: None
ORDER DATED:- 18.06.2024
This order shall dispose of the two applications filed by one Sonal Jaiswal. First one has been filed with the
request that she be substituted in place of the deceased claimant in whose favor the award has been passed. She
submits that Claimant Sh. Rajesh Gupta was expired leaving behind her as legal heir. Other one has been filed by the
same applicant seeking modification in the award passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. His contention is that
inadvertently in para no.-10 of the judgment word and figure Rs. 2,55,000/- has been typed instead of Rs. 21,55,000/-
as mentioned in para no.-1. Hence being the numerical error it be corrected.
I have heard the applicant as well as gone through the record of this case. Claimant Rajesh Kumar Gupta has
filed an application U/s 33C (2) of the I.D Act for recovery of the money dues from an employer. He claim to be
appointed as a Base Maintenance Manager by the respondent company vide offer letter dated 22.09.2012. He was
given gross salary of Rs. 2.60 Lakh per month + perks. He accepted the offer letter and joined the respondent Sahara
International Airport Pvt. Ltd (SIAPL). After the arrest of Mr Subroto Roy, Chief of Sahara Group/respondent,
there was a chaos in the management which led to the delay in payment of salary of employees. His salary was not
paid, hence he filed the claim.
Respondent was proceeded ex-parte. Ex-parte award vide order dated 17.09.2019 was passed in favor of
applicant by the Ld. Predecessor of this court whereby the respondent was held liable to pay an amount of Rs.
2,55,000/ along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual of the dues till actual payment is made.
Now come to an application filed by the claimant. In the first application, applicant claims to be the legal
heir of the claimant being the legally wedded wife submitting that the claimant was expired after passing of the
award. Along with the application, copy of the death certificate of the claimant was annexed wherein Rajesh Kumar
Gupta was shown as expired on 17.05.2021. Photocopy of Aadhaar Card of the applicant has also been annexed to
buttress the fact that the applicant is the wife of the claimant.
In view of the above said fact herein, this application stands allowed. In the award dated 17.09.2019, name of
the applicant be substituted in place of claimant Sh. Rajesh Gupta, as Sonal Jaiswal R/o C-3/140, Vikrant Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P- 226010.
Now, I have come to another application filed by the same applicant. By moving this application, applicant
want to modify the award dated 17.09.2019. He submits that inadvertently numerical error have been erupted in para
no.-10 of the said award where the amount had been mentioned as Rs. 2,55,000/- instead of Rs. 21,55,000/-. He
submits that in para no.-1, it has been mentioned that the claimant has been claiming an amount of Rs. 21,55,000/-.
I have heard the argument and perused the record of this award. In the entire award passed by the
predecessor of this court, nowhere it has been mentioned that any deduction have been made towards the claim filed
by the claimant towards any error in calculation. Rather than it is an ex-parte award passed by the Ld. Predecessor of
this tribunal.
Considering the above facts, it appears that in para no. 10 numerical error have been erupted. Therefore, the
word and figure Rs. 2,55,000/- in para no.10 be read as Rs. 21,55,000/-. A copy of this order is sent to the appropriate
government U/s 17, for annexing this order in the award passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal on 17.09.2019.
For ready reference copy of the award passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court be also attached. Ordered accordingly.
Date 18.06.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1426.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेसस रिाि आजल ांि लाइफ इंश् ोरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रािीर कुमार मजती के
रीच अनुरंि में जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कोलकाता, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.
32/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
12.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3197
[सं. एल - 17012/11/2013-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2024
S.O. 1426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Sri Rajib Kumar Maity which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.07.2024.
[No. L-17012/11/2013-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 32 OF 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus
Sri Rajib Kumar Maity
Appearance:
On behalf of the M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.: Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of the Sri Rajib Kumar Maity: Mr. Susanta Pal, Ld. Advocate.
Dated: 28thJune, 2024
A W A R D
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-17012/11/2013-
(IR (M)) dated 14-06-2013 in exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and sub-section (2A) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., in terminating
the services of Shri Rajib Kumar Maity working as Jr. Sales Manager in the Tamluk Branch invoking the termination
clause of his appointment letter, w.e.f. 09-02-2012, is justified? If not, what relief Shri Maity is entitled to?”
The facts giving rise to the present dispute in gist are that Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was appointed as a Jr. Sales
Manager on 21-09-2006 and was posted at Tamluk Branch of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.. That
from the day he joined Tamluk Branch he was eyesore of Branch Manager Sri Hare Krishna Chowdhury and who for
no reason used to humiliate him now and then in presence of other member staff and outsiders. That he was never
informed in advance about the meetings to be attended by him by said Sri Hare Krishna Chowdhury and due to which
he was unable to attend official meetings in time and on the schedule dates.
Further he has alleged that he used to discharge the duty of a workman though he was designated as Jr. Sales
Manager having no administrative responsibility. That he being a Jr. Sales Manager had no authority to take any
action against his subordinate or had no authority to grant leave to those subordinates. In fact he used to discharge the
duty as directed by the superior officials and used to carry out the orders of the superiors.
That without giving any opportunity of being heard or any show cause notice he has been terminated from
the service by the management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. by issuing a letter dt.09-02-2012. Therefore,
he has alleged the action of the management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co in terminating his service is
illegal, unjust and thereby prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
Further, Sri Rajib Kumar Maity in his rejoinder has alleged that his power to recruit Insurance Certified
Consultants was subject to supervision of his superiors. That all decisions taken by him was dependent upon the
decision and approval of his seniors. That he was empowered to recruit some voluntary Insurance Certified
Consultant on commission basis to give emolument of pecuniary target of the company subject to approval of the
3198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Branches Supremo. Acceptance or non-acceptance of recruitment of Insurance Certified Consultant was totally
controlled by the Branches Supremo. That he had no power to take any individual decision.
The management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co by filing written reply contested the claim and case
of the workman and alleged that the reference is not maintainable as Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was/is not a workman as
defined in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, rather he at the time of his termination was holding the post of Business
Development Manager. That Sri Rajib Kumar Maity joined as a Junior Sales Manager on 21-09-2006 and he was
promoted to Sr. Sales Manager in 2009. That at the time of his termination he was holding the post of Business
Development Manager.
That Sri Rajib Kumar Maity being a Manager, was responsible to develop insurance business amongst its
business partners and customers by selling the insurance policies of the company and had power to bind the
management by his own independent decision. That Sri Maity was managing a team of Insurance Certified Consultant
who were recruited by him on behalf of the management. Those persons recruited as Insurance Certified Consultant
used to work under him and had power to take decision on their behalf. That Sri Maity was responsible to obtain
regular business progression report on day to day basis from the Insurance Consultants appointed by him. That
Insurance Certified Consultants used to report him and used do business by login through the Business Code of Sri
Maity. Thus Sri Maity used to discharge managerial and administrative duties.
That Sri Maity was terminated from the service by invoking the provision of his appointment letter dt. 21-09-
2006 by giving him notice pay of one month. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co had paid all the dues and salary of
Sri Rajib Kumar Maity till the last working day. It has also alleged that Sri Maity has brought false allegations against
Sri Hare Krishna Chowdhury, Branch Manager for the purpose of this case. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of
the reference.
The workman in order to prove his case and claim has examined himself as W.W.1. The order sheet dated
11-08-2014 shows the documents filed by the workman has been marked as Exb. W-1 to W-23 on formal proof being
dispensed with.
Ld. Counsel for the workman has placed reliance on S. K. Verma –vs- Mahesh Chandra & Anrs. (1983) 4
SCC 214.
On the other hand the management has examined Sri Subhamay Sinha, Regional Human Resource Manager
as M.W.1 and through him management has exhibited following documents :-
1.
Copy of promotion letter dt.20-07-2007 of Sri Rajib Kumar Maity as Exb.M-1.
2.
Copy of another promotion letter of Sri Rajib Kumar Maity dt.20-05-2008 as Exb. M-1/A.
3.
Copy of another promotion letter of Sri Rajib Kumar Maity dt.01-09-2008 as Exb.M-1/B and
4.
Copy of termination letter of Sri Rajib Kumar Maity dt.09-02-2012 as Exb. M-2.
The management has filed written notes of argument and placed reliance on the following decisions:-
1.
Chauharya Tripathi & Ors. –vs- Life Insurance Copn. Of India & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 263.
2.
Mukesh K. Tripathi –vs- Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Copn. Of India, reported in (2004) 8 SCC
387.
Ld. Counsel for the management at the very outset has submitted that the present case is not maintainable as
Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was/is not a workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He being the
Business Development Manager and drawing salary more than Rs.32,000/- at the time of his termination does not fall
within the category of a workman.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the alleged workman submitted designation and quantum of wages is not
the criteria to determine whether the applicant was holding a managerial post or not. The only factor which
determines whether the applicant falls within the definition of workman is the actual nature of job performed by him
in the establishment of the company at the time of termination.
Since the management in its written statement has raised an issue that the Sri Rajib Kumar Maity being Business
Development Manager is not a workman, therefore, it becomes necessary to decide whether Sri Rajib Kumar Maity is
a workman as provided under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or not. In case Sri Rajib Kumar Maity is held not to be a
workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, then this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate
the dispute under reference.
The term “workman” is defined u/s 2(s) as follows:-
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be
express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3199
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 59[ten thousand rupees] per mensem or
exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature.
Therefore, as per section 2(s) workman is any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to
do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operation, 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.
The term “workman” has been interpreted by the Courts and held to determine whether a person is a
workman or not certain factors need to be considered such as if a person performs multifarious functions, the nature
of the main function performed by the person has to be considered to determine if the person is a workman or not.
The designation, source of employment, method of recruitment, terms and condition of employment, quantum of
wages/pay and the mode of payment should not be considered while determining whether a person can be termed as
workman. A person working in purely managerial or supervisory capacity does not fall within the definition of the
workman under I.D. Act., the employer has to prove that his work and duties were in nature of a manager.
Exhibit-W-1 prima facie shows that Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was selected as a Junior Sales Manager on 21-
09-2006 and was directed to join the said post at of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Tamluk Branch. Exb.
W-1 also contains the terms and conditions of the service of Sri Rajib Kumar Maity selected as a Jr. Sales Manager.
Exhibit-M-1 shows that Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was promoted to next grade from Jr. Sales Manager to
Assistant Sales Manager grade w.e.f. 01-10-2007 on the same terms and conditions of service but with revised
compensation.
Exb. M-1/A shows that he was further promoted to next grade considering his business performance as Sales
Manager grade w.e.f. 01-04-2008 on the same terms and conditions of service but with revised compensation.
Exb.M-1/B dt. 01-09-2008 shows he was promoted as Business Development Manager in STM Grade w.e.f.
01-04-2008 on the same terms and conditions of service but with revised compensation.
Sri Rajib Kumar Maity in his evidence recorded under oath on 11-12-2014 has stated that duty of Business
Development Manager and Sales Manager are same but at the same time he has admitted his salary as a Jr. Sales
Manager was Rs.12,000/- and as a Business Development Manager his salary was Rs.32,000/- per month. His own
such statement discredit what he has stated that duty of Business Development Manager and Sales Manager are same.
He has also stated as a Jr. Sales Manager he was entrusted to engage agents/Insurance Consultants but he at
the same time stated that he does not remember how many agents and Insurance Consultants he had engaged.
However, he has admitted that Insurance Consultant who were appointed by him used to work under his supervision.
That he used to ask Insurance Consultant to assure and encourage customers to get insured. He has further admitted in
the year 2008 he was given promotion twice and he was promoted as a Business Development Manager. He has also
admitted that he did not disclose working as a Business Development Manager at the time of termination before the
Labour Commissioner, where he had raised an Industrial Dispute.
On the other hand M.W.1 in his evidence in chief on affidavit has categorically stated that as a Manager Sri
Maity was responsible to develop insurance business amongst its business partners and customers as per scope of
work i.e. as per duties and obligations mentioned in the appointment letter of the Business Development Manager of
the company. He was to recruit Insurance Consultant using his discretion and was responsible to obtain regular
business, progress reports on a day to day basis. The Insurance Consultants engaged by him used to report to him and
used to do business by logging through the business code of Sri Maity. That management decided to remove Sri
Maity from the service due to his poor performance from November, 2011 to January, 2012 and his failure to improve
his performance.
During cross examination he has further reiterated that the main work of Business Development Manager is
to sale and promote the insurance products of the company through his team recruited by himself. He was also
responsible to develop the work of his team by giving them training, participating with them in joint calls and to
3200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
encourage the team by giving incentives. His responsibility was to control and manage his entire team/agents. Mr.
Maity was not the appointing authority of the team or agents working under him. He merely recruit them as agents of
the company.
That Business Development Manager has power to keep agents as many as he wants. He has power to grant
leave to his agents or any member of his team. He has discretion whether to give or not to give any kind of work to
any member of his team. The agents are not the employees of the company as they work on commission as financial
advisor. That agents /financial adviser are sales team of Business Development Manager. Business Development
Manager is an employee of the company and he is paid salary but agents are paid commission calculated on the basis
of the sales of the insurance policies. The attendance of agents is maintained by Business Development Manager.
Agents are paid incentive and foreign trips depending on the volume of business done by them. Business target is
fixed by the management i.e. by Zonal Manager and Head of the Department which is to be achieved quarterly, half
yearly and yearly. He had to discharge duty as per key responsibilities area.
Further, he has admitted that Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was terminated from the service invoking the clause
contained in his appointment letter and without holding any domestic enquiry or without framing any charges against
him.
Ld. Counsels for the parties have placed reliance on those judgments where the issue of termination of
Development Officer of LIC or Development Officer on apprentice were involved.
No doubt in S. K. Verma (supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel for Sri Rajib Kumar Maity, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to hold Development Officer of LIC to be a workman, but said judgment has been held to be
‘par incuriam’ by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaucharya Tripathi & Ors. (supra) and in the said decision
Development Officer working in LIC are held not to be workmen under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
In the present case Sri Rajib Kumar Maity was a Business Development Manager of a private insurance
company, but admittedly the nature of work discharged by him shows, his duty was similar to those engaged as
Development Officer in LIC. Admittedly, he was engaged in sales promotion job of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life
Insurance Co. Ltd. He was also responsible to recruit agents/ Insurance Consultants of his choice and who can
promote and develop the business of the company by giving them training, participating with them in joint calls, to
encourage the team by giving incentives and develop the work of his team by suggesting and guiding them, the ways
and means to improve sales. His responsibility was to control and manage his entire team/agents. He being Business
Development Manager, primarily employed to do canvasing and promoting sales of the company and having
supervisory duty over the agents recruited by him for development, improvement and promotion of business of the
company, his job needs a study of the type of the public to whom the product has to reach and a study of the market
condition. So, it appears the job for which he was appointed requires imaginative and creative mind and which cannot
be termed as either manual, skilled, unskilled or clerical in nature.
In view of the above, this Tribunal holds Sri Rajib Kumar Maity is not a workman as defined in section 2(s)
of the I. D. Act, but a person entrusted to develop the business of the company with power to recruit agents/ Insurance
Consultants to promote sales of the company. Therefore, the present case is not maintainable. More so, the order of
reference discloses Sri Rajib Kumar Maity as Jr. Sales Manager and not Business Development Manager, the post
which he was holding at the time of his termination on 09-02-2012.
Accordingly Reference No. 32 of 2013 is dismissed and award to that effect is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1427.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार
सजचव, भारत सरकार, संचार एवं प्रौद्योजगकी मंत्राल , डाक जवभाग, नई दिल्ली; जनिेिक, डाक सेवाएं, िरर ाणा
ृररमंडल, अंराला; अिीक्षक, रेलवे मेल सेवा, मानव संसािन प्रभाग, अंराला छावनी; प्रिान अजभले अजिकारी,
आरएमएस “एचआर” डीएन, अंराला, के प्ररंितंत्र के संरद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सतीि कुमार, कामगार, के रीच अनुरंि में
जनर्ि ष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1,चंडीगढ़,ृंचाट(संिभ सं् ा 183/2013) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल - 40012/142/2013-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2024
S.O. 1427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 183/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3201
Labour Court -1, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Technology, Department of
Posts, New Delhi; The Director, Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala; The Superintendent, Railway Mail
Service, HR Division, Ambala Cantt; Head Record Officer, RMS “HR” DN, Ambala, and Shri Satish Kumar,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.07.2024.
[No. L-40012/142/2013-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.183/2013
Registered on:-4.3.2014
Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass, R/o Village Rajouli, Post Office Badhouli, Distt.
Ambala(Haryana).
Workman
Versus
1.
Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Technology,
Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2.
Director Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala.
3.
Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, HR Division, Ambala Cantt.-133001.
4.
Head Record Officer, RMS “HR” DN, Ambala-133001.
Respondents/Management
AWARD
Passed on:-11.06.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-40012/142/2013-IR(DU), Dated 17.02.2014, 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 in termination of services of workman in dispute
w.e.f. 21.07.2011 and demand of Shri Satish Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass, Ex-Part time
chowkidar for reinstatement and regularization in services with full back wages with the
management of (i) The Director, Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala & (ii) The
Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, HR Division, Ambala Cantt., Haryana is just, fair and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman concern is entitled to & from what date?
1.
Both the parties were put to notice and claimant/workman Satish Kumar filed statement of claim,
with the averment, that he was appointed as Part Time Chowkidar by respondent no.3 on
18.01.20000(Annexure C-1). The name of workman was sponsored by Employment Exchange and the same is
evident from the appointment order of the workman. The workman took the charge to the post of Part Time
Chowkidar w.e.f. 22.01.2000(Annexure C-2). The workman performed his duties as part time Chowkidar
continuously for 7 hours a day without any break till his termination on 21.07.2011. During the period of his
service from 18.01.2000 to 21.07.2011, the work and conduct of the workman remained satisfactory and no
complaint was ever communicated to the workman. The workman continued his service from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
without any break including Sunday/Holidays/Rest days and having completed 240 days in every calendar year
preceding the date of his termination on 21.07.2011. The said termination was in violation of Section 25-F of
the Act. The workman has also approached to the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh(hereinafter called as CAT) and filed O.A. No.748/HR/2007 and CAT had directed the
management to consider the case of the workman for regular appointment. The termination of services of
workman is illegal, void-ab-initio and is violative of provisions of Act. It is therefore, prayed that the
management be directed to reinstate the workman into service w.e.f. 21.07.2011 along with all consequential
benefits.
2.
Respondent/management has filed its written statement, alleging therein that the workman was
appointed as part time Chowkidar on 18.01.2000 and posted at Railway Mail Service Rest House Kalka under
3202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Record Office ‘HR’ Division Kalka vide leter dated 18.01.2000. The workman has filed O.A.
No.748/HR/2007 claiming regularization of his service which was dismissed by the CAT vide its order dated
24.08.2009(Annexure R-1), observing that case of applicant be consider as and when his turn comes for
regularization.
3.
Since the engagement of the workman is not in consonance with the departmental service rules and
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India therefore, the workman cannot seek the relief of re-instatement
in service and consequently, the instant claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The services of the workman
were dispensed with as per the directions contained in Chief Postmaster General Haryana Circle Ambala letter
No.Staff/70-2/Casual Labour/2008 dated 18.07.2011(Annexure R-3). Accordingly, the management dispensed
with the services of workman vide Memo dated 29.07.2011(Annexure R-4). The workman at the time of
taking charge on 22.01.2000(Annexure R-5) has tendered a declaration that he would not claim temporary or
regular absorption in Class-IV(Group-D) cadre at any time in future on the basis of his appointment. As and
when required the workman was engaged as substitute for other duties for which he has been paid as per Rules.
Workman was paid Rs.956/- basic allowance per month plus DA admissible from time to time. The workman
was engaged for additional duties against Group-D post and GDS post as and when required in connection
with shortage of staff due to weekly off/leave etc. The workman was not engaged as daily wager but was
engaged as substitute for stop-gap arrangement. The workman was purely contingency paid employee. It is
therefore, respectfully prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed with costs.
4.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
5.
The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A
along with documents Ex.WW2/A to Ex.WW9/A, there is no document exhibit WW7/A and has been cross-
examined by the learned counsel of management.
6.
The management has examined MW1 Pardeep Kumar(Superintendent Railway Mail Services), HR
Division, Ambala, who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1 to
Ex.MW7 and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman.
7.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties.
8.
Workman in his affidavit dated 3.6.2015 has claimed that management issued notice dated
23.07.1999 for filling up the post of part time Chowkidar vide Ex.WW2/A dated 23.07.1999 and later on he
applied for the said post and was issued interview letter Ex.WW3/A dated 05.10.1999 and was given
appointment letter Ex.WW4/A dated 18.01.2000. In pursuance thereof, he joined at RMS office Kalka vide
Ex.WW5/A dated 22.01.2000. He also maintained that he perform his duty for 7 hours a day i.e. 10 pm to 5 am
without any break. He also stated that he filed OA No.748/HR/2007 before the CAT for considering his case
for promotion in Group D. The said OA was dismissed by the CAT vide order dated 24.07.2009 with the
direction to consider the case of the workman. Instead of considering his case, his services were dispensed
with on 21.07.2011 without following the procedure laid down in the Act. He was not given any compensation
under Section 25-F of the Act and he also claimed that management had issued policy dated
17.02.1988(WW6/A) and instruction dated 30.06.1989(WW8/A) vide which he was required to be regularized.
9.
In his cross-examination he has specifically stated that he is not working anywhere.
10.
On the other hand, the management has examined Pardeep Kumar, Superintendent, RMS HR
Division as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1, maintaining therein that this Court has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the instant dispute as workman had filed earlier OA No.748/2007 claiming regularization which
was dismissed on 24.08.2009. It was maintained in the said order dated 24.08.2009 that workman does not
have any individual right for regularization nor he can claim priority over the GDS category. It is admitted that
he was appointed as part time Chowkidar on 18.01.2000 and his services were dispensed with as per the
direction contained in the letter dated 18.07.2011(Ex.MW4) and he was issued memo dated
29.07.2011(Ex.MW5). Even workman at the time of taking charge on 22.01.2000(Ex.MW6) has tendered a
declaration that he would claim temporary or regular absorption in Class-IV(Group D) cadre at any time in
future on the basis of his appointment.
11.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that no holiday or rest was given to the workman as
the workman was provisionally appointed as part time Chowkidar. The regular employees are given weekly off
as per Rules of Govt. of India. The allowances of the workman was Rs.956+DA which was paid from
contingency allowance and it was paid on monthly basis.
12.
There is no dispute about the preposition of law that onus to prove that workman was in the
employment of management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence
to prove factum of his employment with the management. Such evidence may be in the form of receipt of
salary of wages for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she
has worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3203
to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh(2005) 8 Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director
Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.
13.
From the aforesaid evidence led by both the parties, it clearly emerges that workman was appointed
on 18.01.2000 vide appointment letter Ex.WW4/A and he had taken over the charge on the post of part time
Chowkidar on 22.01.2000 vide Ex.WW5/A. In pursuance of the letter dated 18.07.2011(Ex.MW4), the
services of the workman were dispensed with vide Ex.MW5 dated 29.07.2011. So there is no dispute about it
that workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding year prior to this dispensing of his services on
29.07.2011 and admittedly, no retrenchment compensation had been paid to the workman as per Section 25-F
of the Act.
14.
Now the question arises whether postal department is an ”industry”? In this regard, it is pertinent to
mention here that AR for management while placing reliance upon the case titled as Sub-Divisional Inspector
of Post, Vaikam Vs. Theyyam Joseph Etc. Civil Appeal No.3385-86 of 1996, decided on 2.2.1996 decided by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has contended that Postal Department is not an “Industry”. However, the
said contention of the Ld. AR for management is not tenable in view of the fact that the said case law of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its subsequent judgment
titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. S. Srinivasa Rao & Ors., decided on 18.11.1997, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follow:-
A two-Judge bench of this Court in Theyyam Joseph's case (1966)8 SCC 489 (supra) held that the
functions of the Postal Department are part of the sovereign functions of the state and it is, therefore,
not an 'industry' within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Incidently,
this decision was rendered without any reference to the seven-judge Bench decision in Bangalore
Water Supply (supra). In a later two-judge Bench decision in Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees'
Association case - AIR 1997 SC 2817, this decision was followed for taking the view that the Telephone
Nigam is not an 'industry'. Reliance was placed in Theyyam joseph's case (1996) 8 SCC 489 (supra)
for that view. However, in Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Association case (i.e. the latter
decision), we find a reference to the Bangalore Water supply case. After referring to the decision in
Bangalore Water Supply, it was observed that if the doctrine enunciated in Bangalore Water Supply is
strictly applied, the consequence is 'catastrophic'. With respect, we are unable to subscribe to this view
for the obvious reason that it is in direct conflict with the seven judge Bench decision in Bangalore
Water Supply case (supra) by which we are bound. It is needless to add that it is not permissible for us,
or for that matter any Bench of lesser strength, to take a view contrary to that in Bangalore Water
Supply (supra) or to by pass that decision so long as it holds the field. Moreover, that decision was
rendered long back - nearly two decades earlier and we find no reason to think otherwise. Judicial
discipline requires us to follow the decision in Bangalore Water Supply case (1978) 2 SCC 213. We
must therefore, add that the decisions in Theyyam Joseph (1996) 8 SCC 489 and Bombay Telephone
Canteen Employees' Association (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2817) cannot be treated as laying down the
correct law. This being the only point for decision in this appeal, it must fail.
So in view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that Postal Department
is an “Industry”.
15.
So far as the filing of OA bearing No.748/2007 by the workman before
the CAT, Chandigarh, due to that he was not competent to file the present case as argued by the AR for the
management is concerned, the same is devoid of merit as the AR for management has failed to show me any
case law that the present case is not maintainable.
16.
Whether the applicant is falling under the definition of “workman”. To my mind, the claimant is a
workman within the definition of Section 2(S) of the Act. In this regard, reliance can be made to the decision
in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the
definition of “workman” has observed as under :-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract
of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or
not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also
does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract
basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only
person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the
one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for
doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time
or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that
3204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 20, 2024/ASHADHA 29, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of
the Act. Thus, nature of appointment or source of appointment is not relevant to be a “workman” within the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
17.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of
payment of back wages and/or reinstatement with continuity of service. It is proved on record that the
workman has worked from 18.01.2000 21.07.2011 as part time Chowkidar and his services were dispensed
with vide memo dated 29.07.2011(Ex.MW5) without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act.
18.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya” reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:-
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and
back wages is the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous
of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then
I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the
termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically
plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.”
19.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the
consequence of termination of a workman’s service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without
complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as void ab initio,
sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non-est. Leaving aside the legal semantics,
we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without
complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms
of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee
is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive
Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
20.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works
Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80, held that relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It
would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the
relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of her earnings. If thus the act
of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be
reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the
services of workman must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workman along with
payment of back wages.
21.
However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan
Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that
the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be
awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether
after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange,
nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in
character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and
balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which
has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the
employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are
wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at
this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another
employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 20, 2024/आषाढ़ 29, 1946
3205
award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the
award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular
service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment
though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
22.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the facts, this Tribunal is of the firm
view that the claimant/workman has been terminated without following the procedure laid down under Section
25 of the ID Act. It is pertinent to mention that he has specifically pleaded that he is not working anywhere.
Moreover, nothing has been asked from this witness regarding his employment/termination as such, the factum
of his unemployment is unrebutted as management has not submitted any cogent evidence with respect to his
future employment after the alleged retrenchment/termination. Hence, the claimant/workman is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post from the date of his termination with 50% back wages inasmuch as
termination of claimant/workman is per-se illegal.
23.
So far as this contention of the learned AR for management vide which workman has given
undertaking Ex.MW6 dated 22.01.2000 that his services can be terminated without any notice and he would
not put any case for regularization or absorption is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit as the said
undertaking is against the law as it prohibits the workman for resorting to the provision of law and as such
undertaking Exhibit MW-6 is having no meaning in the eyes of law.
24.
So far as this claim of the workman that his services may be regularized in this regard, it is pertinent
to mention here that he cannot have been regularized in the department as in those cases where the case fall
under the definition of industrial dispute as mentioned under Section 2(k) of the ID Act only then
regularization can be made. Section 2(k) of the ID Act defines “industrial dispute”, which reads as under:
“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
x x x x
(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with
the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour,
of any person;”
And ID Act was amended adding Section 2-A making individual dispute of a workman as an industrial
dispute, if the dispute is related to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination of individual workmen.
Thus, Section 2-A carves an exception to the definition of individual dispute as given in Section 2(k) of the ID
Act. Thus, in order to give jurisdiction to the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the
Tribunal/Labour Court, it was essential for the workman to show that his individual dispute for regularization
was sponsored or espoused by the union of the workmen. The five Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), Civil Appeal
No.532/1963, decided on 16.03.1965, also support the above view.
25.
The Hon’ble Karnatana High Court in the case titled as Prakash and Ors. Vs. Superintending
Engineer(Electrical), O and M Circle, Belgaum and Ors., Writ Petition Nos.41747-757/1999, decided on
31.03.2000, has taken a view that the individual workman cannot raise a dispute with regard to absorption and
regularization.
26.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Management of Hotel Samrat and Ors. Vs. Government of
NCT and Ors., Writ Petition(C) No.6247 & 6682/2002, decided on 04.01.2007, has taken a similar view that
in order to be an industrial dispute, it has to satisfy the definition of Section 2(k) of the ID Act.
27.
Thus, workman cannot be regularized as his case was not sponsored by any union or group of
employees. The Award is passed accordingly.
28.
However, in view of above discussion the claimant-workman is entitled for reinstatement into the
service on the same post from the date of his termination with 50% back wages in as much as termination of
claimant-workman as per-se illegal.
29.
Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section
17(1) of the Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer-cum-Link 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: 2024.07.28 16:17:25 +05'30'