4888 GI/2024

(3449)

236रजिस्ट्री 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. 32]

नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 11—अगस्ट् त 17, 2024, िजनवार/ श्रावण 20—श्रावण 26, 1946

No. 32]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 11—AUGUST 17, 2024, SATURDAY/ SHRAVANA 20– SHRAVANA 26, 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

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1548.—भारती लघु उद्योग जवकास बैंक अजिजन म, 1989, वर्ष 2000 में ा संिोजित की िारा

(6) (1) (ग) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन् री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री भूर्ण कुमार जसन्िा के स्ट् ान ृर श्री

मनोि मुट्टजत्तल अय् प्ृन, सं ुि सजचव जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक, भारती लघु

उद्योग जवकास बैंक (जसडबी) के बोडष में जनिेिक के ृि ृर नाजमत करती िज।

[फा. सं. एफटी-1/12/2022-आईएफ-II]

अजनल कुमार, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-31082024-256805

CG-DL-W-31082024-256805

3450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1548.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (6) (1) (c) of the Small Industries Development

Bank of India Act, 1989 as amended in the year 2000, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Manoj

Muttathil Ayyappan, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services as a Director on the Board of Small

Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Bhushan

Kumar Sinha.

[F. No. FT-1/12/2022-IF-II]

ANIL KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1549.—बीमा जवजन ामक और जवकास प्राजिकरण अजिजन म, 1999 (1999 का 41) की िारा 4 द्वारा

प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, प्रूडेंट कारृोरेट एडवाइिरी सर्वषसेि जलजमटेड में स्ट्वतंत्र

जनिेिक और जगरनार इंश् ोरेंस ब्रोकसष प्रा. जल. में गजर-का षकारी जनिेिक त ा स्ट्वतंत्र ृरामिषिाता, श्री िीृक सूि को ृि

का का षभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से 62 वर्ष की आ ु प्राप्त करने तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, चार

ला रुृए प्रजतमाि (आवास और कार की सुजविा के जबना) के समेदकत वेतन ृजकेि ृर भारती बीमा जवजन ामक और

जवकास प्राजिकरण (इरडाई) में ृूणषकाजलक सिस्ट् (गजर-िीवन) जन ुि करती िज।

[फा. सं. आर-12011/01/2024-बीमा-I]

अब्िुल गुफरान, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1549.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Deepak Sood,

Independent Director, Prudent Corporate Advisory Services Limited & Non-Executive Director, Girnar Insurance

Brokers Pvt. Ltd. & Independent Consultant as Whole-Time Member (Non-Life) in the Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority of India (IRDAI), on a consolidated pay package of four lakh rupees per month (without

facility of house and car), with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post till he attains the age of 62

years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. R-12011/01/2024-Ins.I]

ABDUL GUFRAN, Under Secy.

कार्मषक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मषक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 26 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1550.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा, दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (वर्ष 1946 की

अजिजन म सं. 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए गुिरात राज्

सरकार की अजिसूचना सं.िीिी/3/2024/एसबी-IV/सीबीआई/102023/िीओआई/13, दिनांक 02.01.2024, गषि

जवभाग, सजचवाल , गांिीनगर और िुजिृत्र अजिसूचना सं. िीिी/63/2024/एसबी-IV/सीबीआई/102023/

िीओआई/13, दिनांक 11.06.2024, गषि जवभाग, सजचवाल , गांिीनगर के माध् म से प्रिान की गई सम्मजत से,

सीबीआई, अंतराष्ट्री संचालन प्रभाग, नई दिल्ली के मामला सं. आरसी2312023एस0003, दिनांक 09.10.2023 में

सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 की िारा 66डी के तित दकए गए अृरािों और उससे िुड़े ा उससे संबि अन्

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3451

अृराि(िों) व दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में

दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों

की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 09.10.2023 से समस्ट् त गुिरात राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/05/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING)

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2024

S.O. 1550.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State of Gujarat, issued vide Notification No. GG/3/2024/SB-IV/CBI/102023/GOI/13 dated 02.01.2024, Home

Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and corrigendum Notification No. GG/63/2024/SB-IV/CBI/102023/GOI/13

dated 11.06.2024 Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Gujarat for investigation of offences u/s 66D

of Information Technology Act, 2000 and other offence(s), attempt, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in

connection with case No. RC2312023S0003 dated 09.10.2023 of CBI, International Operations Division, New Delhi

and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts

ex-post-facto w.e.f 09.10.2023.

[F. No. 228/05/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1551.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua. II pa.Mhxढ़ ds iapkV (a17/2022)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/04/2021-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1551—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.17/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/04/2021–IR(B-1)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

3452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

PRESENT: SH. KAMAL KANT, PRESIDING OFFICER.

ID No.17/2022

Registered on:-27.03.2023

General Secretary, Sh. Ashish Mishra,

United Forum of We Bankers,

New MIG-53, Hemant Vihar,

Barra-2, Kanpur(U.P.)-208027.

….… ..Workmen/Union

Versus

1. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-160017.

2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, SBI Building, Sherawala Gate,

Patiala(Punjab)-147001.

3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Office, Bhadson, Tehsil-Patiala(Punjab)-147202.

.. Respondents/Management

AWARD

Passed on :-22.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/04/2021-IR(B-I) Dated 15.12.2021, under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of management of State Bank of India in transferring the workman

Shri Jagjeet Singh from Bhadson to Amargarh w.e.f. 25.06.2020 is in violation of the Shashtri

Award and the bipartite settlement and is illegal and unjustified? If yes, what relief the

workman is entitled to?

Today i.e. 22.04.2024 the case was fixed for filing claim statement by the workman. On scrutiny of

the order sheets, it is revealed that the workman has not come present on 17.08.2023, 18.12.2023 and

today also i.e. 22.04.2024 continuously. Several dates for filing claim statement have been fixed by

the Tribunal, which denotes that workman is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on

merit.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filed any claim statement and

the workman has left the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, as such, this

Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’

is passed in the present reference for the non-prosecution of the workmen-union.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the

Act for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1552.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj एचडीएफसी बैंक 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; ua. II pa.Mhxढ़ ds iapkV (a320/2013)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/102/2013-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3453

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1552—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.320/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd and

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/102/2013–IR(B-1)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

PRESENT: SH. KAMAL KANT, PRESIDING OFFICER.

ID No. 320/2013

Registered on:-7.2.2014

Sh. Rakesh Manro, S/o Sh. Kharaiti Lal Manro,

R/o H. No. 394, Ward No. 20, Near Veternary Hospital,

Jaswant Singh Kohli Street, Peer Khana Road,

Khanna, District Ludhiana.

….…..Workman

Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Samrala, through its Branch Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mall Road, Ludhiana, through Its Zonal Manager.

3. HDFC Bank Ltd., Human Resources Division, HDFC Bank House, 2^nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

.. …Respondents/Management

AWARD

Passed on :-20.05.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/102/2013-IR(B-I) Dated 30.12.2013, 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 termination the services of Sh. Rakesh Manro w.e.f. 06.11.2008 by the

management of HDFC Bank Ltd. is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?

1. The case was fixed for remaining evidence of workman. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed

that the workman has not come present on 26.09.2023, 23.11.2023, 14.03.2023 and today also i.e.

20.05.2024 continuously. Several dates for arguments have been fixed by the Tribunal, which denotes

that workman is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.

2. Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has led any evidence to prove its case

against the mangement and has left the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, as such,

this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’

is passed in the present reference for the non-prosecution of workman.

3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act

for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1553.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण मेa] केन्री सरकार

इंरप्रस्ट् गजस जलजमटेड( मेससष डीबी इंटरप्राइिेि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री संि कौजिक के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1] नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 313/2017) को

3454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज] प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 08.08.2024 को

प्राप्त हुआ ा A

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-90]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1553—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 313/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Indraprastha Gas Limited; M/s Deebee Enterprises and Shri Sanjay Kaushik which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.08.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-90]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

ID No. 313/2017

Shri Sanjay Kaushik S/o Shri K.K. Pandey,

R/o Home No. 159, Vill- Prehladpur Banger,

Bankerwali Gali, Delhi-110042.

Claimant…

Versus

1. Managing director,

IGL Bhawan, Plot No.4,

Community Centre, Sector-9,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi

2. Sh. G.C. Shah (Col. Rtd.),

Contractor/Proprietor/Operator/Director,

M/s Deebee Enterprises, Plot No. 7,

Sector No.7, Dwarka, New Delhi-75.

3. Sh. Prabhakar Gupta, Market Maneger,

MGF, Sector No. 22, Pocket No.7,

Near Vill: Begumpur, CNG Pump On Line,

Rohini, Delhi-110085

Management…

AWARD

1. This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his

termination from the service on 02.05.2017 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be

reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with the

management. He has not been provided any legal facilities. He was illegally terminated form his service on

02.05.2017 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry by the management. He has

initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the present claim petition. Management no.1 &

2 also filed rebuttal written statement.

2. Management No.3 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, rejoinder

was filed and issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on 18.09.2019.

3. The claimant filed an application for withdraw. Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option

except to pass the no disputant award. No disputant award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room.

A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act,

1947.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 29.07.2024

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3455

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1554.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14½ की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में] केन्री सरकार माइंस

एन.सी.एल.] जनगािी प्रोिेक्ट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री नागेंर ससंि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर] ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न. 01/2015) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ा ा ग ा िज] प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 08.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ाA

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-91]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2015) 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

Mines NCL, Nigahi Project and Shri Nagendra Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 08.08.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-91]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/01/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Nagendra Singh

S/o. Sh. Rangdev Singh

R/o. H. No. B/152, Sector-3, Nigahi Colony

Nigahi Project, District- Singrauli (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager/General Manager

Mines N.C.L., Nigahi Project, Nigahi

District – Singrauli (M.P.)

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 4^th day of July-2024)

The workman has filed this petition U/S. 2-A (2 & 3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter, referred to

by the word ‘Act’ seeking the relief of his reinstatement setting aside order of his discharge from service, passed by

the Disciplinary Authority on 13.07.2011 confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 12.11.2011 and

further affirmed by Chief Managing Director refusing to review the said orders vide his order dated 30.10.2012. Also

seeking relief of consideration of one of his dependants for compassionate appointment and grant of pension, gratuity

and other dues to him.

According to the workman, while in service of management he got mentally sick on 16.03.2003. Since them

he has been under treatment of doctors and informed the management about his illness, treatment and absence. He

was issued a charge sheet by management with following charges under Certified Standing Orders applicable :-

26.22

Doing any willful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental

to the interest of the company.

26.24

Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

26.30

Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.

3456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The substance of the charge was that the workman had been absenting himself from duty since 16.03.2003

and accordingly charge sheet dated 14/22.01.09 was issued. No explanation was furnished by the workman. Vide

letter dated 25/27.03.2004, another charge sheet was issued for the same charges. The workman was allowed to

resume his duty vide order of management dated 17.08.2006 but he did not return back on duty. Again, a letter dated

11.07.2007 was issued directing him to join his duty but he did not join and informed vide his letter dated 18.07.2007

that he was under treatment in Nehru Hospital (run by company) and on getting fitness certificate, he would join.

Vide letter dated 07/08.09.2007 he was directed to report to Dr. Sourav Kumar at NSC Jayant and was also directed

vide letter dated 23.05.2008 to report on duty but he sent a letter to management dated 29.05.2008 stating that his

mental condition was not good and he was under treatment in Nehru Hospital also that after getting fitness certificate,

he would resume his duties. He was again directed by management vide its letter dated 08.07.2008 to join his duties

but he never joined his job nor did he send any intimation to management regarding his absence.

A departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman the Inquiry Officer submitted her inquiry report

dated 17.05.2011 holding the charge of misconduct, as mentioned above, proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after

finding his reply to the show cause notice issued with copy of inquiry report not sufficient, imposed the punishment of

discharge of the workman from service.

In his petition, the workman challenged the legality of the inquiry, also challenged the finding of the Inquiry

Officer holding him guilty of misconduct as well the punishment with a case that inquiry was not conducted

according to rules and natural justice, finding of the Inquiry Officers are perverse and the punishment awarded is not

according to law.

Rebutting the case of applicant workman, management has taken a case that the workman has been a serial

offender. He was issued various charge sheets in the past for the same misconduct but was imposed minor

punishment. He was issued charge sheet on 27.03.2004 for remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 16.03.2003. A

departmental inquiry was conducted and after charge was found proved, he was awarded punishment of reduction of

rank vide order dated 17.08.2006.

According to management, he kept himself absenting from duty for a long period and was issued a letter on

11.07.2007 directing him to report on duty within 7 days. He did not report for duty nor for medical examination,

hence, charge sheet dated 22.01.2009 was issued. The workman did not furnish any satisfactory reply to the charge

sheet. He was issued another charge sheet on 04.12.2009 for the charge of continuous absence for a long period w.e.f.

18.03.2003 as mentioned in charge sheet dated 22.01.2009. An inquiry was conducted with respect to the charge in

which the workman participated the Enquiry Officer submitted her report holding the workman guilty for the charges

of misconduct (as mentioned above).

The workman was served, according to management, a copy of inquiry report and a show cause notice while

he not be punished for the charges and after finding his reply not sufficient the punishment of his discharge from

service was awarded. An Appeal and Review Petition was rightly dismissed.

Following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings :-

1. Whether the departmental inquiry conducted against the workman is just proper and legal ?

2. Whether the charges leveled against the workman are proved from evidence recorded in departmental

inquiry ?

3. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to, if the punishment is not proper ?

In evidence, the workman his affidavit as his examination in chief. He was cross examined by management

he filed and proved documents Ex. W/1 to W/26 which are documents related to charge sheet, reply, inquiry papers,

papers filed by workman in his defense during the inquiry and order of management regarding punishment, to be

referred to as and when required.

Management filed affidavit of the Inquiry Officer and filed as well proved documents Ex. M/1 to M/34,

which are mainly the papers which have been filed and proved by the workman. They shall be referred to as and when

required.

Issue No.-1 was decided as preliminary issue holding the departmental inquiry just, legal and proper.

This order is part of the Award.

No further evidence was adduced any of the parties on remaining issues.

I have heard arguments of Mr. Pranay Choubey learned Counsel for workman and learned Senior Advocate

Mr. Anoop Nair, assisted by Advocate Shubham Nanepag. Workman side has filed written argument also which is

part of record. I have gone through the record as well as the written arguments.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3457

Issue No.-2 :-

Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that the charge of absence without sufficient cause has wrongly

been recorded proved by the Inquiry Officer. He further submits that no doubt the workman was absent from duty but

not without sufficient cause because there was evidence before the Inquiry Officer adduced by the workman during

the inquiry and since the beginning that he had been suffering from mental disease which was diagnosed as Obsessive

Compulsive disorder and he has been under treatment for this disease/disorder in hospital maintained by the

management itself.

Learned Counsel has referred to a judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Krishnakant B.

Parmar Vs. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178 in this respect. The following portion of the judgment is being

reproduced as under-

This extract is taken from Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 : (2012) 1 SCC

(L&S) 609 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 162 at page 181

“16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he

failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. The question whether

“unauthorised absence from duty” amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government

servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling

circumstances.

17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform

duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may

amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to

which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness,

accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or

behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.

18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary

authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to

misconduct.

19. In the present case the inquiry officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was

unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the

appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.

20. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court in judicial review in a departmental proceeding fell for

consideration before this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919] wherein

this Court held: (SCC p. 95, para 25)

“25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings,

however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the

charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all

reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who

upon analysing 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. He cannot enquire

into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.”

21. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was wilful, no such

finding has been given by the inquiry officer or the appellate authority. Though the appellant had taken a specific

defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to

sign the attendance register and also brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was

prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3-10-1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, JD,

SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of telephone calls dated 29-9-1995, etc. but such defence and

evidence were ignored and on the basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the inquiry officer held the appellant guilty.

22. Mr P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur, who was the complainant and against whom the appellant alleged

bias refused to appear before the inquiry officer in spite of service of summons. Two other witnesses, Shri Jivrani and

Shri L.N. Thakkar made no statement against the appellant, and one of them stated that he had no knowledge about

the absence of the appellant. Ignoring the aforesaid evidence, on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the inquiry

officer held the charge proved.

3458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23. Though the aforesaid facts were noticed by the appellate authority but ignoring such facts giving reference of

extraneous allegations which were not the part of the charge, it dismissed the appeal with the following uncalled for

observation:

“The appellant even avoided the basic training required for the job and asked JAD, Ahmedabad to send all

the training papers for his training at IB Training School, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) to his residence at

Ahmedabad. ‘An untrained officer is of no worth to the department’.”

24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority,

affirmed by the appellate authority; the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court are set aside. The

appellant stands reinstated.”

The Learned Senior Counsel for management has rebutted the argument from the side of workman with a

submission that evidence showing the conduct of the workman by not reporting himself before the Doctor Sourav

Kumar for examination without reason and the fact that he used not to appear himself before the Doctor for treatment

or prescribing medicine by Doctor proved that he was guilty for the misconduct of wilfully absenting himself for a

long time without any sufficient cause.

As it comes out from perusal of inquiry report that the Inquiry Officer has taken two facts, which according

to her, prove the charges. They are, firstly, the workman did not report to Dr. Sourav Kumar as directed by

management vide its letter dated 07/08.09.2007 and Secondly, he had not visited the concerned Doctor in person only

repetition of medicine was recorded in his medical card. After going through inquiry papers, it comes out that the

medical card of the workman, issued by management, shows that the workman has been under treatment of Doctor in

Hospital maintained by the management. The case of workman is that he was first advised by Doctor/Competent

Officer vide letter dated 08/09.03.2005 to get treatment in Nehru Hospital and thereafter he remained under treatment

of Doctor of Nehru Hospital. The documents in form of his medical card which contains the details of prescriptions

advised, were not found disputed or not genuine during the inquiry. It is further the case of workman that he did

inform the management about his treatment on various dates which are 18.07.2007, 30.05.2007, 29.01.2009,

24.12.2009 and 12.05.2005. His this case/stand also has not being held incorrect by the Inquiry Officer.

On perusal of medical card, copy filed and proved during the inquiry, it comes out that in fact the workman

had been present before the Doctor on various dates and on some dates, someone on his behalf went to the Doctor,

informed the Doctor about the condition and medicines were prescribed by the Doctor. There is nothing unusual in

this conduct. In the case where treatment is of long duration, it does happen that on some occasions, someone consults

the Doctor on behalf of the patient, informs the condition of the patient and the Doctor prescribes the

treatment/medicines.

Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that a report of Dr. Sourav Kumar was filed by management

representative and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that Dr. Sourav Kumar and Dr. A.K. Mishra have

informed in response to letter of the management representative dated 05.04.2011 in which Dr. Mishra made an

endorsement that the patient was referred to Psychiatrist for expert opinion and Dr. Sourav Kumar made an

endorsement on the letter of management representative, above referred that as per his record the patient was never

seen by him on 10.02.2007, someone else came with a prescription of medicine. He was advised to continue medicine

and asked to come with patient. Again on 09.03.2007 and 14.03.2007, the person who came on behalf of patient,

attended the Doctor without patient and was advised to continue medicine but come with patient.

As submitted by learned Counsel for workman, this statement of management representative in which he is

said to have stated before the Inquiry Officer regarding getting endorsement of these Doctors, specially Dr. Sourav

Kumar on his letter, sent by him was added later on because Firstly, it does not find mention in the inquiry

proceedings dated 03.03.2011 and Secondly, it does not contain the date on which it was recorded by the Inquiry

Officer. This proceeding does not contain the signature of the workman or his representative which shows that it was

prepared in the absence of the workman or his representative. He further submits that it has been the case of the

workman that he had visited Dr. Sourav Kumar in person after he received letter of management directing him to visit

Dr. Sourav Kumar in person.

The stand that the workman did visit Dr. Sourav Kumar has been taken for the first time in his reply to the

show cause notice, issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The perusal of inquiry proceedings shows that he did not

take this stand during inquiry. The perusal of this statement of management representative which is the core evidence

according to the Inquiry Officer to substantiate the charge, does not contain the signature of the workman, whereas in

other inquiry proceedings the presence of the workman gets reflected from the proceedings itself. Hence, there is

substance in the argument of learned Counsel for workman that this statement of management witness who is the

management representative himself was not recorded during the inquiry rather it may be a subsequent addition and

also it was recorded in absence of the workman. In my considered view it was incumbent on the Inquiry Officer to

record this statement atleast in presence of the workman.

This fact is also to be noticed that the letters by the management representative were written to the Doctors

on 05.04.2011 as it is mentioned in these two letters. The endorsement has been made by the Doctors S.K. Mishra &

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3459

Sourav Kumar and has been signed on 07.04.2011 as it is clear from two letters marked MD/2 & MD/4 during the

inquiry proceedings. It can be inferred that these letters would have been filed with the so called statement of

management witness who is the management representative/ presenting officer in the inquiry only on 07.04.2011 or at

any date after 07.04.2011. It also comes out that the latest inquiry proceedings recorded are of 03.03.2011. In every

date when the inquiry has been proceeded, next date has been fixed for hearing and proceedings have been signed by

all concerned. There is no mention in the proceeding dated 03.03.2011 that any further date was fixed in the inquiry

after 03.03.2011. This fact also leads to the inference that in fact the statement of the Management

Representative/Presenting Officer and letters to the Doctors with their endorsements, as mentioned above, have been

attached back and behind of the workman without his knowledge.

As it has been mentioned earlier, the Inquiry Officer has taken this statement of management representative

and letters to the Doctors as basis of her finding with respect to proof of the charge of misconduct. In the light of the

facts and circumstances mentioned above, since this statement and these letters as well the endorsement of Doctors

mentioned above cannot be treated as a part of inquiry, the finding of the Inquiry Officer which is based on these

endorsements on letters is nothing but perverse and is held accordingly.

In the light of above discussion, finding of the Inquiry Officer with respect to the charge of habitual

unauthorized absent without sufficient cause is held perverse and this charge is held not proved against the workman.

Issue No.-2 is answered accordingly. .

Issue No.-3 :-

In the light of above finding on issue no.-2, the punishment of discharge of the workman cannot stand in law

and is set aside.

But there are still some facts which require to be noticed. The fact of unauthorized absence due to his

medical condition & treatment is proved and is admitted by the workman also. Only the fact that his absence was not

without sufficient cause is held not proved. The question arises as to can an employer be put under obligation to have

a workman on his rolls inspite of the fact of his absence for an indefinite period when it is found that the workman is

under medical condition, receiving treatment for long duration which is not certain. The answer to this will be ‘No’.

The employer is within his rights to disengage such a workman after reasonable period or period provided in the

service rules/standing orders. Thus, in the case in hand also discharge of the workman by management on the ground

of his prolonged illness and treatment with no certainty of recovery to enable the workman to resume his duties

cannot be said to be unjustified. Keeping in view this fact and the circumstances of the case in hand, the discharge of

the workman by way of punishment deserves to be converted into discharge on the ground of prolonged illness and

being medically unfit.

As regards the prayer of the workman that his case be considered for benefits admissible under Para 9.3.0,

9.4.0 & 9.5.0 regarding employment/payment of monthly monetary compensation to the dependent, as provided in

NCWA VIII since his discharge is due to medical unfitness, the management is held under obligation to consider it

and decide the claim within three months from the date such a claim is put by the workman before management.

Issue No.-3 is answered accordingly.

AWARD

Converting order of discharge of the workman by management as a punishment into discharge due to

being medically unfit for the reason of under prolonged treatment with little hope to resume duty in near

future, he is held entitled to be considered by management for benefits provided in the Para 9.3.0, 9.4.0 & 9.5.0

regarding employment/payment of monthly monetary compensation to the dependent, as provided in NCWA

VIII, within three months from the date he puts his such claim before management. No order as to costs.

Petition stands disposed accordingly.

DATE:- 04/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1555.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में] केन्री सरकार लाइफ

इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और मोिम्मि अ ाि ान के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िष्ट

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल ] िबलृुर] ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 10/2018) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज] प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 08.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

ाA

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-92]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

3460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/2018) 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 Life

Insurance Corporation of India and Mohammad Ayaz Khan which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 08.08.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-92]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/10/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Mohd. Ayaj Khan

S/o. Sh. Yaar Mohammad Khan

Skilled Labour (Ex-Typist cum Computer

Operator), Life Insurance Corporation of India

Rewa, R/o. Akharghat, Near Water Tank

Rewa (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Through its Divisional Manager

Division Satna, Near Krishna Nagar Bus

Stand, Satna (M.P.)

2. Chief Manager

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Branch No.2. Sirmaur Chowk, Khanna

Tower, Rewa (M.P.)

Management

JUDGEMENT

(Passed on this 09^th day of July-2024)

This case has proceeded against the management on the basis of a petition, filed by the applicant Workman

against his termination by management.

The case of the Workman, as a stated by him in his petition is mainly that he had been working with the

management on the post of type cum computer operator since May 25, 2003 his services were terminated illegally by

management without any notice or compensation, which is against section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947,

hereinafter referred to by the word ‘Act’. Also, it has been alleged that by engaging him on temporary basis from

2003 to 2017, and not granting him status of permanent and regular employee, the management has adopted unfair

labour practice. According to the workman, he first raised a dispute before the concerned labour Commissioner on

December 7^th, 2017. After the dispute remained pending for 45 days and would not be resolved, he filed this petition

under section 2(A)(2&3) of the Act. The workman has prayed that declaring the termination of his services by the

management, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

The case of management in brief is that the Workman was not appointed by management against

sanctioned vacancy adopting recruitment process. He was simply a casual employee, employed on as and when

required basis and was not entitled to any protection under the ‘Act’. The management has thus requested that the

petition be dismissed.

The applicant Workman did not appear after filing of the petition and did not file any evidence. The

management also did not file any evidence.

At the time of argument also, none turned up for the workman. Mr. Aditya Singh appeared for management

and submitted his arguments.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3461

The initial burden to prove his case is on the workman. The Workman has not been discharged this

burden. Hence holding the claim of the Workman not proved, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is

dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost.

DATE: 09/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1556.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

केंरी लोक जनमाषण जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua II fnYyh ds iapkV (121/2022) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-203]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.121/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work

Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1)-203]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 121/2022

Sh. Sushil Kumar, S/o Sh. Jaiveer Singh Ram,

Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand, CPWD

Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No-04,

Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Gurgaon Haryana-122001.

VERSUS

The Director General,

Central Public Work Department,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

The Director of Personal, P.W.D.,

12^th Floor, MSO Building, P.W.D. Head Office

I.T.O., New Delhi-110002.

AWARD

This is an application of 33A of the I.D Act filed by workman stating that the managements are threatening

to terminate his service while his case along with the other workmen for regularization was pending before this

tribunal bearing ID no.- 02/2019. After receiving the notice from the conciliation officer the above said management

started mis-behaving with the above mentioned workman and threatening him to terminate from his services. As such

he had made prayer to direct the management to not to terminate his service till the pendency of the dispute.

On 19.09.2022, issues have been framed that is given below:-

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether the service of the complainant Sushil Kumar was terminated by the management CPWD during the

pendency of an Industrial Dispute between him and the management.

3462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. Whether the act of the management amounts to change in service condition.

4. To what relief the complainant is entitled to.

Claimant was asked to examine the witness. However, inspite of providing number of opportunities nobody

appeared on behalf of claimant to substantiate his claim. It means that claimant is not interested to pursuing his claim.

Hence, his application U/s 33 A stands dismissed. File is consigned to record room.

Date: 01.05.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1557.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj केंरी लोक जनमाषण जवभाग 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;

. II

ds iapkV (a218/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-202]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.218/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. -

II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work

Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1) -202]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 218/2021

Sh. Narayan Singh & 02 others.,

Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,

CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,

Shop No-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,

Gurgaon Haryana-122001.

VERSUS

The Director General,

Central Public Work Department,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

The Special Director General,

Electrical Co-ordination Circle, East Block,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.

The Engineer in Chief,

P.W.D. 12^th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.)

I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

AWARD

This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). Claimant

AR had filed the claim statement on behalf of 03 workmen who are members of the union and whose service

particulars are as under:-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3463

S. No.

NAME

DATE OF

JOINING

POST

PRESENTLY

WORKING

Sh. Narain Singh S/o. Mohan

Singh

24/09/1991

ML Driver

South Road Div-2

Sh. Shanta Prasad S/o. Rudra

Prasad

ML Driver

CBMD 321

Sh. Vijay Chand S/o. Nanah

Chand

13/01/1989

ML Driver

PWD-EMD

M-251 (PWD H.Q.)

It is the case of the workmen that they have been working against the vacant posts of Driver since their

introduction into the employment of the management. Workmen are continuously discharging their services with the

management. They have unblemished record of services to their credit. Workmen aforesaid are supposed to be

regularized since their respective initial date of joining but the management had never regularized them till now. That

the job against which workmen aforesaid have been working are of a permanent and regular in nature but the

management are treating them as a monthly paid/muster roll workers. The workmen have been meted out with hostile

discrimination as junior to them have been regularized in service in proper pay scale and allowances since their initial

dates of joining, but the workmen have been completely ignored in this matter. Demand notice was also served upon

the management by speed post vide communication date 20.11.2014, which was duly received in their office but no

reply had been received and it is presumed that the demand notice has been rejected. They have filed the claim with

the prayer of regularizing their services.

Vide letter dated 27.02.2023, management-1 & 2 had been proceeded ex-parte. Management-3 had appeared

and filed the W.S. and denied the averment made in the claim. He submits that claim of the claimant be liable to be

dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case. Case has been filed U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section

2A of the Act has been inserted in the I.D Act in the year 1965. It gives the individual workman the right to approach

directly to the tribunal or Labour Court against their illegal discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. There

is a rider about this remedy available to the workman. A condition was imposed by Sub-section of 2 of Section 2A

that workman first approach to the conciliation officer of the appropriate government by moving an application to this

effect and forty-five days have been passed therein. Further a limitation was also there that the application shall be

entertained by the Labour Court or by the tribunal if the same has been made within three year of his discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his service.

Herein, in the present case the claimant services have not been discharged. They seek the

regularization of their services from this tribunal which is not possible without reference made to this court by

appropriate government. Hence, the claim filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. Award is 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. File is consigned to record room.

Date: 02.05.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1558.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj केंरी लोक जनमाषण जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

. II

ds iapkV (a02/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-204]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

3464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work

Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-I) -204]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 02/2019

Sh. Inder Kumar, S/o Sh. Sunder, and Others.,

Through- CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No-04,

Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Gurgaon Haryana-122006.

VERSUS

Director General, C.P.W.D.,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

Director of Personal P.W.D.,

11^th Floor, MSO Building, P.W.D. Head Office

I.T.O., New Delhi-110002.

AWARD

The appropriate Government Sh. Rajendra Joshi, Deputy Director, Government of India, Ministry of

Labour/ Shram Mantralya has sent the reference refer dated 02.09.2020 to this tribunal for adjudication in the

following words:

“Whether the demand of the CPWD Karamchari Union to the Management of Director General, CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and Director (Personnel) PWD New Delhi for regularizing the services of 18

workers as per details in annexure is justified and legal? If yes, what relief the workers & CPWD

Karamchari Union are entitled to and what directions are necessary in the case?”

After receiving the above said reference notices were sent to both the parties. Both the parties appeared and

claimant AR had filed the claim statement on behalf of 18 workmen who are members of the union and whose service

particulars are as under:-

S. No.

NAME

DATE OF

JOINING

DIVISION

OFFICE

PRESENT

DIVISION

OFFICE

SUB-

DIVISION

OFFICE

Inder Singh S/o Sunder

01.04.1995

Shahadara

central division

S.R.D (P.W.D.)

E.IN.C.

Pr. C.E.

Khumo Bahadur S/o

Shahveer

01.01.1993

E.D-XI

F-22 (P.W.D.)

Delhi

Secretariat

Shushil Kumar S/o Jail

Veer Singh

17.03.1995

School Building

Project Mandel

M-214 (P.W.D.)

M-214

Govind

Singh

S/o

Laxman Singh

10.02.1996

Punjabi

Bagh

Project

F-24 (P.W.D.)

E.N.C. Office

Inder

Singh

S/o

Laxman Singh

04.06.1998

Punjabi

Bagh

Project

M-321

Sanjeev S/o Gulshan

Sharma

12.06.1995

S.R.D.

M-21

Rajesh

Kumar

S/o

Gulshan Sharma

01.12.1999

Delhi College

Jitender

Kumar

S/o

Dudh Nath Singh

02.02.2002

P.W.D.

Circle

No. II

M-113 S.W.R.I

C.E.M.Z.-1 (S)

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3465

S. No.

NAME

DATE OF

JOINING

DIVISION

OFFICE

PRESENT

DIVISION

OFFICE

SUB-

DIVISION

OFFICE

Shami S/o Mithu Ram

16.06.2007

D.C.

College

Project

M-333

C.E.M.Z.

III

(N)

10.

Jai Prakash Dubey S/o

Dev Narayan Dubey

31.07.2006

S.R.D. (E)

P.W.D. Office

11.

Hasan S/o Maksud

31.01.2008

M-25

S.R.D. (E)

E.IN.C P.W.D

12.

Anil Mishra S/o Ram

Vishal Mishra

31.12.2008

E.IN.C

M-113 (P.W.D.)

E.IN. C

13.

Prabhu

S/o

Ram

Shankar

01.11.2012

P.W.D.

M-14

E.D. (P.W.D.)

E.D.U.

(M)

P.W.D.

14.

Prem Thapa S/o Dil

Bahadur Thapa

M-441

15.

Chote Lal S/o Sukhdev

13.07.1992

E.D.-II P.W.D

Shiksha

Mandel-II

Shiksha

Mandel-II,

Dwarka

16.

Dil Bahadur S/o K.B.

Shakar

18.09.2009

P.W.D. B.2.Z

E.D.

P.W.D. Office

17.

Madan Lal S/o Kamal

Singh

01.08.1966

C.E.M.Z-4

C.E.M.Z-2 (E)

18.

Rajesh

Kumar

S/o

Vasant Lal

01.11.2012

M-25

B-141 P.W.D.

C.M.P P.R.O

It is the case of the workmen that they have been working against the vacant posts of Driver since their

introduction into the employment of the management. Workmen are continuously discharging their services with the

management. They have unblemished record of services to their credit. Workmen aforesaid are supposed to be

regularized since their respective initial date of joining but the management had never regularized them till now. That

the job against which the workmen aforesaid have been working are of a permanent and regular in nature but the

management are treating them as a monthly paid/muster roll workers. The workmen have been meted out with hostile

discrimination as junior to them have been regularized in service in proper pay scale and allowances since their initial

dates of joining, but the workmen have been completely ignored in this matter. Demand notice was also served upon

the management by speed post which was duly received in their office but no reply had been received and it is

presumed that the demand notice has been rejected. They have filed the claim with the prayer of regularizing their

services with the managements.

Management-1 never appeared i.e. CPWD. Management-2 has appeared and filed his respective W.S and

denied the averment made in the statement of claim.

After completion the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 17.12.2019 i.e.:-

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. If the workman as per the list received along with the reference are entitled to regularization of their

service with CPWD.

3. Whether there exist employer employee relationship between the management and the workmen.

4. To what other relief the workmen are entitled to.

Vide order dated 25.04.2022, the matter was listed for evidence of the workmen.

Claimants are asked to prove their case. However, despite providing a number of opportunities, claimants

have not turned up to prove their claim. As the claimants have not turned up for proving their case, their claim stand

dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as

required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

Date: 01.05.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

3466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1559.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj केंरी लोक जनमाषण जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

. II

ds iapkV

(a219/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-205]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2024

S.O. 1559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.219/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. -

II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work

Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1)-205]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 219/2021

Sh. Sant Lal, S/o Sh. Ram Ashrey,

Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,

CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,

Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,

Gurgaon Haryana-122001.

Versus

The Director General,

Central Public Work Department,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

Dy. Director (Horticulture), CPWD,

1^st Floor, C-Wing, Room No.-104

Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Inland Content Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020.

Til Ltd.

Plot No-11, Site-IV, Shibabad Industrial Area,

Uttar Pradesh-201005.

AWARD

This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act).

Claimant had stated in their claim statement that he had joined into the employment of CPWD w.e.f. 18.01.1983 as a

Mali. His wages was fixed and was revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate

government while their counterparts has been getting more wages who were regular with the respondent, but he was

not given. Job against which the workman aforesaid have been working is of permanent and regular in nature. Not

providing the Equal pay for Equal work is unfair practice, hence he made prayer that an award be passed in favor of

the workman holding therein that the workman concerned are entitled to be regularized.

In the present case, reply has been filed by the CPWD. Issues have been framed. But this tribunal, while

going through the record had come to the fact that the present case have been filed U/s 2A of the Act while his service

have not been terminated yet.

U/S 2A of the I.D Act which has been inserted 1967 has given the option/liberty to individual workman to

approach directly before this tribunal against their termination, retrenchment, dismissal without being referred by the

appropriate Government for deciding the disputes.

In the present case failure report has been obtained by the claimant and he has filed the claim petition. Before

we proceed further, text of the Section 2A is required to be reproduced which are given under:

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3467

[2A. Dismissal, etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute

[(1)]

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the

services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman

and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute

notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the

dispute.]

[(2)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in

sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from

the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply

in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute

referred to it by the appropriate Government.

[(3)] The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)].

From the perusal of the above said section, it makes clear that individual workman has given the

rights/option to approach directly before this tribunal against discharge, dismissal & retrenchment, however, further

rider have been made by adding Sub-section 2 that first the workman has to approach to the conciliation officer for

conciliation and the forty-five days have been passed therein. Sub-clause-3 further impose the condition that the claim

has to be filed with three year from the date of the dismissal.

From the fact of this case, it is revealed that the service of the workman has not been terminated nor he was

retrenched, therefore the claim U/s 2A is not maintainable. Hence claim of the claimant stands dismissed. Award is

passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under

section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

Date 21^st May, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1560.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

एनबीसीसी इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

. II

ds iapkV (a208/2019, 194/2019)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-209]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 208/2019, 194/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of NBCC India

Ltd and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1)-209]

SALONI, Dy. Director

3468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 208/2019

Sh. Amrit Lal, S/o Sh. Chote Lal,

R/o- 2024, Kotla Pilanji Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003.

Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

Office-170, Bal Mukund-Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

I.D. No. 194/2019

Sh. Jagmohan, S/o Late Sh. Ganashi,

R/o- L-1/1504/12, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110080.

Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

Office-170, Bal Mukund-Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

Versus

1. NBCC India Ltd.

NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. Veer Prosguer Soilder & Housekeepers Pvt. Ltd.,

B-133, 3^rd Floor, DDA Shed, Okhla Phase-I,

New Delhi-110020.

AWARD

By this Composite order, I shall dispose of these two applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act

(here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents. Because of having the

common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for disposal. Claims of the workmen are

that they have been serving with management-1 through management-2 at the post of security guards at the last drawn

salary of Rs. 8,500/- and Rs. 6,000/- per month with four hours overtime of 3,000/- per month respectively. They were

deprived ESI and PF facilities by the chief manager and contractor. When the workmen demanded for legal facilities,

the Chief manager and contractor deprived the workmen of their salary earned from 01.03.2017 to 31.05.2017 and

01.03.2018 to 25.04.2018. Without any rhyme or reason and without informing and giving notice, they were

terminated from their job on 01.06.2017 and 26.04.2018. Claimants through their union, submitted written demand

letter to the management on 12.03.2018 and 23.05.2018 through A.D/Speed Post, but no response to the demand letter

of workmen has been received nor they be taken on job and no amount was paid to them. After the illegal termination,

workmen are jobless and despite their tireless efforts, they have not got a job. They had tried to take back their

services but failed. They had sent the complaint to the labour commissioner, but, it has yielded no result. Hence, they

have filed the present claims.

Notices of the claims have been served to both the parties. W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, and he

denied the averment made in their claims. He has submitted that claims are liable to be dismissed. Management-2 had

been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.11.2021.

After completion the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 01.12.2023 i.e.:-

1. Whether the proceedings are maintainable.

2. Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between the management-1 and the claimants.

3. Whether the claimants were working in the premises of the management-1 through the contractor

management-2.

4. Whether the services of the claimants were illegally terminated by the managements.

5. To what relief the claimants are entitled to.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3469

Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. Today, the AR of the workman submits that he has no

contact with the workmen since long; as such he is unable to file the affidavit of evidence of workmen.

In absence of the Claimants. Claims of the claimants stand dismissed. 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.

File is consigned to record room.

Date 15^th May, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Office

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1561.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

कोटक मसिंरा बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

. II

ds iapkV (a122/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-207]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.122/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. -

II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd

and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1)-207]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 122/2022

Sh. Raja Babu,

C/o- 253. Pratap Khand,

Jhilmil Colony, Delhi-110095.

VERSUS

1. The Chairman/Director,

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Narain Manzil, G-Floor, Shop No. G-01 to G-05,

01^st Floor, Shop No- 1001 to 1007, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

2. Avon Facility Management Services Ltd.

/1-1, 1^st Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Near Badarpur Border, New Delhi-110044.

AWARD

This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). Claimant

had stated in his claim statement that he was appointed by the management-1 on 01.07.2019 at the post of Security

Guard, casual labour on muster roll. After going through the entire selection process, he was selected for his service.

It would be pertain to mention here that though the job for which he was employed was permanent nature, but, despite

that he was taken in job on contract basis malafidely. Workman is continuously discharging their duties since

3470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

01.07.2019 but he was malafidely shown as employee on through contract basis and management has taking work

regularly. Workman is continuously discharging his service in office of KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD-

DELHI and issue a various letter through management that workman service are required to regularized on

permanent basis and he also entitled to his salary in proper pay scale and allowances. Management-1 & 2 was not

followed to contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. He is entitled to be treated as regular and permanent

employee from the initial date of his joining but the management has not taken any step to regularized his service in

proper pay scale and allowance. On 14.06.2020 management-1 has orally stopped his entry in ATM without any

information, without any reason, without releasing bonus and overtime dues. Workman has been rendered jobless and

he is employed from the date of illegal termination. He has gone to the conciliation officer, but, no result was yielded.

Hence he has filed the claim.

Vide letter dated 28.04.2022, management-1 had been proceeded ex-parte. Management-2 had appeared and

filed the W.S. and denied the averment made in the claim. It is his case that workman had been working with the

managment-1 for a short period of 5 months i.e. from 31.10.2019 to 31.03.2020 and thereafter he left to report for

duty. He was working with the management for a fixed period/contract from 31.10.2019 to 31.03.2020 which was not

formally extended due to lockdown declared by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India but as the

banking services were coming under the category of essential services, he was allowed to continue his working after

but for the reasons best known to the claimant, he started absenting from his services and did not report for duty. He

submits that claim of the claimant be liable to be dismissed.

After completion the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 27.09.2022 i.e.:-

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable in view of the earlier settlement arrived between him and the

management before the Labour Commissioner.

2. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated.

3. To what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date.

Claimant is asked to prove his case. However, despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant has not

turned up to prove his claim. As the claimant has not turned up for proving his case, his claim stands dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required

under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

Date: 01.05.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1562.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

कोटक मसिंरा बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

. II

ds iapkV (a175/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-206]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.175/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and

their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1)-206]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3471

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 175/2021

Sh. Badri Prasad Mishra, S/o Sh. Ram Ji Mishra,

R/o- RC-109, Dharam Vihar, Khoda Colony,

Near Tiwari Medical Store, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201309.

Versus

The Managing Director,

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Registered Office At: 27-BKC, C-27,

G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400051.

Also At : Plot No. 07 Sector-125, Near Amity University,

Noida-201313.

Avon Solutions & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office At: No.01, Deepak Complex,

3^rd Floor, Bharathi Nagar, 4^th Street, T Nagar, Chennai-600017.

Also At : Roots Tower, Near-V3S Mail, 7^th Floor 711,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

AWARD

This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). It is the

case of the claimant that he was appointed as “Mailroom Staff (Runner)” in the management on 01.09.2016 and had

been working with management at the last drawn salary of the workman of Rs. 13,350/- per month. The management

no.-1 is the principal employer and the management no.-2 is the contractor of the workman. Workman performed his

duties with hard labour and due diligence and to the entire satisfaction of the management and he never gave a single

chance of any type of complaint to the management during his service period. Workman used to work for

management for more than the time scheduled for his duty and even on Sundays and holidays. The salary of the

workman was less than the minimum wage Act determined by the Delhi Government under the Minimum Wages Act

1948. Workman was aware of his legal rights and wanted his full wages as determined under the Act. On 22.07.2019

the workman received a charge-sheet cum show-cause notice from the management. Management with the person of

his choice as Enquiry Officer namely Puneet Saini, started enquiry into the charges leveled against the workman but

no intimation was given to the workman regarding the said enquiry. The inquiry report was also submitted by the

inquiry officer on 09.11.2019 which held the workman liable of creating chaotic situation for company’s business

prospects and not maintaining of discipline and based on the same inquiry report the services of the workman were

dismissed w.e.f 22, October 2019 when in reality no such situation at work place ever arose and because the

workman was aware of his rights and was asking for the same from the management he had to pay for the same in the

way of his dismissal from his duty. The enquiry conducted by the management is liable to be set aside/quashed on the

grounds that the workman was not provided with the documents relied upon the management in enquiry and as such

the workman was not given any opportunity to rebut the same. Neither notice of enquiry was served upon the

workman nor was notice of enquiry ever received by the workman. The proceedings of the enquiry were not taken

place in the presence of the workman. The workman was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

produced by the management in the enquiry. Management has produced the witness without supplying any list of

witness before starting the evidence by the management. No proceeding/order sheets pertaining to enquiry were ever

supplied to the workman. The enquiry conducted by the management is against the principles of natural justice and

further enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is perverse and therefore the enquiry allegedly been conducted

by the management is liable to be set aside/vitiated. Management had taken revenge from the workman only falsely

accused him and terminated the services of the workman based on these false accusations. That after termination of

services, the workman visited the office of the management time and again for his reinstatement, but all in vain. The

above said acts of the management are highly illegal, unjust, improper, arbitrary, & unconstitutional against the

provision of I.D Act. He has gone to the conciliation officer, but, no result was yielded. Hence he has filed the claim.

He is unemployed since from his illegal termination by the management i.e. 22.10.2019.

3472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management-1 & 2 had filed their WS respectively. They had denied the averment made in the claim. Respondent-2

submits that the service record of the workman never been clear many times he alongwith his two other colleague

namely Ravi Kant Tiwari & Vijay Tiwari remained unauthorized absent from the duties, all these person without

any reason wrote a false and fabricated complaint to the management-1. The undersigned management decided to

conduct the domestic enquiry against the workman, Mr. Puneet Saini, was appointed as “Enquiry Officer” who

conducted domestic enquiry to enquire the authenticity of charged leveled in the charge-sheet. Intimation of next date

as 30.09.2019 was sent to the workman on 19.09.2019 via speed post at his address as available with the management.

The enquiry was conducted on principal of nautral justice and equity, equal and fair opportunity was given to the

workman and on 30.09.2021 workman despite having knowledge of holding of domestic enquiry never appeared

before the enquiry officer. Thus, due to the non-appearance of the workman in the enquiry, enquiry was conducted an

ex-parte. Since the workman was ex-parte and despite having knowledge of next date i.e. 17.10.2019 also did not

appear and on that date the undersigned management produced two witnesses i.e. Sh. Pardeepan C, Manager HR &

Finance (MW1) and Sh. Nidhin Kumar, Branch Manager, Delhi NCR (MW2) and after recording their statement

the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 22.10.2019. Since all the charges were duly proved against the claimant

accordingly, he was dismissed from the services and the undersigned management also made full and final and paid

amount of Rs. 43,335/- to the workman through account transfer. The claim of the claimant is not maintainable and is

liable to be dismissed.

From the completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed Vide order dated 11.01.2023 i.e.:-

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between claimant and management No. 1.

3. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by management No. 2.

4. To what other relief the workman is entitled to and from which date.

Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. Today, the AR of the workman submits that he has no

contact with the workmen since long; as such he is unable to file the affidavit of evidence of workmen.

In the absence of claimant. Claim of the claimant stands dismissed. Award is 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. File is

consigned to record room.

Date:- 16.05.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Office

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1563.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

कंटेनर कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

. II

ds iapkV (a253/2021) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-208]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.253/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. -

II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Container Corporation of

India Ltd and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1) -208]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3473

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 253/2021

Sh. Bhagwan Singh, S/o Sh. Chote Lal,

R/o- C-81, Gali No.-04, Mohan Baba Nagar,

Badarpur, Delhi-110044.

Through- Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,

1770/8, 3^rd Floor Govind Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

Versus

Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Inland Content Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020.

Til Ltd.

Plot No-11, Site-IV, Shibabad Industrial Area,

Uttar Pradesh-201005.

AWARD

This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). It is the

case of the claimant that he was appointed as Batir Operator with a final salary of Rs 13,600/- per month. He was

working with respondent no. 1 through respondent no. 2 since 19-04-2017. Respondent no.- 1 is the main employer

and the respondent no. -2 is the one in which the employee worked. Respondent no. -2 is a fake contractor who has

been appointed by the employers in violation of the CONTRACT LABOR (REGULATOIN AND ABOLITION)

ACT 1970 only with the intention of not providing legal facilities to the employees like respondent no. 1. Record of

employee was shown in the records of respondent-2, where he never had any relation with the respondent no. 2. The

Delhi Government has not issued any notification to the respondent no. 1 for imposing contractual labor under the

CONTRACT LABOR (REGULATOIN AND ABOLITION) ACT 1978 nor the Government has registered the

respondent No. 2 under the said Act nor any contractor has any license to work M/s CONTAINER

CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., has any contract made between the employer and the contractor is false

(SHAM) and (CAMOUFLAGE). Every employee working in M/s TIL LIMITED is an employee of M/s

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. The employers were violating the labor laws, they were not

providing legal facilities like: minimum salary as per the post declared by the government, appointment letter, salary

sheet, leave book, attendance card, weekly and festival leave, bonus, PF, etc. The salary register and attendance

was clean. At the time of appointment and during the service, the employer had made the employee sign in blank

papers several times, agreement letter and blank appointment letter but did not give a copy of the same to the

employee. The employer did not provide many legal facilities to the applicant/employee like appointment letter,

salary letter, leave book, attendance card, weekly and festival leave, bonus, overtime, ESI, PF, etc. When the

employee demanded all the above mentioned legal benefits, the employer immediately became angry and in a spirit

of revenge, withheld the salary earned by the employee from 22-12-2019 to 28-01-2020 without any prior notice to

the employee. Without any notice, charge sheet and without any reason, the employers made the applicant forcibly

sign some blank papers, vouchers and final agreement papers. On 29-01-2020, he was terminated from the job,

neither permission was taken from the government nor seniority list was made even though the employee has

worked more than 240 days every year. Therefore, terminating from the job is illegal, unjust and a violation of

natural justice. After being terminated from the job, the applicant/employee is going to work every day except

weekly holidays, but the employer is neither hiring the employee back nor allowing him to mark his attendance nor

paying his salary. He has gone to the conciliation officer, but, no result was yielded. Hence he has filed the claim.

After being terminated from the job, the applicant/employee also tried to get a job through the Labor Department,

but the employers did not co-operate with the Labor Department. He is unemployed since the date of illegal

termination.

Management-1 had been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.2022. Management-2 had filed the W.S,

and he denied the averment made in the claim. He has submitted that claims are liable to be dismissed.

After completion the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 30.08.2022 i.e.:-

3474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Whether the proceedings is maintainable.

2. Whether the claimant was the employee of the management-1 i.e. Container Corporation of India.

3. Whether the contract between the management no.1 and 2 is sham and camouflage the legal rights of the

claimant.

4. Whether the service of the claimant is illegally terminated by the managements.

5. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.

Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. Neither the workman nor the management appeared.

Notice was issued to both the parties vide order dated 24.01.2024. None appeared on behalf of the both the parties.

The AR of the workman submits that he has no contact with the workmen since long; as such he is unable to file the

affidavit of evidence of workmen.

In absence of the Claimant. Claim of the claimant stands dismissed. Award is 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. File is

consigned to record room.

Date 15^th May, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1564.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार टाटा

कम् ुजनकेिंस जलजमटेड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री सुिीृ कुमार बंिोृाध् ा , कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल ,कोलकाता,ृंचाट (संिभष सं्‍ ा REF. NO.01 OF

2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा

9.08.2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024-127-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01 OF 2021) 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 Tata Communications Ltd., and Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 9.08.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024–127- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

CGIT-01 OF 2021

Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay ……..

Applicant/Employee

Versus

Tata Communication Ltd. … Opp. Party/Employer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Appellant/Employee: Sri Kumarjit Das, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of Opp. Party/Employer: Sri Ranjay De, Ld. Advocate.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3475

Date: 4^TH July, 2024

A W A R D

Record is put up for passing necessary order in respect of management’s petition dt. 27-07-2023 whereby the

management of Tata Communication Limited has challenged the maintainability of the present application u/s 2A(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by its employee Sri Sudip Kumar Bandyopadhyay, challenging his

suspension from the service before disposal of the domestic enquiry initiated against him and before final decision

being taken by the management on the continuity of his employment with Tata Communication Ltd.

The management in such application has alleged that the present application u/s 2A(2) is a pre-matured one.

That in order to invoke the provision of section 2A of the I.D. Act, first the employer has to discharge, dismiss,

retrench or terminate the service of an employee, but in the present case admittedly till date the concerned

workman/employee has not been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated from the service by the employer

Tata Communication Ltd. He has been placed under suspension and domestic enquiry on the charge of misconduct is

still pending. That there is no severance of employer-employee relationship between the employee Sri Sudip Kumar

Bandopadhyay and his employer Tata Communication Ltd. till date. That Sri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay is paid

subsistence allowance by Tata Communication Ltd. from the date he has been placed under suspension.

Therefore, the management has prayed for dismissal of the application u/s 2A (2) filed by the workman

being pre-matured and alleged this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

On the other hand such application of the management has been contested by the concerned employee Sri

Sudip Kumar Bandyopadhyay by filing a written objection, where he has alleged that he has been placed under

suspension on the basis of a false allegation on 10-06-2019. Charge has been framed against him on 24-10-2919. That

management decided to hold enquiry against the charge brought against him on 02-03-2020 and even after lapse of

five years the management has not been able to conclude the domestic enquiry. That prolonged suspension

tantamount to deemed retrenchment or termination as section 2A of the I.D. Act specifically provides the term “or

otherwise terminate the service of an individual workman”. Therefore, the workman has prayed for dismissal of the

management’s application.

Ld. Counsel for both the management and workman have filed voluminous written notes of argument on the

issue of maintainability of an application u/s 2A(2) filed by a suspended workman and one who has not been

terminated from the service till date and who has been receiving subsistence allowance from the date of suspension

till date.

The management has placed reliance on the following citations:-

Hindustan Lever Ltd. –vs- Fourth Industrial Tribunal& Ors, 2007(1) L.L. N. 881.

Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) By LRs & Ors. –vs- Govind Joti Chavare & Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 559.

State of Odisha & Anrs. –vs- Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1238.

The Workmen & Ors. –vs- M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1984) 1 SCC 728.

Arun Kumar & Ors. –vs- Union of India & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 732.

State of Bihar & Ors. –vs- Arbind (2013) 16 SCC 615.

On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the workman has referred the following decisions:-

M/s. Peerless Inn –vs- Fourth Industrial Tribunal, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 1770.

Union Territory of J & K & Anrs. –vs- Hital Ahmead Rathar passed by High Court of Jammu & Kashmir

and Ladakh at Srinagar in Writ Petition No. WP (C) No.1771 of 2022 on 24-08-2022.

Order dt. 04-07-2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.16543 of 2023 affirming the

order passed in WP (C ) No.1771 of 2022 passed by High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at

Srinagar.

Western India Plywood Ltd. –vs- P. Ashokan (1997) 7 SCC 638.

Sandipta Gangopadhyay –vs- Indian Bank & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2556,

Ajay Kumar Choudhary –vs- Union of India through its Secretary & Anrs. (2015) 7 SCC 291.

Md. Mobin –vs- State of U.P. & Ors. 1997 (76) FLR 498.

Prem Nath Bali –vs- Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anrs. (2015) 16 SCC 415.

10.

Manager, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi –vs- Chief Commissioner, Delhi & Ors. 1959 SCC OnLine SC 160.

3476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tangedco, & Ors. –vs- R. Balaji passed by Madras High Court in

W.A. No.68 of 2021 on 27-08-2021.

In the Written Notes of Argument Ld. Counsel for workman has also enclosed Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 and copy of charge sheet and the documents served upon the

applicant/workman Sri Sudip Kumar Bandyopadhyay.

Now, let me see whether the present case u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947 filed by Sri Sudip Kumar

Bandyopadhyay, an employee of Tata Communication Ltd. on 25-01-2021 and where he has sought relief in the

nature of declaration and permanent injunction maintainable?

He has claimed that his suspension be declared to be illegal being based on the purported model standing

order not approved by the appropriate authority under the I.D. Act, 1947; that industrial dispute raised by him vide

letter dt. 08-06-2020 and 16-06-2020 is valid. He has prayed for cancellation of his suspension order and subsequent

proceeding including the domestic enquiry initiated against him. Further, he has prayed that necessary direction may

be given to the employer company for his reinstatement, to pay all his accumulated dues since the date of suspension

till the date of his reinstatement along with interest @ 12% on the accumulated dues and to restrain the employer and

its agent including the Enquiry Officer from passing any further order or to give effect to any earlier order till the

disposal of his application u/s 2A.

Apparently, the relief sought by Sri Sudip Kumar Bandyopadhyay by filing the present application u/s 2A(2)

of the I.D. Act, appears to be declaratory in nature with prohibitory order which is normally granted by a civil court

under Specific Relief Act, 1963 i.e. relief in the form of declaration and relief in the form of injunction or relief which

can be granted by a writ court against the State.

Be that as it may, facts leading to the present dispute in gist are that applicant was appointed as Assistant

(Finance & Accounts, Grade NE-5) at Tata Communication Ltd. on 04-06-1999, in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. on

compassionate ground. (Such facts mentioned by the applicant appears to be misleading as when he joined the

service on 04-06-1999 on compassionate ground, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited an Indian Tele-communication

company was a Govt. owned tele-communication service provider under ownership of Department of Tele-

communication, Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India. That it was acquired or purchased by Tata Group in

the year 2008 only. So, it appears on acquisition of VSNL by Tata Communication Ltd. he was absorbed by Tata

Communication Ltd).

It is the case of the workman that from Assistant (Finance & Accounts, Grade-NE-5) he was promoted to

Grade-NE-6, then as Chief Assistant, Grade-NE-7 on 01-03-2005 and lastly he was promoted as Supervisor. That his

job was to coordinate regarding space allotment for the entire Eastern region, comprising Kolkata and other Tier-II

locations covering Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Patna, Raipur and Jamshedpur etc., to look after small and repair and

maintenance activities, pantry and cafeteria facilitation, organizing events, sports and cultural activities, facing audit,

renewal of Fire License and Lift License and other organizational activities.

That all on a sudden he was served with a suspension order on 10-06-2019. Then he was served with the

charge sheet dt.24-10-2019 for committing misconduct under Tata Code of Conduct on 29-10-2019 i.e. after four

months of placing him under suspension, for creating multiple editable invoices, documents of vendors, tendering

works without inviting tenders and quotations, changing the quotations, manipulating the entire system and granting

contracts to vendors of his choice, for indulging un-identified NFT transfer amounting to Rs.3,35,628/- during the

period from 2010 to 2015, shifting objectionable content using TCL e-mail address, drafting invoices and templates

for third party vendors, creating conflict of interest between the vendors and the TCL, collecting unjustified donation

for puja committee of which he was an instrumental member and for failure to project and uphold the value of the

company.

That for non-supply of documents he was unable to furnish reply to the charge. That he was provided with

the documents relied upon by the management only on 10-02-2020. That he challenged the charge by writing a letter

dt. 20-02-2020, with a request to the employer to issue a fresh charge with collated documents (here question arises,

can an employee demand the employer to issue a fresh suitable charge sheet as per his choice?).

Then he was informed about the management’s decision to hold domestic enquiry against him on the charge

on 02-03-2020. Once again he requested the management to supply collated documents by sending a letter dt.07-03-

2020, but he was informed about appointment of an Enquiry Officer and the venue of enquiry to be Delhi vide letter

dt.14-05-2020.

Then E.O. vide letter dt. 04-06-2020 informed him the date of hearing to be 13-06-2020. That during Covid

period, the management decided to hold the enquiry through video conference and against such decision of the

management he raised an objection for his lack of knowledge on video conference.

That he appointed Mr. B. Joseph Monoharan, Secretary General of Tata Communication Limited Employees

Union as his defense assistant and who being 70 years of age was not in a position to travel all the way from Chennai

to Delhi to participate in the domestic enquiry. Further, due to non-availability of the video conference facilities

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3477

structure at the Chennai office of Tata Communication Ltd. Employees Union, his defense assistant could not

participate in the hearing conducted through video conference.

That Tata Communication Ltd. Employees Union also raised a dispute on his behalf before Deputy Labour

Commission and as such he requested the Enquiry Officer to postpone the enquiry proceeding scheduled on 06-07-

2020, but the proceeding was convened and deferred to 07-08-2020.

In the meantime, he moved the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

challenging the domestic enquiry and the charge. That such writ petition is still pending for disposal.

That he has challenged the purported Model Standing Order or the Tata Code of Conduct, not being certified

before the E.O., but the E.O. has failed to consider his submission. That he has alleged that Enquiry Officer is

proceeding with the domestic enquiry based on the uncertified Tata Code of Conduct. He has also alleged that

domestic enquiry held against him on the basis of a false and frivolous charge. Therefore, he filed the present

application for his reinstatement, for cancellation of the suspension order, withholding the enquiry proceeding brought

against him and for declaration that charge brought against him is false and frivolous.

Since the present case is u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, raised by an individual workman challenging his suspension

order, charge sheet and for stalling the ongoing domestic enquiry against him and for determination of maintainability

of such relief claimed by the individual workman, it is necessary to reproduce section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Section 2A of the I.D. Act read as follows :-

Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.-- (1) Where any employer

discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or

difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor

any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section l0, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1)may, make

an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry

of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government

for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such

adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of

three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-

section (1).

Thus, on reading of section 2A of the I.D. Act, it appears to this Tribunal, that a person who comes within

the definition of workman as defined in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, can invoke the provisions of section 2A of the

I.D. Act, if he is discharged, dismissed, retrenched and terminated from the service by his employer. Such dispute

raised by an individual workman is deemed to be an industrial dispute as defined u/s 2(k).

In standard Vacum Oil Company Errakuman V. Industrial Tribunal, Errakuman 1952-(II) LLJ 612. The

individual and collective disputes are explained that, ‘Individual as well as collective disputes may ripens into

Industrial Disputes. The quo nature in Industrial Dispute is that it is a collective dispute. Though a dispute may at a

very inception be initiated by individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow workers or a union, or a sufficient number

of workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an Industrial Dispute’. A dispute which

continues to retain its individual character cannot be recognized as Industrial Dispute. This being the basic law it is

within the competence of the legislature to widen or narrow the coverage of an Industrial Dispute.

In 1965 by the Act of 1965, a new Section 2A was added in the principal Act, (the I.D Act, 1947) so as to

add a specified categories of Industrial Dispute which may also deemed to be an Industrial Dispute. The 2A section

(as it then introduced) reads; Dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman,

any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other

workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

This amendment does away the necessity that, to make an industrial dispute it must be taken up or espoused

by a substantial section of the workmen or any union of those workmen and to provide an individual workman a

remedy for security of its service and indirectly freedom to join or not to join any union.

Further, there was an amendment in Section (2A) of the Act, vide Amendment Act (Act No. 24 of 2010) and

by virtue of such amendment present Section (2A) already reproduced above came into existence. Thus, present

3478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides that where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches

or otherwise terminates the service of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and

his employer connected with or arising out of such discharges etc., shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute

notwithstanding that no other workman nor union is a party to the dispute.

The present amended Section (2A) vide Amending Act 24 of 2010, empowers a workman to approach the

labour court or tribunal by way of making an application directly not withstanding anything contained in Section 10

for adjudication of the disputes arising out of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise termination after the

expiry of (Forty Five) days from the date he makes the application to the Conciliation Officer of the Appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute and the labour court or tribunal is empowered to adjudicate such dispute.

So, apparently, section 2A of the I.D.Act, does not speaks of existence of an industrial dispute between the employer

and employee who is placed under suspension and between whom there still exists the relationship of employer and

employee.

When a workman is dismissed as a result of a domestic enquiry the only power which the Labour Court has

is to consider whether the enquiry was proper and if it was so, no further question arises. Findings properly recorded

at an enquiry fairly conducted are binding on parties unless is shown that such findings were perverse.

In the present case it is admitted facts that the concerned workman without raising any industrial dispute with

regard to his suspension before the Labour Commissioner/ Conciliation Officer and before obtaining any certificate

from such Conciliation Officer u/s 2A (2) has filed the present case and during the pendency of the domestic enquiry

he has filed the present case and till date he has not been retrenched, dismissed, discharged and terminated from the

service by his employer.

Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that it is settled law that an order of suspension never puts an end

to the service of an employee. That the employee is not entitled to the salary but is eligible to get subsistence

allowance. That in the present case the workman is paid subsistence allowance.

He further submits that there must be existence of severance of relationship of employer and employee

between the concerned workman and TCL to attract the provisions of section 2A and in present case there is absence

of such ingredients. Therefore, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present pre-matured application u/s 2A

of the Act. Section 2A has not vested power to this Tribunal to determine the order of suspension pending domestic

enquiry. The question of maintainability of the present case is a question goes to the root of the matter and it need to

be decided as a preliminary issue. That this Tribunal acquire power only after dismissal of the concerned workman

from the service and not before that when the service of the concerned workman is not yet terminated and dismissed

nor he is discharged from service or retrenched from the service.

On the other hand Ld. Counsel for workman placed reliance on Md. Mobin –vs- State of U.P. & Ors. (supra)

and contended that prolonged suspension from service can be considered as deemed termination as expression

‘otherwise terminate the service’ appearing in section 2A means deemed termination.

Gone through the said citation where the issue under dispute is refusal of employment on the ground of

abandonment of service by the workman. In the present case the workman is placed under suspension and his service

is not yet terminated by the employer as domestic enquiry initiated against him on the charge of misconduct is still

pending.

Further, Ld. Counsel for the workman has placed reliance on Peerless Inn (supra). This Tribunal finds the

facts and circumstance of the said case entirely different from the present one as in the said case the Govt. of West

Bengal has referred a dispute regarding suspension of 19 workmen to the State Tribunal for adjudication, whether the

suspension of those workmen to be illegal or legal.

The term ‘industrial dispute’ is defined in section 2(k) of the Act and 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 condition of Labour of

any person.

Thus, Section 2(k) described industrial dispute to be a collective dispute. To consider an individual dispute

as an industrial dispute, it must be supported by the trade union of the workers, or if there is no trade union, by the

majority of the workers, or it must meet the conditions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A dispute

between an employer and a single workman does not fall within the definition of "industrial dispute” unless workmen

as a body or a considerable section of them make common cause with the individual workman then such a dispute

would be an industrial dispute. But, by virtue of Section 2A of the Act, individual workman’s case of his dismissal,

discharge, termination and retrenchment from service is deemed to be an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the Act.

In Peerless Inn (supra) the interest of 19 workmen were involved, but in the present case the dispute is in

between a single workman and his employer u/s 2A of the Act, and that too not being referred by the Central Govt.

for adjudication of the issue, whether the suspension order of the workman is valid or not, after receiving failure

report from the Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer. In the present case admittedly workman did not raise any

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3479

dispute before labour commissioner for conciliation, rather he has directly challenged the legality of his suspension

order, charge and pending domestic enquiry before this Tribunal by filing the present application. Therefore, the facts

and circumstances of the case referred by the Ld. Counsel for the workman is totally different from the case in hand.

Similarly, the facts and circumstances of another case Prem Nath Bali –vs- Registrar, High Court of Delhi &

Anrs. (supra) relied by the Ld. Counsel for the workman is totally different from the present one, as in the present

case domestic enquiry is not yet over and question of challenging the same does not arise, but in the above relied

judgment question of legality of domestic enquiry was under consideration. No doubt, in the said decision the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the departmental enquiry once initiated against a delinquent

employee must be completed within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceeding.

In the present case the contents of the application u/s 2A, itself prove that the domestic enquiry was initiated

against the concerned workman during Covid period. Covid pandemic had affected the entire world and in India there

was total lock down declared by the Govt. in the end of the month of March, 2020 and which affected normalcy in

one’s life till the end of 2021.

However, it also appears from the application u/s 2A that the employer keeping in view the pandemic had

tried to hold the domestic enquiry through electronic medium i.e. through video conference but the workman has

admittedly taken a plea that he not being a techno savvy lacked knowledge of video conference and as such he was

unable to participate in the hearing through video conference.

He has also admitted that he took help of Mr. B. Joseph Monoharan, aged 70 years, Secretary General of

Tata Communication Limited Employees Union, based in Chennai to act as his defense assistant and who being of

aged man was not in a position to travel all the way from Chennai to Delhi to participate in the domestic enquiry or

take part in the domestic enquiry through video conference due to non-availability of video conference facility at

Chennai union office.

It is a matter of common knowledge in this new age of digitalization, one can access with another through

video conference from a most common easily accessible device possessed and owned by each and every person and

which is known as mobile phone. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a facilities for video conference at Chennai

union office or one has to be techno savvy to get oneself connected through video conference. So, the plea taken by

the concerned workman appears to be unfounded and unbelievable and fact when he is an employee of Tata

Communication Ltd.

That apart, it appears that the workman has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta

challenging his suspension, charge sheet and pending domestic enquiry and admittedly which is still pending.

In view of the above facts it cannot be said that the management with malafide intention has lingered the

domestic enquiry. In fact the conduct of the concerned workman mentioned above can be contribute to be the cause of

delay in completion of domestic enquiry. Apparently, the workman has challenged not only his suspension order, but

also charge of misconduct brought against him and pending domestic enquiry in different forums. Such facts itself

prove that the workman is the one who wants to evade or avoid to face the domestic enquiry. These factors could be

the reason for delay in completion of domestic enquiry. So, one cannot put blame entirely on the management for

delay in conclusion of the domestic enquiry.

Further, I am not inclined to discuss the other citations referred by the parties as facts and circumstances of

those cases are entirely different from the present one. Moreover, it is settled law each case has to be decided on its

own merit as facts and circumstances of each case defers from others and Court should not place reliance on decisions

without discussing as to how fact situation of case before it fits in with fact situation of decision on which reliance is

placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of statute and that too

taken out of their context. They must be read in context in which they appear to have been stated. Disposal of case by

blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper because one additional or different fact may make a world of

difference between conclusions in two cases. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice.

It is a matter of common knowledge that suspension is not discharge of employment or permanent

termination of employment. It only prevent the workman from attending the office and duty till the investigation of

the charge of misconduct is over. That during the period of suspension the workman is paid subsistence allowance

and not full salary. That there is no severance of relationship of employee and employer during the period of

suspension.

That the suspension does not result in dismissal from the job. That if the employee is found guilty of the

charge of misconduct in domestic enquiry and if the disciplinary committee decides the verdict against the delinquent

employee and if the employer decides to terminate the service of the delinquent workman then only there will be the

permanent termination of the service of workman.

3480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the present case the concerned workman not being discharged, dismissed, retrenched and terminated from

the service by the employer till date, then question of raising any industrial dispute by him u/s 2A of I. D. Act does

not arise. That placing him under suspension cannot be deemed to be his termination.

Therefore, this Tribunal holds the case u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act is not maintainable being pre-matured and

accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the management of Tata Communication Ltd. is hereby directed to see

that concerned Enquiry Officer completes the domestic enquiry already initiated against the concerned workman

within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Enquiry Officer is directed to conduct the hearing on

day to day basis without granting any kind of adjournment whatsoever sought by the management or by the workman

to delay the enquiry proceeding. That Enquiry Officer is directed to hold the domestic enquiry in compliance of

principle of natural justice and to conduct the hearing in presence of workman unless the workmen choose not to

attend or avoid the hearing. Then he shall proceed with the domestic hearing as per rules and law.

More so, that pendency of any related proceeding, if any, before any court of law cannot be a ground for stay

of the domestic enquiry as the domestic enquiry and those pending proceedings, if any, are to be proceeded on its own

until and unless there is an order of stay of domestic enquiry from a court of law.

In view of the above CGIT-01 of 2021 u/s 2A of the I.D. Act is dismissed being pre-matured and not

maintainable. Office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties for compliance as mentioned above.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1565.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a05/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-32]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 05/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur

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

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2024– IR(B-I1)-32]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh

Jh d`iky flag iq= Jhd`".kk] fuoklh& xzke eMjiqj] iksLV cjk[kqj] rglhy o ftyk& Hkjriqj ¼jkt-½A

-----------izkFkhZ

1- iatkc us'kuy cSad] Lokxr Hkou ds lkeus] ;w-vkbZ-Vh- dSEil 'kk[kk] ;w-vkbZ-Vh- dSEil] Hkjriqj tfj, izca/kdA

2- iatkc us'kuy cSad] e.My dk;kZy;] lqij ekdsZV] Hkjriqj] jktLFkku 321001 tfj, {ks=h; izca/kdA

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3481

3- Iaktkc us'kuy cSad] tksuy vkWfQl 2] ih-,u-ch- gkml] QLVZ ¶ykSj] Vksad jksM+] usg: Iysl] yky dksBh] t;iqj

tfj, tksuy vkWfQlj@eSustjA

4- iatkc us'kuy cSad] iz/kku dk;kZy;] lsDVj&10] }kjdk] ubZ fnYyh&110075 tfj, izca/k funs'kdA

--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh

mifLFkr%&

% Jh egsUnz dqekj tks'kh] vfHkHkk"kd & izkFkhZA

% Jh lqjsUnz flag ukyksV] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA

1- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 19-02-2020 dks ;g nkos dk vfHkdFku vf/kdj.k ds le{k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 dh /kkjk 2A ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;k x;kA dkykUrj esa ewy foi{khx.k vksfj;aVy cSad vkWQ dkWelZ dk

foy; iatkc us'kuy cSad esa gks tkus ds ifj.kke Lo:Ik bl vf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 10-12-2020 }kjk

foi{khx.k ds LFkku ij iatkc us'kuy cSad dks foi{khx.k ds :Ik esa la;ksftr djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA rnquqlkj

izkFkhZ us fnukad 24-12-2020 dks la'kksf/kr okn izLrqr fd;kA ftlds laf{kIr vfHkopu bl izdkj gS%&

2- izkFkhZ dks ihvksu@lc LVkQ ds in ij iwoZorhZ vksfj;aVy cSad vkWQ dkWelZ] Hkjriqj dh ;w-vkbZ-Vh- 'kk[kk esa

vxLr] 2007 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk vxLr] 2007 ls 10-11-2019 rd foi{khx.k ds v/khu fujarj

lsok;s nh xbZA fnukad 11-11-2019 dks foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lekIr dj nh xbZA izkFkhZ

us mldh lsok;s fu;fer djus gsrq foi{khx.k ls dgk Fkk fdarq mls fu;fer ugha fd;k x;kA foi{khx.k dk ;g

d`R; vuqfpr JekH;kl gSA izkFkhZ dks dke ls gVkus ls iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek=

vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 25 F dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ugha

fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds mijkar foi{khx.k }kjk u;s Jfedksa dh HkrhZ dh xbZA bl izdkj

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G o H dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ds mijkar vc rd csjkstxkj gSA

vr% bl lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa okfil

ysus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosA

3- foi{khx.k us vius oknksRrj esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh cSad lsok esa fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA izkFkhZ ,oa

foi{khx.k ds e/; deZpkjh ,oa fu;ksDrk dk laca/k ugha gSA foi{kh cSad dh fu;qfDr gsrq Hkkjr ljdkj ds funs'kksZ ds

varxZr fu/kkZfjr p;u izfdz;k gSA rnqijkar gh p;fur O;fDr dks fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA cSad esa izfrfnu vusd

lsok;s ckgjh O;fDr;ksa ls yh tkrh gS ftudks fdlh izdkj ls LFkkbZ vFkok vLFkkbZ :Ik ls fu;qDr ugha fd;k tkrk

gS] bu ckgjh O;fDr;ksa dks cSad dk dkfeZd ugha ekuk tkrkA izkFkhZ us cSad esa fu;qfDr laca/kh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha

dh gSA ihvksu cqd ij gLrk{kj gksus ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk fd izkFkhZ dks cSad us fu;qDr fd;kA izkFkhZ us QthZ

izek.k i= izLrqr fd;s gS] ftldh lR;rk dh tkWp gks ldrh gSA vr% izkFkhZ dk okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosA

4- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa AW-1 Lo;a izkFkhZ d`iky flag dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ P-1 ls

izn'kZ P-17 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA

5- foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa Jh lR;ohj flag ckcfj;k] ofj"B izca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj dksbZ izys[k iznf’kZr

ugha fd;kA

6- fnukad 22-04-2024 dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mlds vfHkHkk"kd }kjk fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s x;sA muds izeq[k rdZ gS

fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr] fu;qfDr izfdz;k viukdj vxLr] 2007 esa dh xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (s) ds

rgr deZdkj gSA fcuk fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;s izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDfr voS/k gSA izkFkhZ dh NaVuh fd;s tkus dk dksbZ

dkj.k foi{kh }kjk ugha fn;k x;kA NaVuh ds varxZr deZdkj dk fu;fer deZdkj gksuk vko';d ugha gSA fnukad

11-11-2019 dks lsok lekfIr rd izkFkhZ us 12 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh lsok fujarj dh vkSj lsokeqfDr ds 1 o"kZ iwoZ dh

vof/k esa Hkh 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k ftldk izek.k lk{; esa iznf'kZr izys[kksa izn'kZ P-1 ls izn'kZ P-17

rd ls gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ;k NaVuh izfrdj ugha fn;k x;kA

3482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lk{; esa iznf'kZr izys[kksa dks foi{kh us Hkh cSad ds nLrkost ekuk gSA lsokeqfDr ds ckn vU; O;fDr;ksa dks foi{kh us

j[k fy;kA izkFkhZ ds fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr nLrkost foi{khx.k us vf/kdj.k ds vkns'k ds ckn Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;s

gSA blfy, foi{khx.k ds fo:} izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA lsokeqfDr ds mijkar izkFkhZ csjkstxkj jgk

gSA mUgksaus vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&

1- ds-oh- vfuy fe=k o vU; cuke Jh 'kadjkpk;Z ;wfuoflZVh vkWQ laLd`r o vU; flfoy vihy ua-

9067@2014 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ fu.kZ; frfFk 27-10-2021

2- j.kohj flag cuke ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j ih-MCY;w-Mh- flfoy vihy ua- 4483@2010 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ fu.kZ;

frfFk 09-02-2021

3- thrwHkk [kkulaxth tMstk cuke dPN fMLVªfjDV iapk;r 2022 ykbo ykW (SC) 797

4- lwjtiky flag o vU; cuke ih-vks- yscj dksVZ ua- 111 o vU; ¼fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;½ 2002 ¼95½ FLR

521

5- LVsV vkWQ mRrj izns'k o vU; cuke yscj dksVZ o vU; ¼bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky;½ fjV & C No.

3192@2017 fu.kZ; frfFk 08-05-2023

7- fnukad 30-05-2024 dks foi{khx.k dh vksj ls fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s x;sA foi{khx.k ds ;g rdZ gS fd foi{kh

cSad ,d jk"Vªh;d`r cSad gS] ftlesa deZdkjksa dh HkrhZ] lsok laca/kh fu;eksa vkSj izfdz;k ds v/khu gksrh gSA izkFkhZ dks

fdlh HkrhZ foKkiu ds vuqdze esa vkosnu izkIr dj fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA tc fu;qfDr gh ugha nh xbZ rks

lsokeqfDr Hkh laHko ugha gSaA izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fu;qfDr vkSj lsokeqfDr dk dksbZ fyf[kr vkns'k ugha gS

vkSj dksbZ foKkiu Hkh cSad us ugha fudkykA izkFkhZ foi{kh laLFkku esa csd Mksj ,sUVªh pkgrk gSA csd Mksj ,sUVªh dks

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrcaf/kr fd;k gSA cSad esa vusd dk;Z ,sls gksrs gS ftuesa dksbZ

fu;qfDr ugha dh tkrh vkSj ,sls dk;Z ekSf[kd vuqca/k Qhl@ [kpZ dk Hkqxrku djds djok;s tkrs gSA izkFkhZ }kjk

,slk dk;Z vkdfLed ,oa vfu;fer :Ik ls fd;k x;k blfy, izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; ekfyd vkSj etnwj dk

laca/k ugha gSa izkFkhZ vius lk{; ls lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk

izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkFkhZ dks ugha fn;k

tk ldrkA lsokeqfDr ds ckn xksfoUn uke ds u;s O;fDr dks dk;Z ij j[ks tkus laca/k esa izkFkhZ us dksbZ nLrkost

is’k ugha fd;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ viuk i{k izekf.kr djus esa foQy jgk gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA

8- mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&

1- lsdszVjh] LVSV vkWQ dukZVd cuke mek nsoh o vU; 2006 SCC ¼L&SS½ 753

2- LVSV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k cuke lqjs'k dqekj oekZ o vU; ¼1996½ 7 SCC 562

3- eksgEen vyh cuke LVSV vkWQ fgekpy izns’k ¼2018½ 15 SCC 641

4- lqjsUnz uxj fMLVªfjDV iapk;r cuke Mk;k HkkbZ vej flag ¼2005½ 8 SCC 750

5- lqjsUnz uxj fMLVªfjDV iapk;r cuke xaxkcsu ykyth HkkbZ ¼2006½ 9 SCC 132

6- jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh AIR 2002 lqizhe dksVZ 1147

7- E;qfufliy dkjiksjs’ku Qjhnkckn cuke fljh fuokl 2004 ¼5½ SLR 816

9- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ,oa rdksZ ij fopkj ds Ik'pkr bl fookn esa fuEukfdar fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&

1- D;k izkFkhZ dks vxLr] 2007 esa ihvksu@lc LVkQ ds in ij foi{kh }kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ us

fnukad 11-11-2019 rd foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh fQj Hkh foi{kh }kjk

fnukad 11-11-2019 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa ekSf[kd :Ik ls lekIr djrs gq;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds

izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;s tkus ls lsok lekfIr voS/k gS\

--------------izkFkhZ

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3483

2- D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa fnukad 11-11-2019 dks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls foi{kh }kjk lekIr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr

JekH;kl gS\

--------------izkFkhZ

3- D;k izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk u;s Jfedksa dh HkrhZ ihvksu ds in ij dh xbZ tks

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 G o H ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ls voS/k gS\

--------------izkFkhZ

4- vuqrks"k%

10- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fofu’p; bl izdkj gS%&

11-

12- izkFkhZ d`iky flag us vius lk{; ds 'kiFk&i= esa ;g dgk gS fd mls foi{khx.k }kjk ihvksu@lc LVkQ ds in

ij ekg vxLr] 2007 esa fu;qfDr izfdz;k viukdj fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izfrijh{kk esa d`iky flag us ;g Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd mls cSad us dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k rFkk fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ foKkiu cSad us ugha fudkykA mls

vuwi flag uke ds O;fDr us tksfd pk; dh FkM+h pykrk Fkk] us lwfpr fd;kA mldk baVjO;w Jh ,y- vkj- tkVo

lkgc us fy;k Fkk blds Ik'pkr izkFkhZ ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd mlus lc LVkQ@ihvksu ds in ij fu;qfDr

laca/kh dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k] D;ksfd mls fn;k gh ugha x;kA blds foijhr foi{kh us vius lk{kh Jh

lR;ohj flag ckcfj;k ds ek/;e ls ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks cSad }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k blfy, lsokeqfDr

dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA ysfdu lk{kh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fu;fer deZdkj dh vuqiyC/krk gksus ij

lQkbZ dk;Z vLFkkbZ nSfud osru Hkksxh deZdkj ls djok;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g dk;Z tks 2&3 ?kaVks ls vf/kd

ugha gksrk Fkk] dk;Z dh miyC/krk ij djok;k tkrk FkkA bl fLFkfr esa ;g rks Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks pkgs

va’kdkyhu dk;Z laiknu gsrq j[kk x;k gks] foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ ls dk;Z fy;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ

fu;fer :Ik ls fofgr p;u izfdz;k ds v/khu fu;qDr deZdkj ugha gSA ysfdu izkFkhZ us tc&tc foi{kh ds v/khu

dk;Z fd;k mls ifjJfed dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk fd;k x;kA deZdkj pkgs iw.kZdkfyd gks ;k va’kdkyhu

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (s) ds varxZr og deZdkj ekuk tkrk gSA izkFkhZ us vxLr] 2007 ls ihvksu@lc LVkQ ds

in ij foi{kh }kjk fu;qDr fd;s tkus laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us izn'kZ P-1 ihvksu cqd

dh QksVks izfr bl laca/k esa iznf'kZr dh gS ftlesa loZizFke fnukad 06-11-2009 dks izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj] i= forfjr

djus okys O;fDr ds :Ik esa fd;s x;s gSA blds iwoZ dk dksbZ izys[k u rks izkFkhZ us izLrqr fd;k gS] u gh foi{kh ls

izLrqr djokus gsrq dksbZ vkosnu fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 09-03-2021 esa izkFkhZ us loZizFke

foi{kh ls tks izys[k izLrqr djokus gsrq vkosnu fd;k gS og o"kZ] 2009 ls 10-11-2019 rd ds fofHkUu izys[k gS]

blfy;s o"kZ] 2009 ds iwoZ izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh cSad ds e/; deZdkj ,oa fu;kstd dk laca/k vfLrRo esa gksus laca/kh

dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gSA

13- izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd mlus foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 11-11-2019 dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds

iwoZ dh 12 dys.Mj ekl dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z yxkrkj fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us ihvksu

cqd izn'kZ P-1] fDys;fjax gkml lejh izn'kZ P-2] isesUV okmplZ jftLVj izn'kZ P-16 izLrqr fd;s gSA izn'kZ

P-1 ihvksu cqd fnukad 08-11-2019 rd la/kkfjr dh xbZ gSA ftl ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj fo|eku gSA fDys;fjax

gkml lejh izn'kZ P-2] fnukad 07-11-2019 rd vafre fnukafdr gS ftl ij izkFkhZ }kjk gLrk{kj fd;s x;s gSA

izn'kZ P-15 jaxhu QksVksxzk¶l izkFkhZ us izLrqr fd;s gS fdarq bu QksVksxzk¶l dks lk{; esa izekf.kr ugha djok;k

x;k gS] vkSj u gh buls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd bu QksVksxzk¶l esa fdl frfFk ij izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad ds deZpkfj;ksa

ds lkFk mifLFkr jgkA izn'kZ P-16 foi{kh cSad dk nSfud deZpkjh isesUV okmplZ jftLVj gS tks foi{kh us

fnukad 26-09-2018 rd dk izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa le;≤ ij nSfud deZpkjh ds :Ik esa izkFkhZ d`iky flag dk

uke vafdr gSA

14- mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ls fnukad 09-03-2021 dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj vU; izys[kksa ds lkFk o"kZ]

2009 ls 10-11-2019 rd dk isesUV okmplZ jftLVj rFkk okmplZ cap izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k FkkA

foi{khx.k us fnukad 14-07-2021 dks bl izkFkZuk i= dk izfrmRrj izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g dgk Þfd isesUV okmplZ

jftLVj o okmplZ cap 2009 ls 10-11-2019 vizkFkhZ cSad dk xksiuh; o vkarfjd nLrkost gSA mDr nLrkostkr ls

3484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izkFkhZ dk dksbZ laca/k u gksus ls mDr nLrkost lqlaxr ugha gSÞ bl dFku ls ;g rks Li"V gS fd foi{khx.k us

mDr isesUV okmplZ jftLVj o okmplZ cap dks Lo;a ds vkf/kiR; esa gksus ls badkj ugha fd;k fdarq izkFkhZ ls

lacaf/kr u gksus ds vk/kkj ij lqlaxr ugha ekukA blds Ik’pkr vizkFkhZ us vius izfrmRrj fnukad 06-09-2021 esa Hkh

;g Lohdkj fd;k fd isesUV okmplZ jftLVj o okmplZ cap 2019 ls 2021 miyC/k gSA fDys;fjax gkml lejh

2018 ls uoEcj] 2019 rd miyC/k gSA mYys[kuh; ;g gS fd foi{khx.k us izys[kksa dh bl miyC/krk dk leFkZu

vius izca/kdksa ds 'kiFk i=ksa ds ek/;e ls fd;k gSA vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 17-09-2022 dks vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s

;g vkns’k fn;k gS fd isesUV okmplZ jftLVj o okmplZ cap o"kZ] 2009 ls 10-11-2019 rd pwafd foi{kh ds

vkf/kiR; esa gS] foi{kh bu izys[kksa dks ewy:Ik esa ;k izekf.kr QksVksizfr ds :Ik esa izLrqr djsaA bl vkns'k ds

vuqlj.k esa fnukad 31-03-2022 dks nSfud deZpkjh isesUV okmplZ jftLVj 01-08-2016 ls 27-09-2018 rd izLrqr

fd;k ysfdu 26-09-2018 ds mijkar ds jftLVj vkSj cap izLrqr ugha fd;sA izn'kZ P-16@43 ij ;g fVIi.kh

vafdr gS fd 27-09-2018 ls nSfud deZpkjh dks fn;s tkus okys okmplZ isesUV can dj fn;s x;s gSA vr% budh

txg fcyksa ds }kjk eaFkyh isesUV fn;k tkus yxkA izFke rks ;g fVIi.kh foi{khx.k ds izca/kdksa Jherh la/;k

QkStnkj ,oa Jh d`".k dqekj ds 'kiFk i=ksa ds foijhr gS vkSj f}rh;r% foi{khx.k us nSfud deZpkjh dks okmplZ

ds LFkku ij fcyksa }kjk ekfld Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;kA bl fLFkfr esa ;g

izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 10-11-2019 rd fd;s tkus okys osru@ifjJfed Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHkys[k

foi{khx.k us tkucw> dj vkf/kiR; esa gksrs gq;s izLrqr ugha fd;kA ;fn foi{khx.k bu izys[kksa dks izLrqr djrs rks

;g furkar laHko Fkk fd izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr dh frfFk 11-11-2019 ls iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd

dk;Z fd;s tkus dk rF; mu izys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr dj nsrkA blfy, foi{khx.k ds fo:} vknsf'kr

izys[kksa dks izLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

15- foi{khx.k us izn'kZ P-16 nSfud deZpkjh isesUV okmplZ jftLVj fnukad 26-09-2018 rd izLrqr fd;k gS blds

Ik'pkrorhZ jftLVj okmplZ ls isesUV can dj fn;s tkus rFkk muds LFkku ij fcyks ds }kjk ekfld Hkqxrku fd;s

tkus ds dkj.k izLrqr ugha fd;s gSA foi{khx.k us ekfld Hkqxrku laca/kh fcy Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;s gSA izn'kZ P-16

ds voyksdu ls fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij izkFkhZ dks] tksfd nSfud deZpkjh gS osru@ifjJfed dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk

izekf.kr gksrk gSA foi{khx.k ds fo:} izfrdwy mi/kkj.k djrs gq;s ;g Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us eq[;

ijh{kk esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 10-11-2019 rd foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k ftldk Hkqxrku

foi{khx.k }kjk ekfld osru fcy ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;kA fnukad 11-11-2019 ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh

vof/k esa bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk foi{khx.k ds v/khu dk;Zjr jguk izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl fu"d"kZ dks izn'kZ P-1

ihvksu cqd ls leFkZu izkIr gksrk gS ftlesa fnukad 08-11-2019 dks izkFkhZ d`iky flag ds gLrk{kj i= forj.k djus

okys O;fDr ds :Ik esa fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; ds-oh- vfuy fe=k o vU; cuke Jh 'kadjkpk;Z

;wfuoflZVh vkWQ laLd`r o vU; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd deZdkj dh lsok lekfIr

vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds mijkar vkjksfir n.M ds vykok fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls gksus ij dqN vioknksa lfgr NaVuh

gksrh gSA ;g NaVuh fu;kstu dh izd`fr rFkk lsok esa izos'k dh jhfr ij fuHkZj ugha gksrhA NaVuh dh oS/krk ds fy,

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu iwoZorhZ 'krZ gSA ftldh vogsyuk ij lsok lekfIr 'kwU; gksrh

gSA

16- izkFkhZ us ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; lwjtiky flag o vU; cuke ih-vks- yscj dksVZ ua- 111 o vU;

Hkh izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr

gksuk Ik;kZIr gSA fdarq foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; eksgEen vyh cuke LVSV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k esa ekuuh;

mPpre U;k;ky; us 240 fnu dh lsok fd;s tkus dk rF; lsokeqfDr ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ esa gh izekf.kr

fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z Bgjk;k gSA blfy, ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; ds mi;ZqDr vf/ker ls izkFkhZ dk i{k

fdlh izdkj lefFkZr ugha gksrk gSA

17- pwfda izkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqfDr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k tkuk lk{; ls izekf.kr

dj fn;k x;k gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; lqjsUnz uxj fMLVªfjDV iapk;r cuke Mk;k HkkbZ vej flag]

lqjsUnz uxj fMLVªfjDV iapk;r cuke xaxkcsu ykyth HkkbZ] jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh rFkk

E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku Qjhnkckn cuke fljh fuokl esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr ekxZn'kZu foi{khx.k

ds i{k esa rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k lgk;d izrhr ugha gksrk gSA

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3485

18- foi{khx.k us vius vfHkopu vksj lk{; esa ;g dgh ugha dgk gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 11-11-2019 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok

lekIr djus ls iwoZ mls ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;k gSA tcfd

izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mls dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ;k NaVuh eqvkots dk Hkqxrku ugha

fd;k x;kA bl n'kk esa ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dh fnukad 11-11-2019 dks ekSf[kd:Ik ls

lsok lekiu djus ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;kA blfy, foi{khx.k }kjk

dh xbZ lsok lekfIr voS/k gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

19-

20- ;s nksuksa fcUnq ijLij varjofyr gaSA blfy, bu nksuksa fcUnqvksa ij lk{; ,oa fof/k dk foospu ,d lkFk djrs gq;s

bUgsa fu.khZr fd;k tk jgk gSA

21- izkFkhZ us vius dFkuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 11-11-2019 dks vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl viukrs gq;s mldh lsok;sa

ekSf[kd vkns'k ls voS/k :Ik ls lekIr dj nh xbZA vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph&V ds vuqlkj fdlh deZdkj dks lsok

ls i`Fkd djuk ;fn mlds 'kks"k.k ds mn~s'; ls gks ;k lnHkkfod u gks rks vuqfpr JekH;kl ekuk tkosxkA blh

izdkj vkdfLed vLFkkbZ Jfedksa ls vusd o"kksZ rd dk;Z fy;k tkuk vkSj mUgsa LFkkbZ u djuk Hkh vuqfpr

JekH;kl dgk x;k gSA bl dlkSVh ij lk{; dk ijh{k.k djus ij ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ vxLr] 2007 ls

foi{khx.k ds v/khu dk;Z djuk dgdj rks vk;k gS fdarq bl rF; dks og izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA izn'kZ P-1

ihvksu cqd ds vuqlkj og fnukad 06-11-2009 ls dk;Zjr izdV gksrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ LoPN gkFkks ls

vf/kdj.k ds le{k vuqrks"k gsrq izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA

22- izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd mldh lsok lekfIr ds Ik'pkr mlh ds in ij u;s Jfed xksfoUn dks yxk;k x;kA

fdarq izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mldh lsokeqfDr ds ckn xksfoUn uke ds O;fDr dks lsok esa j[ks tkus dk

dksbZ nLrkost mlds ikl ugha gSA bl dFku ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd mldh

lsokeqfDr ds ckn mlls dfu"Brj fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vFkok xksfoUn uke ds O;fDr dks izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij

foi{khx.k us fu;qfDr nh gksA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; j.kohj flag cuke ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j

ih-MCY;w-Mh- esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd tc deZdkj dh lsok 240 fnu dk;Z dj ysus ds ckn vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 25 F dk ikyu u djrs gq;s lekIr dj nh xbZ gks]&deZdkj ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh rFkk vLFkkbZ deZpkjh

gks rFkk og Loa; ls dfu"Brj O;fDr;ksa dks lsok esa j[ks tkus dk rF; fl} djus gsrq lUrqf"Vizn lk{; Hkh izLrqr

ugha dj ldk gks rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vuqfpr JekH;kl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fy;k tk ldrkA bl

fu.kZ; esa ikfjr ekxZn'kZu ls foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds le; fdlh vU; dks fu;qDr djuk] ;k

izkFkhZ ls dfu"B fdlh O;fDr dks lsok esa cuk;s j[kuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds

izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u djrs gq;s] dh xbZ lsok lekfIr dks fdlh izdkj vuqfpr JekH;kl dh Js.kh esa j[kk

tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA

23- izkFkhZ us vius vfHkopuksa vkSj lk{; esa Lo;a dh fu;qfDr ihvksu@lc LVkQ ds in ij vxLr] 2007 esa foi{khx.k

}kjk fd;k tkuk dgk gSA fdarq bu dFkuksa dks og lk{; ls izekf.kr djus esa og lQy ugha gqvk gSA izkFkhZ

Lohdkj djrk gS fd mls dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k ugha fn;k x;k vkSj mls vuwi flag uke ds O;fDr tks fd pk; dh

FkMh pykrk gS] us lwfpr fd;k FkkA foi{kh cSad Hkkjr ljdkj ds fn'kk funsZ'kksa ds varxZr lapkfyr Hkkjr ljdkj

dk midze gS ftlds fdlh Hkh in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fofgr p;u izfdz;k dk izko/kku gSA izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa ds izdk'k

esa mldh fu;qfDr fdlh Lohd`r vFkok fjDr in ds fo:} foi{kh cSad esa ugha dh xbZ oju~ mls nSfud

vko';drk vuq:Ik dk;ksZ ds fy, cSad esa j[kk x;k vkSj Hkqxrku okmplZ ds ek/;e ls ifjJfed dk Hkqxrku fd;k

x;kA ftldh /kujkf'k i`Fkd&i`Fkd frfFk;ksa ij i`Fkd n'kkZ;h xbZ gSA blfy, ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd

LFkkbZ in ds fdlh Hkh dk;Z ds fy, foi{kh cSad us fdlh nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed dks o"kksZ rd fu;qDr j[kdj

vuqfpr JekH;kl fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; thrwHkk [kkulaxth tMstk cuke dPN fMLVªfjDV

iapk;r esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us deZdkj ls dfu"B O;fDrvksa dks mldh lsok lekfIr ds le; lsok esa

cuk;s j[kus rFkk izca/kd }kjk vfHkys[kksa dks izLrqr u djus ds vk/kkj ij lsok lekfIr dks voS/k ekuk gSA bl

fu.kZ; esa ikfjr fof/k gLrxr fookn ds rF;ksa ls fdafpr fHkUu gS D;ksfd izkFkhZ mlls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks lsok esa

cuk;s j[kus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA bl foospu ds mijkar fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k& 2 o 3 izkFkhZ ds

fo:} fu.khZr fd;s tkrs gSA

3486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24-

25- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1 ds fofu'p; ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr fnukad 11-11-2019 voS/k izekf.kr gqbZ

gS] fdarq fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k& 2 o 3 ds varxZr izkIr fd;s x;s fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k }kjk dh xbZ

lsok lekfIr vuqfpr JekH;kl gksuk izekf.kr ugha ik;k x;k gSA

26- lsok lekfIr voS/k ik;s tkus ds mijkar lsok esa iqu% LFkkiuk ,oa mfpr fLFkfr esa foxr osru ifjykHk Jfed dks

fnyok;k tkuk ,d lkekU; vuqrks"k gS] fdarq lsok esa iquZLFkkiu ,oa foxr osru fnyok;k tkuk ,d Lopkfyr

vuqrks"k ugha gksrkA izR;sd izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjLFkfr;ksa ds ijh{k.k ds Ik’pkr gh vuqrks"k fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk

pkfg;sA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds-oh- vfuy fe=k o vU; cuke Jh 'kadjkpk;Z ;wfuoflZVh vkWQ

laLd`r o vU; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd lsok esa iqu% LFkkiuk ,oa ikfj.kkfed ykHk dk vuqrks"k Lor% gh

;U=or iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA deZdkj dks D;k oSdfYid vuqrks"k] izdj.k ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds

vk/kkj ij fn;k tk ldrk gS] ;g fopkj djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj vf/kdj.k@U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA

27- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us j.kohj flag cuke ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j ih-MCY;w-Mh- ds fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd

tc vihykFkhZ deZdkj ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh gks rFkk LFkkbZ deZpkjh ugha gks& og Lo;a ls dfu"Brj O;fDr;ksa dks

lsok esa j[ks tkus dk rF; Hkh izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gks vuqfpr JekH;kl fd;s tkus dk Hkh dksbZ fu"d"kZ ughas gks]

rks ,slh fLFkfr esa lsok esa iquZLFkkiu fd;k tkuk Lopkfyr :Ik esa ugha gks ldrk rFkk leqfpr izfrdj ,d mfpr

vuqrks"k gksxkA

28- izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr foi{khx.k }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj

ij gh voS/k izekf.kr gqbZ gSA bl fLFkfr esa ;g n`"VO; gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok esa ogky djus ij foi{khx.k ds ikl

;g fodYi fu'fpr :Ik ls miyC/k jgsxk fd og iqu% vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu djrs

gq;s izkFkhZ dks NaVuh ds :Ik esa lsokeqDr dj nsaA izkFkhZ ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh vkdfLed Jfed gksuk izekf.kr gqvk

gS ftls izfrfnu dksbZ fu/kkZfjr osru dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk FkkA tSlk fd izn'kZ P-16] isesUV okmplZ

jftLVj ls izdV gksrk gSA izkFkhZ fdlh LFkkbZ fjDr in ds fo:} fofgr p;u izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k esa fu;qDr Hkh

ugha fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks izfrfnu ;k ekfld fu/kkZfjr nj ls osru Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk izek.k Hkh ugha feyk

gSA

29- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; lsdszVjh] LVSV vkWQ dukZVd cuke mek nsoh o vU; ,oa LVSV vkWQ

fgekpy izns'k cuke lqjs'k dqekj oekZ o vU; esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd vLFkkbZ@lafonktU;@vkdfLed

nSfud osru Hkksxh ;k rnFkZ :Ik ls fu;qDr deZpkjh dk vo’kks"k.k] fu;ferhdj.k ;k LFkkbZdj.k yksd fu;kstu dh

laoS/kkfud ;kstuk ds ijs gSA blfy, U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh ,slk funsZ'k] pwWafda yksd fu;kstu dh nwljh jhfr mRiUu

djrk gS] vuqKs; ugha gSA tc fdlh O;fDr dks nSfud osru ij p;u izfdz;k ls ijs fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks]

ifj;kstuk lekIr gksus ij lsok lekIr dj nh xbZ gks rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa deZdkj dks iqu% fu;qfDr ugha nh tk

ldrhA ;fn fjDr in gks rks mUgsa fu;ekuqlkj gh iwrZ fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA blfy,] bu fu.kZ;ksa ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ

dks lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;s tkus ds LFkku ij izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r izfrdj dk Hkqxrku

djok;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

30- ,d vkdfLed nSfud osru Hkksxh vdq'ky Jfed dks ns; U;wure osru dh nj dks fopkfjr djrs gq;s izfrdj dk

fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA izkFkhZ us lsokeqfDr ls vc rd Lo;a dks csjkstxkj dgk gS ftldk dksbZ [k.Mu

foi{khx.k us vius vfHkopuksa vkSj lk{; ls ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ lsok dh vof/k] fu;kstu dh izd`fr

,oa izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r

350]000@& :- ¼v{kjs rhu yk[k ipkl gtkj :-½ izfrdj fnyok;s tkus ls U;k;fgr lk/ku gks ldsxkA

31- vr% fnukad 11-11-2019 dks foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds varxZr voS/k

Bgjkrs gq;s vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA fdarq izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iquZLFkkiu ,oa foxr osru ifjykHkksa ds LFkku ij

,deq'r 350]000@& :- ¼v{kjs rhu yk[k ipkl gtkj :-½ izfrdj dk Hkqxrku foi{khx.k }kjk fd;s tkus dk

vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k bl izfrdj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku nks ekg dh vof/k esa izkFkhZ dks djsa] vU;Fkk Hkqxrku

fd;s tkus rd bl jkf'k ij 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt nj ls C;kt dk Hkqxrku Hkh foi{khx.k djsxsaA

32- vf/kfu.kZ; dh ,d izfr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA

jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3487

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1566.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ससंजडकेट बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a24/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/47/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.24/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

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

workmen.

[No. L-12011/47/2019– IR(B-I1)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.24 OF 2019

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Syndicate Bank/ Canara Bank

AND

Syndicate Bank Employees’ Union

Appearance:

On behalf of the Syndicate Bank/Canara Bank: Smt. Zinia Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Syndicate Bank Employees’ Union: Mr. Kamalesh Jha, Ld. Advocate.

Dated: 10^th July, 2023

A W A R D

By order No. L-12011/47/2019 IR (B-II) dated 02-12-2019, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

power conferred under section 10(1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following issues for determination by this Tribunal :-

“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kolkata by not releasing the

Overtime Allowance to the workmen staff at the time of demonetization in the month of November, & December,

2016 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled to?”

The facts necessary for determination of the above issue in brief are that Syndicate Bank a nationalised bank has

been amalgamated with Canara Bank in the year 2020 and at present it is known as Canara Bank w.e.f. April,2020.

However, the service conditions of banks’ employees were/are governed by Sastri Awards, Desai Awards and

bipartite settlements that have been executed between IBA and unions of bank employees. That as per bipartite

settlement bank employees are entitled to draw overtime allowance for doing works beyond their working hours.

That Central Govt. on the recommendation of the Central Board of RBI vide notification no.3407(E ) dt. 08-11-

2016 declared the then existing series of the Bank Notes of the denomination value of Rs.500 and Rs.1,000 to be

ceased to be legal tender with effect from 09-11-2016 and thus bank notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- denomination

issued by RBI till 08-11-2016 were withdrawn.

So, those bank notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.,1000/- denominations were exchanged for same value at any of the 19

offices of the Reserve Bank of India or at any of the Bank branches or at any Head Post Office or Sub-Post Office.

The time for exchange was allowed up to 30^th December, 2016. Initially restriction was also imposed for exchange per

3488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

person in cash up to Rs. 4,000/-. During the period of denominations RBI issued several instructions to deal with the

situation, later maximum value of Rs.50,000/- of Old High Denomination Bank Notes were allowed to be deposited

on proper proof of identity of the tenderer.

That on announcement of demonetisation on 09-11-2016 there was a mad rush of anxious customers and

general public to deposit/ exchange the notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-. The staff of the bank were pressed hard and

had to work beyond official working hours to cope up with the increased work load and to control and pacify the

disgruntled customers and general public. The bank had to extend its working hours to meet the situation, set up extra

counters to meet the emergency situation. Thus, demonetisation caused hardship not only on the bank staff but also to

customers and general public at large. There was a failure to recalibrate the ATMs for longer period. Sometimes the

bank staff to bear the rage of the customers and general public.

That the situation created by the demonetisation made the employees of the bank worked beyond their

schedule hours or working hours in between 09-11-2016 to 30-11-2016. Even they were made to work on holidays

i.e. on 12^th and 13^th November, 2016. That considering the sudden increase in the volume of work load due to

demonetisation, All India Bank Employees Association and All India Bank Officers Association brought to the notice

of the Chairman of Indian Bank Association regarding the problems faced by them vide letter dt.14-11-2016. The

Indian Bank Association took up the matter with Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance and had issued an adversary

dt.14-11-2016.

That the situation was such that staff and employees of the bank had to work on verbal instruction of its

branch head or departmental head and work beyond the working hours mentioned in the bipartite agreement.

Unfortunately, they were paid over time only for two days i.e. for 12^th and 13^th November, 2016 which were second

Saturday and Sunday but not for the other working days where they were made to work beyond working hours.

That it raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kolkata as regional Head Office failed

to clear the claim of the overtime wages for workmen/staff of different branches during the demonetisation period.

Not only that, the bank issued an order for refund of the overtime wages paid to some of the staff.

Therefore, it has prayed that Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kolkata be directed to release the overtime

wages to all the workmen staff during the period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 and also in view of bipartite

settlement dt.19-102-1966 and pay interest @ 6% on such arrear overtime.

That bank contested the claim of the workmen/staff by filing written statement, where it has alleged that

Syndicate Bank has been amalgamated with Canara Bank in the year 2020 and at present Syndicate Bank is known as

Canara Bank. It has also admitted that by virtue of Indian Bank Association’s letter dt.08-11-2017 the workmen are

entitled to receive payments for overtime work as per the provision of bipartite settlement, if the workman is required

to do overtime works as decided by the management of the bank.

It has also admitted that due to demonetisation there was a heavy rush in the bank for exchange of the

demonetised bank notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- and bank had to open many more extra counters for acceptance

and exchange of heavy notes. That bank had to keep its branches open on holidays i.e. on second Saturday and

Sunday falling on 12^th and 13^th November,2016. Thus, the bank paid overtime allowances to the workmen who

worked on those two holidays.

However, it has denied that it never asked its employees to work beyond office hours during demonetisation

period as cash counter were closed at its normal time i.e. at 4 p.m. That no extra work were done by the employees of

the bank in between 9^th November, 2016 to 30^th December, 2016, except on 12^th and 13^th November,2016. Cash

counters of the bank worked till 4 p.m. and not beyond that. Therefore, it has alleged that claim made by the union is

unfounded and they are not entitled to get any relief.

That the union in its rejoinder categorically denied the contention of the bank the branches of Syndicate

Bank were not affected by demonetisation. The bank used to function at its normal banking hours and no one had to

work beyond banking hours.

The union in support of its claim and case has examined Sri Sirsendu Das, the State Secretary of Canara

Bank Workmen Employees Union, West Bengal as W.W.1 and through him following documents have been

exhibited :-

Letter of authority of W.W.1 as Exhibit–W-1.

Copy of circular of RBI dt.08-11-2016 in respect of demonetisation along with annexures in 19 pages as

Exhibit –W-2.

Copy of joint unions’ letter dt.14-11-2016 to the Chairman, Indian Banks’ Association expressing problems

faced by the employees and officers of the banks due to undue pressure of work caused by demonetisation

scheme, as Exhibit –W-3.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3489

Copy of Ministry of Finance’s letter dt.14-11-2016 to the Chairman, Indian Bank Association as Exhibit –W-

Chapter-14 of bipartite settlement dt.19-10-1966 relating to overtime allowance in 6 pages as Exhibit –W-5.

Copy of union’s letter dt.27-02-2017, 28-03-2017 and 18-07-2018 to the Dy. General Manger, Syndicate

Bank, Regional Office and to the Regional Manager, Kolkata, as Exhibit –W-6, 6/A and 6/B.

Copy of union’s letter dt. 07-9-2018 to DLC (C), Kolkata regarding non-payment of overtime allowance to

the staff for handling demonetisation related work as Exhibit –W-7.

Copy of union’s letters dt.28-03-2019, 29-07-2019 and 20-08-2019 to ALC (C ) relating to non-payment of

overtime by the management of the bank as Exhibit –W-8, 8/A and 8/B.

Copy of letter of Branch Manager, Chinsurha Branch addressed to D.G.M., Regional Office, Kolkata dt.27-

11-2016 as Exhibit –W-9.

10.

Copy of letter of Branch Manager, Chaltia Branch, Berhampore to DGM, Kolkata Region dt.06-12-2016 as

Exhibit –W-10.

11.

Copy of letter dt. 13-12-2016 of Branch Manager, Jadavpur Branch addressed to DGM, Kolkata as Exhibit –

W-11.

12.

Copy of letter dt. 17-12-2016 of Branch Manager, Sibpur Branch addressed to Regional Manager, Kolkata as

Exhibit –W-12.

13.

Copy of letter dt. 19-12-2016 of Branch Manager, Tollygunj Branch addressed to DGM, Kolkata as Exhibit

–W-13.

14.

Copy of letter dt. 27-12-2016 of Branch Manager, TDB College Raniganj Branch addressed to DGM,

Kolkata as Exhibit –W-14.

15.

Copy of letter dt. 30-12-2016 of Branch Manager, Barasat Branch addressed to DGM, Kolkata as Exhibit –

W-15.

16.

Copy of letter dt. 03-02-2017 of AGM addressed to DGM, Kolkata as Exhibited –W-16.

17.

Copy of inter-office memorandum dt.23-03-2017 of DGM addressed to Branch Manager, Raiganj Branch,

Kalupur Branch and Sitalgram Branch seeking recovery of OT paid to them, marked as Exhibit-17, 17/A and

17/B.

18.

Copy of memorandum dt.31-03-2017 of Sitalgram Branch, Birbhum, marked as Exb.W-18.

19.

Copy of representation letter of staff of Siliguri Branch dt.30-03-2017, marked as Exb.W-19.

20.

Copy of Raiganj Branch’s letter dt.27-03-2017 to Sri Abhijit Datta, Sri Amit Kumar Paul and Sri Rahul

Verma, marked as Exb.W-20, 20/A and 20/B.

21.

Copy of IBA’s letter dt.08-11-2017 to all members of the association, marked as Exb.W-21 and

22.

Conciliation failure report dt.21-10-2019, marked as Exb.W-22.

On the other hand the management of Canara Bank has examined Sri Abhisekh Krishna, Senior Manager,

Circle Office, Kolkata as M.W.1 but no documents whatsoever have been produced by the management of the bank in

support of its defence case.

It is fresh in the memory of all the citizens of India, the sudden announcement of demonetization of the

currency notes of Rs.500/-and Rs.1, 000/- denominations w.e.f. 09-11-2016 had taken a back the entire citizens of

country with unexpected surprise and for which the citizen had not only suffered stress, anxiety, mental agony and

uncertainty but also had to stand in a long queue under a scorching heat and in the process many of the citizens had

lost their lives also.

On the other hand, banks are the major institutions affected by demonetisation. Consequently, the employees

of the banking sectors too had to suffer brunt of the unforeseen emergency situation created by the demonetisation

being the sole authorised agency of the RBI to handle the entire exchange scheme. They not only had to face the rage,

anger, frustration of the customers or of those public coming to the branches for exchange of those banned currency

notes but also had to work for hours together beyond their normal working hours putting their health in stake. Such

unforeseen emergency situation also disrupted normal regular function or operation of the bank.

No particular Circulars or guidelines issued by the RBI or by the Chairman of the Indian Bank Association

during the period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 have been produced from the side of the management of the bank

3490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to prove what kind of additional facilities were provided at bank to tackle the emergency situation created by

demonetisation, how to tackle increased work load and what pecuniary benefits was provided to those employees who

were made to work beyond their regular normal working hours and for distress and anxiety they suffered causing risk

to their health.

Further, nothing has come on record to prove which categories of staff were given the additional task of

exchange, whether it were only the Cashiers who deals with cash or some other staff too were given the task of

exchange and in case the regular Cashiers were given the work of exchange then in their place who looked after the

regular cash counters to handle regular business of the bank.

It is a matter of common knowledge bank employees’ shouldered worst impact of demonetisation and

endured hardship of extended working hours and customers’ anger. So, it appears RBI had announced the decision of

demonetisation without any preparation. Most of the bank were not able to discharge other banking services while

exchanging the banned currency note. So, one cannot deny that employees of the bank did not do overtime duty

during demonetisation.

From the materials on record it is seen the situation was such the Branch Managers or the authority

concerned too had failed to issue order specifying names of particular staff of the branch who were specifically

assigned to handle the emergency situation created by the demonetisation.

However, Exb.W-9 to Exb. W-16, (which shall be discussed in details in later part of this award) prove that

Branch Managers of different Branches of Syndicate Bank, had assigned certain section of bank employees to

complete the demonetisation process and for which they have recommended names of those staff mentioned in those

exhibited letters addressed to Dy. General Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata for sanction and approval of payment

of overtime for working during demonetisation. Those exhibited documents prove that to tackle the emergent

situation created by demonetisation not all the employees of the banks were engaged but only a certain number of

employees were given the task of exchange to make Govt. of India’s demonetisation scheme successful within a

period of 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016. More so, it is admitted fact for working extra hours/overtime, there is a specific

provisions for payment of overtime wages in the bipartite settlement.

Thus, this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the bank that it engaged its employees only on12th

and 13^th November, 2016 as per RBI guidelines, which were holidays being second Saturday and Sunday for

demonetisation process, but it is vivid in the memories of the citizens of India, in order to exchange the banned notes

they had to stand in queue for days together to exchange their hard earned money and not only on those two days

which were holidays as alleged by bank.

Further, the Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the bank that it did not have to handle the

exchange of banned currency notes and as such its employees were not required to do overtime work, or that during

demonetisation period Syndicate Bank was not affected and its employees were only required to do the normal duty

and that too within normal banking hours. But, Exb. W-4 shows the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance had approved

the bank staff should be deployed on shift basis, extra care should be given to female staff working late hours and

addition of extra infrastructure should be built to handle the rush of demonetisation. Then, a question arises if the

Syndicate Bank was not affected by demonetisation then why Ministry of Finance had to issue Exb.W-4 to it for

deploying staff on shift basis, extra care for female staff working late hours and addition of extra infrastructure to

handle the rush of demonetisation?

That apart, Exb. W-3 dt. 14-11-2016 reflects the anguish of the entire employees of the bank of both

workmen and officers categories in implementation of the Govt. of India’s scheme to unearth black money. It reflects

how banks were facing public wrath for not being able to exchange the banned currency for want of supply of only

legible currency notes of Rs.100/- and new denominations currency notes of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- by RBI. That

ATM could not be functioned within two days as stipulated in the guidelines issued by the RBI for want of calibration

to accommodate new denominations currency notes of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- of different sizes.

Further, they have informed that the entire employees of the bank have to work beyond their normal

expected capacity and depriving themselves their minimum convenience like lunch etc. and till late in night. The

branches running with the short staff were the worst sufferer. That work had to be distributed in order to lessen the

burden exclusively on the staff who directly handled cash, currency, chest etc. They have expressed that staff should

be deployed on shift basis to handle the extra burden and to ensure payment for extra works along with monthly

salary, necessary machines be provided to detect fake notes and separate arrangements may be made to handle senior

citizens.

In view of the above, Syndicate Bank cannot deny or say that none of its branches had to tackle

demonetisation rush or had to handle demonetisation process and as such none of its staff had to work extra hour and

all its branches discharge its normal business within normal banking hours.

Further, this Tribunal is of view the bank cannot avoid its responsibility by merely saying that the employee

who is assigned to do a particular work is required to finish the work within the schedule working hours and if the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3491

employees fails to complete his task then he is bound to complete the same by remaining in the bank beyond working

hours and for which the employee is not entitled to claim for doing extra works beyond office/banking hours even

during demonetisation period.

Now, let see whether the union is entitled to get overtime wages during the demonetisation period from 09-

11-2016 to 30-12-2016 in respect of all employees of the bank who comes within the category of workmen i.e.

subordinate staff, in the category of Clerical cadre, office attendant and Sweeper etc. or the bank is bound to pay

overtime wages to all its workmen for demonetisation period?

It is true, the bank has failed to produce list of employees who were engaged to handle the work related to

exchange of banned currency notes during demonetisation from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 and their duty hours. It is

the duty of the management of the bank/employer to allot duty to its staff during demonetisation period by issuing an

office order and which is absent in the present case. Nonetheless, from Exb.W-9 to Exb.-W-16 it can be gathered the

bank did not engage all its staff of whatever category during demonetisation period to handle the unforeseen situation

or to handle demonetisation process. That different branches engaged certain number of its employees to handle the

demonetisation process and not all the employees/workmen of all branches of Syndicate Bank, coming under the

jurisdiction of Regional Office, Kolkata as claimed by the union.

No doubt, vide Exb. W-6 series, the union has claimed that all the employees of the bank were made to work

beyond their schedule working hours and had to sit late hours at branches for official works w.e.f. 10-11-2016 till 30-

11-2016. That bank had asked all its employees to extend their service by overstaying in their branches. That some of

the staff of the Regional Office, Kolkata were also sent to different branches to extend their service. That lady staff

were also asked to stay late night, but they were only paid overtime for working only on holidays i.e. on 12^th and 13^th

November, 2016. It is also seen that bank had demanded refund of the overtime paid to its employees. That on such

issue the union had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner vide Exb.W-7, Exb.W-8 and Exb.-

W-8/A.

Exb.W-9 shows Branch Manager, Chinsurah Branch had forwarded the overtime claim for doing work

during demonetisation period submitted by four clerks of its branch to the DGM, Regional Office, Kolkata for

necessary grant of overtime wages.

Exb.W-10 shows Branch Manager, Chalita Branch had forwarded the representation of workmen for

overtime allowances for doing extra hour of works during demonetisation period on 10^th, 11^th, 15^th and 16^th

November, 2016 to the DGM, Regional Office, Kolkata for necessary grant of overtime wages along with the

calculation sheet, but union has failed to furnish the copy of representation of the staff and the calculation sheet to

prove that all workmen category staff of the branch did extra hour works during the above mentioned dates.

Exb.W-11 shows that shows Branch Manager, Jadavpur Branch had forwarded the overtime claim sheet

submitted by workmen/staff for demonetisation work in the month of November, 2016 to the DGM, Regional

Office, Kolkata for necessary grant of overtime wages along with the claim sheet, but union for reason known to it

has failed to furnish the claim sheet to prove that indeed all workmen category staff of the branch did extra hour

works during the above mentioned period to substantiate its claim.

Exb.W-12 shows that shows Branch Manager, Sibpur Branch had forwarded the overtime claim sheet

submitted by workmen/staff for demonetisation work for the period from 10-11-2016 to 31-11-2016 in respect of

three clerks, one attendant and one part time sweeper to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata for

necessary grant of overtime wages. Such letter proves that all workmen category staff of the branch were not engaged

to handle demonetisation process as claimed by union.

Exb.W-13 shows that shows Branch Manager, Tollygunj Branch had forwarded the overtime claim sheet

submitted by workmen/staff for demonetisation work for period from 10-11-2016 to 30-11-2016 to the DGM,

Regional Office, Kolkata for necessary grant of overtime wages. It also discloses that the staff of the branch were

made to work extra three to four hours up to 8-00 p.m. to 9-00 p.m. and requested the DGM to recommend claim for

extra three hours overtime during the above mentioned period. It also discloses payment being made towards

overtime only for 12^th and 13^th November, 2016. The union has failed to furnish the copy of claim sheet to prove all

workmen category staff of the branch were engaged to handle demonetisation works from 10-11-2016 to 30-11-2016.

Exb.W-14 shows that shows Branch Manager, TDB College Branch, Ranigunj had forwarded the overtime

claim sheet submitted by four clerk and one attendant for demonetisation work and certified claim made by

them to be genuine to the Dy. General Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata for necessary grant of overtime wages.

Such letter proves that all workmen category staff of the branch were not engaged to handle demonetisation process

as claimed by union.

Exb.W-15 shows that shows Branch Manager, Barasat Sangam Market Branch had forwarded the

overtime claim along with calculation sheet of clerks and sub-staff for doing overtime late hours duty during

demonetisation work for the period from 10-11-2016 to 30-11-2016 to the Dy. General Manager, Regional Office,

3492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kolkata for sanction of overtime wages, but union failed to annexe the calculation sheet to prove that all workmen

category staff of the branch were engaged to handle demonetisation process as claimed by it.

Exb.W-16 shows that shows Branch Manager, N.S. Road Branch had forwarded the overtime claim sheet

along with calculation sheet submitted by workmen/staff for demonetisation work for the period from 10-11-2016 to

19-11-2016 to the Dy.General Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata for necessary grant of overtime wages along with

necessary guidance, but union has failed to annex the claim sheet along with calculation sheet for the period from 10-

11-2016 to 19-11-2016 to prove all workmen of the branch were engaged during demonetisation to handle the extra

hour works.

Thus, from the above exhibited documents it is seen that Branch Managers, the best persons who can say

which of his/her staff did overtime work during demonetisation period appears to have forwarded their claims for

overtime to the Dy. General Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata for necessary sanction. So, they may be able to draw

bills for overtime and make payment to those concerned workmen.

From the above exhibited documents it is seen that different branches have made claim for doing extra

overtime work during demonetisation not for entire period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 as claimed by the union.

Further, Exb.W-21 shows workmen who did overtime work during demonetisation were entitled to receive payment

for such overtime work as per the provisions of the bipartite settlement.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of view the union is not entitled to get overtime allowance/ wages for all workmen

categories of employees posted at different branches of Syndicate Bank, coming under Regional Office at Kolkata, for

demonetisation period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016. The bank is liable to pay overtime allowances for doing extra

work only to those staff who were actually assigned by the Branch Managers to handle the demonetisation process

and that too only for those days on which they had worked overtime after consulting the official record.

That Exb.W-17, W-17/A, W-17/B, W-18, W-19, W-20, W-20/A and W-20/B show that Syndicate Bank,

Regional Office, Kolkata by issuing those letters in the year 2017 directed Branch Managers of Raigunj Branch,

Kalupur Branch, Sitalagram Branch, Siliguri Branch, to Mr. Abhijit Dutta, Sri Amrit Kumar Paul and Sri Rahul

Verma all employees of N.S. Road Branch, were directed to refund the amount paid to workmen towards overtime

payment for working extra hours during demonetisation period.

Exb.W-22 shows on receiving such refund notices, the union has raised an industrial dispute before Labour

Commissioner, which resulted in failure and thereby this reference.

Exb.W-9 to W-16 prima facie show the concerned Branch Managers who had assigned extra work during

demonetisation period had forwarded the claim of overtime of the concerned staff to the Dy. General Manager,

Regional Office, Kolkata for approval and sanction. In some of those exhibits the Branch Managers had certified the

claim made by concerned workmen to be genuine. In that case, this Tribunal is of view the management of the bank

cannot deny payment of overtime to those workmen who had indeed put their extra labours during chaotic situation

created by demonetisation and more so, Exb.W-21 also corroborates that bank is bound to pay overtime as per

bipartite settlement to those employees who were asked by the management to do the extra work which involves

overtime. Therefore, the bank cannot deny overtime payment to those workmen who had indeed put extra work and

worked for extended period during demonetisation period and bank cannot say that extra work created by

demonetisation falls within the normal duty of a Cashier or a staff of the bank.

Now, question arises whether the bank can ask for refund of the overtime payment by issuing Exb.W-17 to

W-20/B?

The law is settled, any wrong payment, if any, made without the fault of the part of workmen and when no

undertaking of refund was obtained from the workmen at the time of payment can be recovered from the workmen. In

the present case the claims of the workmen were forwarded by the concerned Branch Managers to the Dy.General

Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata for approval and sanction. Therefore, payment, if any, made to those workmen

towards overtime for demonetisation period had been made after obtaining approval and sanction from the Dy.

General Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata. So, Dy. General Manager, Regional Office, Kolkata cannot demand for

refund of the payment approved and sanctioned by him. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that Exb.W-17 to W-20/B to

be illegal and as such those workmen are not bound to refund of payment of overtime for doing extra works during

demonetisation period already received by them wrongly or rightly.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this Tribunal is of view

that all bank staff falling in the category of workmen are not entitled to get overtime payment for demonetisation

period except those workmen who were assigned by the management of the bank to handle demonetisation process

and they too are entitled to get overtime only for those days they worked overtime and not for the entire period from

09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 as claimed by the union. Each Branch of Syndicate Bank falling within the Regional

Office, Kolkata is directed to make payment only to the concerned workman engaged by it during demonetisation

period and who had worked overtime and that too only for those days on which they had worked overtime, after

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3493

consulting official records maintained in the branch during demonetisation period. The payment for overtime should

be made under the provisions of bipartite settlement. The bank’s claim for refund is held illegal.

Accordingly, Reference Case No. 24 of 2019 is disposed of and award to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1567.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a03/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/189/99-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/189/99– IR(B-1I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 03 OF 2001

Parties: The Management of Allahabad Bank

Versus

Shri Moni Kumar Chettry and ten others

Appearance:

On behalf of Allahabad Bank: Absent.

On behalf of the Workmen: Mr. Sanjit Chatterjee, Authorised Representative.

Dated: 1st July, 2024

A W A R D

By order No. L-12011/189/99 –IR (B-II) dated 29-01-2001, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether it is a fact that Sh. Moni Kumar Chettry and 10 other disputants (whose names are given as under)

have worked 240 days or more in12 consecutive months between the period 1^st January, 1982 and 31^st October, 1992

with the management of Allahabad Bank and if so whether they became entitled to be permanently absorbed by the

bank in terms of memorandum of settlement of 1992? If not, what relief are they entitled to?”

The names of those eleven alleged workmen given in reference order are as follows:-

Sh. Moni Kumar Chettry

2. Sh. Subrata Banerjee

Sh. Narayan Dey

4. Sh. Ranjan Ghosh.

Sh. Tanu Roy

6. Sh. Nishakar Sankhua

Sh. Anil Fadikar

8. Sh. Banshi Sarkar.

3494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sh. Bimal Kumar Bose

10. Sh. Banshi Rajak and

11.

Sh. Santanu Sarkar.

It is the case of those 11 persons/alleged workmen that there was a memorandum of settlement executed

between Allahabad Bank and All India Allahabad Bank Employees Coordination Committee on 17-11-1992 u/s 2(p)

and 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for absorption of those persons who were engaged as temporary full

time basis Peon cum Farash/sweeper and who have worked for 240 days or more in a consecutive 12 months between

the period from 01-01-1982 to 31-10-1992. That those temporary full time basis Peon cum Farash/ sweeper who have

completed 90 or more days in between the period from 01-10-1982 to 17-11-1992 were to appear in the selection

process for consideration of their recruitment in the service of the bank as a Peon cum Farash/ Sweeper as the case

may be.

That in pursuance of such settlement 21 daily rated Peons of erstwhile United Industrial Bank Ltd. were

absorbed, but Allahabad Bank have failed to do so. However, the management of Allahabad Bank on the basis of a

memorandum of settlement singed on 10-03-1995 absorbed 16 part time Sweeper/Office Peon cum Farash of

different branches, offices, head office and 3 canteen employees, whose names appeared in the said memorandum of

settlement.

Further, four Sweepers were also absorbed against the permanent vacancies who were working at

International, Mukul Bose Road, Jadavpur Central Park and Aswinini Dutta Road Branches of the bank.

That present workmen who have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year in between 01-

01-1982 to 31-10-1992 were not extended the benefit of the above settlements. Therefore, they have prayed for their

absorption in the permanent service of the bank with full back wages on and from 10-03-1995.

The bank had put appearance and contested the case by filing written statement and where it has alleged that

there exists no industrial dispute between the bank and those alleged workmen. That there was no conciliation

proceeding before the dispute being referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. Therefore, the memorandum of

settlement dt. 17-11-1992 cannot be the basis of an industrial dispute.

That Allahabad Bank being a nationalised bank is governed by its own recruitment rules and which stipulates

that recruitment for subordinate cadre should be through Employment Exchange or by notification in newspapers etc.

by holding test and interview. That the persons named in the order of reference have no right to claim appointment in

the bank bypassing the recruitment rules. That no Officers of the bank are empowered to engage an individual person

to work on temporary basis against a permanent vacancy of a Peon cum Farash.

That in view of the approach paper forwarded by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance dt.16-03-1990, a

memorandum of settlement dt.17-11-1992 was executed with the recognised union of the bank i.e. All India

Allahabad Bank Employees Coordination Committee u/s 2 (p) and 18(1) of the I.D.Act as a onetime full and final

settlement of all the claims and dispute in the matter of persons engaged on temporary basis in the subordinate cadre.

Accordingly, applications were invited from the eligible persons, by issuing internal circulars and also by

making advertisements in the employment news and regional news daily. That none of those 11 claimants have

availed the opportunity and therefore they are stopped from making any claim which is after-thought, non-germane

and speculative in nature. They intend to procure a permanent service in the bank through back door entry and by

practicing fraud. That those 11 applicants were never engaged by the bank as Peon cum Farash and that too against

permanent vacancies. Thus, it has alleged the claim of the applicants being speculative is liable to be rejected.

Those applicants in their rejoinder have alleged that they have moved the Hon’ble High Court in writ

jurisdiction and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to uphold existence of an industrial dispute between them and

management of bank and directed Govt. of India to refer the grievances of those 11 applicants for redressal to Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata.

That those 11 applicants having put more than 240days of continuous service to the different branches of the

bank in a calendar year are entitled to absorption and regularisation in the permanent posts of subordinate staff of the

bank.

Therefore, they have prayed for rejection of the contention of the bank.

Those workmen in order to prove their case have examined among them Sri Tanu Roy, as W.W. 1, Sri

Bimakl Kumar Bose as W.W.2 and Sri Subrata Banerjee as W.W.3.

That record shows that management has filed evidence in chief on affidavit of one Sri Tapan Kumar Gayen,

one of the Officers of Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata Metro but has failed to tender his evidence and

produced him for cross examination by the workmen. Therefore, such evidence of Sri Tapan Kumar Gayen is not

taken into consideration for determination of the present dispute.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3495

The order sheet dt.25-06-2007 shows that following documents produced from both sides have been marked

as exhibits on formal proof being dispensed with.

(1) The memorandum of settlement dt.17-11-1992 between bank and AIABCC as Exb.W-1,

(2) Circular dt.06-08-1990 of the Ministry of Finance, Banking Divison, New Delhi as Exb.W-2,

(3) Memorandum of Settlement dt.10-03-1995 as Exbhibit-W-3 and

(4) Copy of letter dt. 25-08-1987 of Manager, Santipur Branch as Exb. W-4.

(a) Copy of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance circular dt.06-08-1990 as Exb.M-1,

(b) Memorandum of Settlement dt.17-11-1992 as Exb.M-2,

(d) Order of the Hon’ble High Court dt.22-09-2000 as Exb.M-4 and

(e) Circular dt.08-02-1993 issued by Allahabad Bank, Head Quarter as Exb.M-5.

Perused the oral evidence of the three alleged workmen namely Sri Tanu Roy, Sri Bimal Kumar

Bose and Sri Subrata Banerjee. They in their evidence have merely stated working for more than 240 days in a

calendar year as a part time subordinate staff in different branches of Allahabad Bank in between 1982 and 1992 and

also thereafter, but none of them was able to substantiate their such claim by producing cogent documentary evidence

such as attendance register, payment vouchers or any such document from where it can be seen indeed they were

engaged by Allahabad Bank to work at its different branches as a part time subordinate cadre staff on temporary basis

or as a daily rated worker before 1992 and after 1982 and they were deprived of the benefit of settlement dt. 17-11-

1992 or 10^th March, 1995 despite having required qualification. No doubt Exb.W-4 shows that Sri Bimal Kumar Bose

and Sri Banshi Sarkar were working as temporary Peon cum Farash at Santipur Branch of Allahabad Bank for more

than three years on 25-08-1987. Such letter speaks about payment being made to them by vouchers through

permanent employees of the branch, but they were unable to produce vouchers to substantiate the contents of Exb.W-

Thus, nothing is there in the record apart from oral evidence of those three witnesses to prove that there

existed relationship of employer and employee in any form whatsoever in between those 11 persons/ alleged

workmen and Allahabad Bank at any point of time. Therefore, this Tribunal is of view in the absence of proof of

existence of relationship of employer and employee in between the bank and those 11 persons, question of existence

of an industrial dispute between them does not arise.

In fact it appears that those 11 persons have raised the present industrial dispute for deprivation of absorption

in the regular posts of subordinate cadre of Allahabad Bank on the basis of the alleged memorandum of settlement

which took place on 17-11-1992 and by virtue of which Allahabad Bank had absorbed those temporary employees

completing 240 days in consecutive 12 months in between the period from 01-01-1982 to 31-10-1992 and those who

have worked for more than 90 days in between 01-01-1982 to 31-10-1992 and cleared the selection process.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of view the claim and case of the applicants appear to be speculative based on the

settlement dt.17-11-1992 and when they have failed to prove existence of employer-employee relationship between

them and the bank.

That apart, the Hon’ble High Court in State of Karnataka –vs- Uma Devi & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1806 held

““There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual

basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to

be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the

requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees

employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed.

That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even

though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.”

That Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193 has

considered the scope of regularisation, of irregular or part time appointment and held that even temporary, ad hoc or

daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to

claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for

passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. Even where a scheme is formulated for

regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years

of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed

subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off

date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. Part-time employees are

not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction

3496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. Part-time temporary

employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot

be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part time temporary employees.

In the present case those 11 applicants or alleged workmen have failed to prove their service with Allahabad

Bank in any capacity prior to execution of memorandum of settlement dt.17-11-1992 or existence of sanctioned

vacant posts in the subordinate cadre against which they are seeking absorption or they used to work against the

sanctioned vacant posts.

Therefore, in view of the above the present reference is not maintainable being speculative and alleged

workmen are not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, Reference Case no. 03 of 2001 is dismissed and an award to

that effect is passed

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1568.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a20/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/36/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2024

S.O. 1568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/36/2019– IR(B-1I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 20 OF 2019

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

The Management of UCO Bank

AND

Their Workman Tarakeswar Rewani and another

Appearance:

On behalf of the UCO Bank: Mr. Sachetan Ghosh, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Workmen : Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Ld Advocate

Dated: 13^thJune, 2024

A W A R D

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12011/36/2019- IR(B-II) dated 04-10-2019 in exercise

of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) & 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 UCO Bank, Main Retail Branch, 10, B.T.M. Kolkata in

terminating the services of Sh. Tarakeshwar Rewani & Sh. Monoj Kumar, Casual Safai Karmachari (working for

more than 13 years ) from the last month of 2014 and non-regularisation of their services whereas services of their

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3497

juniors Sh. Sukanta Ghosh and Sh. Prabir Chatterjee, Casual Safai Karmachari were regularised, is legal and justified?

If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The materials on record show the present reference case has been pursued only by workman Sri Tarakeshwar

Rewani and not by his co-worker Sri Monoj Kumar. Therefore, Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani in his claim statement has

stated that he was engaged by the bank as a Safai Karmachari on 14-10-2001. That he was never issued any

appointment letter. He was asked to do not only job of a Sweeper but some time as per the need of the bank he was

also assigned to do the job of a Messenger. That he discharged his duty sincerely and diligently from the date of his

appointment i.e. on 14-10-2001 till 31-12-2014.

That he was paid Rsd.249/- per day for doing the work of part time Sweeper from 6-30 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. and

for the other works he was paid Rs.80/- per day. That he was discharging perennial nature of job of a sweeper cum

messenger. That he rendered his continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year for about 13 years. That

he was even paid bonus by the bank.

He has alleged that bank absorbed and regularized the services of some casual employees who were junior to

him and he was verbally terminated by the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank from the service of a casual

Sweeper in violation of section 2(oo) read with section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Therefore, he has prayed that his termination may be declared as illegal and arbitrary. Further prayed the

management of the Bank be directed to reinstate him and regularize his service with full back wages.

Such claim of the workmen has been contested by the bank filing written objection where it has alleged that

the union which has espoused the dispute has no locustandi to raise the dispute on behalf of the concerned workmen.

(Here I like to mention that order of reference itself proves the present dispute has not been espoused by any

union rather by the two concerned workmen challenging their termination and which reflect unmindful of the

person who drafted and signed the written statement on behalf of the Bank.

Further, it is very interesting to note that paragraph 4 of the written statement filed by the bank

speaks about plaintiffs and defendants and about an agreement dt.10-12-2007. So, I find that paragraph 4 is

the copy/pest of some other pleadings as in this Industrial Tribunal the parties are not referred as Plaintiff and

Defendant. More so, in the present dispute subject matter is not an agreement dt.10-12-2007. It very

unfortunate that whoever has filed and signed such written statement on behalf of the bank did not bother to

check the contents of the written statement containing irrelevant statement. There is not only such irrelevant

contents in the written statement, but the evidence of Sri Moloy Kumar Kayal, Sr. Manager contains a

paragraph which is being pen-through. It is not known how Ld. Counsel for the bank could file a pen-through

evidence in chief of the management witness).

Be that as it may, the case of the bank is that it engaged Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani as a Badli employee and his

name does not bear in the master roll of the bank. The workman was never in continuous service even for seven days

and question of his putting uninterrupted service to the bank for 13 years and his termination on 31-12-2014 is

baseless. That the concerned workman never worked for more than 240 days. Therefore, he is not entitled to any

relief. Thus, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

The workman in order to substantiate his case and claim has examined himself as W.W.1 and filed following

documents in support of his claim:-

Particulars of Sweeper working in the Kolkata Zone as on 31-12-2008 and which has been marked

as Exb. W-1.

Details of Casual Sweepers working in Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch and Mid-Corporate Branch

(previously in Kolkata Main Branch) as on 01-08-2008 which has been marked as Exb. W-1/A.

Copy of vouchers dt. 26-08-2006, 22-07-2006, 25-01-2007, 31-03-2007, 04-05-2007, 18-08-2007,

18-09-2007, 22-09-2007, 29-12-2007 and 25-07-2009 along with the list of names of casual

sweepers to whom payment were made through those vouchers and which have been marked as

Exb. W-2 to W-2/Q.

Copy of Bank’s letter dt. 01-03-2008 to its Chief Security Officer and which has been marked as

Exb. W-3.

Copy of Banks letter dt. 10-05-2008 addressed to Sr. Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. which

has been marked as Exb.W-3/A.

Bank’s letter dt. 16-06-2008 addressed to the Manager, S.B.I., which has been marked as Exb.

W-3/B.

Copy of Memorandum dt.29-10-2008 regarding regularisation of Casual Sweepers working on daily

wages as Consolidated Wage Sweepers, which has been marked as Exb.W-4.

3498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Copy of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance’s letter dt.18-09-2008 addressed to the Chairman &

Managing Director, UCO Bank, for regularization of casual sweeper working on daily wages as

consolidated wage sweepers and which has been marked as Exb.W-5.

Copy of Bank’s letter dt. 09-08-2008 addressed to the Jt. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of

Finance, regarding regularization of casual sweeper working on daily wages as consolidated wage

sweepers and which has been marked as Exb.W-5/A.

10.

Copy of AGM’s letter dt.26-03-2009 addressed to the Zonal Office, Kolkata and which has been

marked as Exb.W-6.

11.

Copy of Internal letter of the bank dt.25-03-2009 regarding sweepers posted in the branch and

which has been marked as Exb.W-7.

12.

Copy of Bank’s letter dt.08-01-2014 regarding regularisation of casual sweepers engaged prior to

31-12-2008 as Consolidated Wage Sweeper and which has been marked as Exb.W-8.

13.

Copy of representation of the concerned workman dt.10-10-2017 addressed to the Asst. General

Manager, UCO Bank and which has been marked as Exb.W-9.

14.

Copy of Central Bank of India’s circular dt.14-08-2012 regarding Memorandum of Settlement in

three pages and which has been marked as Exb.W-10.

15.

Copy of letter dt.14-08-2012 of Central Bank of India regarding recruitment of Safai Karmachari

cum Sub-staff/or Sub-staff and which has been marked as Exb.W-11.

16.

Copy of Union’s letter dt.06-11-2017 addressed to the R.L.C. (Central), Kolkata regarding

regularisation of the post of Safai Karmachari in UCO Bank and which has been marked as Exb.W-

12.

17.

Copy of UCO Bank’s letter dt.25-09-2018 to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata in

connection to an industrial dispute raised by the union over unfair labour practice and which has

been marked as Exb.W-13.

18.

Copy of notice of hearing of A.L.C. (C), Kolkata to the Asst. General Manager, UCO Bank dt.13-

12-2017, 05-02-2018, 14-03-2018, 02-05-2018, 21-05-2018 and 26-07-2018, which have been

marked as Exb.W- 14 to W-14/E and

19.

Copy of conciliation proceeding dt.04-03-2019 before A.L.C. (C), Kolkata, which has been marked

as Exb.W-15.

On the other hand the management has examined Sri Moloy Kumar Koyal, Sr. Manager as M.W. 1 and

exhibited his letters of authority as Exb.M-1.

Ld. Counsel for the workmen files written notes of argument and cited the following decisions:-

Chennai Port Trust –vs- Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association

&Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 202,

Durgapur Casual Workers Union &Ors. –vs- Food Corporation of India &Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 786,

Umrala Gram Panchayat –vs- Secretary, Municipal Employees Union &Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 775,

Ajaypal Singh –vs- Haryana Warehousing Corpn, (2015) 6 SCC 321,

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & Anrs. –vs- Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatan,

(2009) 8 SCC 556,

Mintu Kumar –vs- Management of Punjab National Bank Zonal Office, LAWS (SC) 2019 1 429,

Gammon India Ltd. –vs- Niranjan Dass (1984) 1 SCC 509,

8. Tapash Kumar Paul –vs- B.S.N.L. & Anr. (2014) 15 SCC 313,

Mohan Lal –vs- Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981) 3 SCC 225 and

10.

Deepali Gundu Surwase –vs- Kranti Junionr Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED) &Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324.

The Bank has also filed written notes of argument and cited only Secretary, State of Karnataka –vs-

Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 in support of its case.

It is admitted fact that Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani was engaged by bank to do the job of Safair Karmachari, but

bank has alleged he was engaged as a Badli and not as a casual or part time Sweeper as contended by the workman.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3499

The workman has alleged that he had rendered the job of a part time Safai Karmachari to the bank from 2001

till his illegal retrenchment in the month of December,2014. Further, he has alleged that he has worked for more than

240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, he was retrenched without following the legal procedure as provided in the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In view of above contention of the parties, it becomes necessary to find out whether the concerned workman

was engaged by the Bank as a badli or as a casual sweeper on daily wages?

The workman in his cross examination has admitted that he was paid on ‘no work no pay’ basis. That he was

paid Rs.249/- per day on the day he was terminated. That no provident fund was deducted from his wages but he was

paid bonus by the bank. That he was not entitled to any kind of leave and he was not required to attend the bank on

normal holidays. That he was not paid wages the day he used to remain absent from duty. However, he stated that he

had to report for duty before Sri Santanu Roy Chowdhury, Staff Section, Sr. Manager, Sri T. Saha, Staff Mr. Madan

Gopal Ram and Sri Prabhat Ghosh, his In-charge. That Sri Prabhat Ghosh used to prepare his wage voucher. That he

was engaged by the bank in place of Sri Baijnath who was transferred to the head office. That in the year 2008 casual

workmen were made permanent but he was not.

On the other hand, M.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that concerned workman was a Badli worker,

he never worked for more than 240 days. The payment was made to the workman through vouchers for the day he

was engaged. However, he has admitted that Exb.W-1/A bears seal and signature of the bank and its officials and

issued by the bank.

Perused the document Exb. W-1/A, admitted by M.W. 1 being issued by the Bank. Exb. W-1/A appears to

be the list and details of Casual Sweepers working in Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch and Mid-Corporate Branch as on

01-08-2008. The name of one Tarak Rewani appears against serial no.4 of such list and he was engaged by the bank

as casual sweeper on 14-10-2001 in place of Baij. N. Das, who was transferred to Head Office in September 2001.

That Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani was still working in KOl. Main Retail and whose date of birth to be 01-02-1982.

Here, a question may raise whether the said Tarak Rewani and the concerned workman Tarakeswar Rewani

is the same person or not?

Ext. W-1 particulars of Sweeper working in the UCO Bank, Kolkata Zone as on 31-12-2008 bears name of

one Tarakeswar Rewani as a casual sweeper working in Main(Retail) being engaged on 14-10-2001 and whose date

of birth to be 01-02-1982. So, comparing data of casual sweepers of UCO Bank Main (Retail) Branch appearing in

both Exb. W-1 and W-1/A, it is seen the date of birth, date of joining as casual sweeper and place of positing of both

Tarak Rewani and Tarakeswar Rewani are same. Therefore, it can be safely uphold that Tarak Rewani and

Tarakeshwar Rewani is same and one person.

That Exb. W-1 and W-1/A show that Tarakeshwar Rewani had joined UCO Bank Main (Retail) Branch on

14-10-2001 in place of a permanent sweeper named Baijnath Das who was transferred to head office of the bank in

the month of September, 2001 and that Tarakeshwar Rewani was still working at Main (Retail) Branch as a casual

sweeper on 31-12-2008. Such documents do not disclose that Tarakeshwar Rewani was engaged as a Badli.

Further M.W.no.1 has admitted that Exb.W-3 a letter dt. 01-03-2008 was issued by AGM, UCO Bank

Kolkata Main Branch to the Chief Security Officer, Head Office, Security Department.

Exb. W-3 shows that Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Kolkata Main Branch had written to the Chief

Security Officer, Head Office, Security Department, Kolkata on 01-03-2008 informing that to keep vigilance over the

renovation work at Kolkata Main Branch on Saturday night dated 01-03-2008 and on Sunday full day and night to

complete the renovation work, he had deputed Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani, Sri Binod Routh and Sri Soumen Mondal.

That as per exhibit W-1 and W-1/A, all these three persons were casual sweepers of the UCO Bank, Kolkata Main

(Retail) Branch. More so, Exb.W-3 does not describe the designation of those three persons deputed to keep vigil over

renovation work of main branch.

M.W.1 has further admitted that Exb.W-3/A and 3/B are two letters issued by the bank in favour of

concerned workman Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani. Exb. W-3/A dated 10-05-2008 shows that Sr. Manager of Main

(Retail) Branch of the bank had authorised Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani to collect the cheque from Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ltd. Exb. W-3/B further shows that Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Main Branch authorised Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani to

collect pay order from SBI, Commercial Branch, Kolkata on 16-06-2008. Thus, Exb.W-3/A and 3/B substantiate the

claim of the workman that he was not only made to work as a casual sweeper in the bank but also as a messenger too

as per the need of the bank.

M.W.1, Manager of the Bank has also admitted that Exb.W-6, W-7 and W-8 were issued by the bank.

Exb.W-6 and Exb.W-7 are copy of AGM’s letters dt.26-03-2009 and dt.25-03-2009 addressed to the Zonal Office,

Kolkata and which reflect needs of more sweepers to clean the Main Branch which was extended after renovation and

detailed particulars of casual sweepers working in the said branch including their date of engagement being forwarded

by AGM and which includes name of Tarakeshwar Rewani working at Kolkata Main (Retail) as 1/3^rd Casual

3500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sweeper. Exb.W-8 copy of General Manager (HRM/PHD/OL/Training)‘s letter dt.08-01-2014 addressed to Zonal

Manager, Suri Zone shows regularisation of two casual sweepers namely Sri Jagananth Das and Sri Rahul Balmiki

engaged prior to 31-12-2008 as Consolidated Wage Sweeper. Unfortunately, M.W.1 expressed his ignorance about

regularisation of other casual employees by the bank. Further, he has expressed his ignorance about regularisation of

all workmen named in Exb.-W-1 except the concerned workman Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani. Therefore, it can be said

that M.W.1 has deposed suppressing the actual facts. Therefore, his evidence that Tarakeshwar Rewani was a Badli is

unfounded. More so, he has stated that he has not filed any rules and regulation concerning Badli workers. Exb. W-1

and W-1/A show that Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani was engaged on 14-10-2001 in place of Sri Baijnath Das who was

transferred to head office on September,2001 in Kolkata Main Branch as a casual sweeper and not as a Badli as

alleged by the bank and M.W.1.

Exb. W-6 & W-7 copy of AGM’s letters dt.26-03-2009 and dt.25-03-2009 addressed to the Zonal Office,

Kolkata reflect need of engagement of casual sweeper to sweep the renovated Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch which

involves sweeping of not only two separate basement cells (Locker and Currency Chest), one mezzanine floor,

premises at 1^st floor, premises at ground floor including the staircase etc. but also the glasses, glass doors and glass

counters within the time frame of 7 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. i.e. before business of the bank starts. The entire sweeping

cleaning process has to be completed at 9-45 a.m. and there is necessity for engagement of sweepers. Therefore, from

such letters of AGM of Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch the job of sweeping and keeping the bank premises clean daily

on working days of the bank to impress upon valued customers is a perennial nature of job. So, it appears the bank

used to get such perennial nature of job by engaging a casual sweeper or part time sweeper or daily wage sweeper and

such very fact suggest indulgence of bank in unfair labour practice by engaging casual sweeper against the permanent

post of sweeper.

Exb. W-5/A Bank’s letter dt. 09-08-2008 addressed to the Jt. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,

shows the bank had sought clearance for regularization of eligible casual sweeper working on daily wages in the

regular employment of the bank as consolidated wage sweepers as approved by the Board of Directors.

Exb.W-5. Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance’s letter dt.18-09-2008 addressed to the Chairman & Managing

Director, UCO Bank, shows that bank was allowed to regularize of eligible casual sweeper working on daily wages in

the regular employment of the bank as consolidated wage sweepers but only after framing H.R. policies and

procedure for appointment as indicated in the D.O. letter no.7/48/2004-BOA dt. 22-02-2005 of Ministry of Finance,

Govt. of India.

Thus, from Exb. W-5 and W-5/A it is seen that bank was permitted to regularize the service of eligible casual

sweeper working on daily wages after framing H.R. policies and procedure for appointment as indicated in the D.O.

letter no.7/48/2004-BOA dt. 22-02-2005 of Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

Nothing has come on record to show what was the recruitment policy framed by UCO Bank, Kolkata Main

(Retail) Branch for regularisation of casual sweeper in bank’s regular employment as Consolidated Wage Sweepers in

pursuance of Exb.W-4, W-5 and W-5/A.

Nothing has come from the side of the management of the bank the reason behind non-regularisation of the

service of the Tarakeshwar Rewani, casual sweeper who was working at UCO Bank, Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch

in view of Exb.W-5 and W-5/A dated August and September,2008 or that Tarakeshwar Rewani had no qualification

or eligibility for regularization of his service as Consolidated Wage Sweeper.

Exb. W-2 to W-2/Q, copy of vouchers dt. 26-08-2006, 22-07-2006, 25-01-2007, 31-03-2007, 04-05-2007,

18-08-2007, 18-09-2007, 22-09-2007, 29-12-2007 and 25-07-2009 along with the list of names of casual sweepers to

whom payment were made through those vouchers prima facie prove that Tarakeshwar Rewani was a casual sweeper

at Calcutta Main (Retail) Branch of the bank since 2006 till 2009. Such vouchers corroborate the case of the

workman that he was engaged by the bank as a casual sweeper and also the contents of Exb.W-1 and W-1/A.

From the contents of Exb. W-6 and W-7 both dt. March,2009 it is seen due to the extension of Kolkata Main

Branch there was necessity to engage or requirement of casual sweeper in addition to three full time sweepers to

sweep and clean the branch by 9-45 a.m. and before the start of the banking hours at 10-00 a.m. Such facts leave no

room for doubt that bank had indeed engaged Tarakeshwar Rewani beyond 240 days in a year i.e. during the working

days of the bank. Exb. W-3 shows the bank used to take service of Tarakeshwar Rewani even during holidays as per

their need. So, it is not known how the bank could say that Tarakeshwar Rewani was a Badli and not a casual sweeper

and which they have admitted in their own documents Exb.W-1, W-1/A, W-2 series, W-3, W-3/A, W-3/B. More so,

the bank has failed to produce attendance register of its permanent sweepers of its Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch to

prove during the absence of permanent sweepers it used to engage Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani as Badli.

The above discussed exhibited documents leave no room for doubt that Tarakeshwar Rewani was engaged

by bank as a casual sweeper on 14-10-2001 and not as a Badli as alleged.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3501

That a question may arise that Exb.W-2 series show payment being made to the casual sweeper only for few

days in a month and if that be so how one can say that Tarakeshwar Rewani was engaged for more than 240 days in a

year.

Answer to this question lies in Exb.W- Exb.-W-6 and W-7 and which show there were 13 permanent

sweepers and one casual sweeper working in Kolkata Main Branch as on 01-01-2000. Subsequently, the number of

sweeper was reduced to 7 as on 01-10-2001 on account of death, retirement, transfer and VRS. That on 4^th October,

2001, the then Assistant General Manager decided to engage casual sweeper in place of permanent vacancies for

smooth cleaning of the branch to impress upon the valued customers. Thereafter, casual sweepers have been working

in the branch in addition to full time sweepers as required by the branch. The number of casual sweepers never

exceeded 4 in addition to full time sweepers till 12-05-2007. On 14-05-2007 Kolkata Main Branch was bifurcated to

Kolkata Main (Retail) and Mid-Corporate Kolkata and sweepers along with casual sweepers were placed in

accordance with office order issued by the then Assistant General Manager. Since then, three casual sweepers have

been working in Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch in addition to three full time sweepers but after renovation of Kolkata

Main (Retail) Branch sweeping involves not only to separate basement cells (Locker and Currency Chest), one

mezzanine floor, premises at 1^st floor, premises at ground floor including the staircase etc. but also the glasses, glass

doors and glass counters within the time frame of 7 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. i.e. before business of the bank starts. The entire

sweeping cleaning process has to be completed at 9-45 a.m. and there is necessity for engagement of casual sweepers.

From such letter of the bank it appears that in view of the decision taken by the then Asst. General Manager

to engage casual sweeper in place of permanent vacancy on 04-10-2001, Tarakeshwar Rewani was engaged as a

casual on 14-10-2001 in place of permanent vacancy created due to the transfer of permanent sweeper Baijnath Das

to head office in the month of September,2001 and which also stands corroborated by Exb.W-1 and W-1/A.

The e-mail of Chief Manager, UCO Bank attached to Exb.W-7 further discloses that Sri Tarakeshwar

Rewani was working at Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch as 1/3^rd casual sweeper against permanent vacancy and which

also proves the job done by Tarakeshwar Rewani was of a perennial nature, normally done by a regular permanent

subordinate staff of the bank in the category of sweeper.

Exb. W-5/A dated 09-08-2008 relating to regularization of casual sweeper as Consolidated Wage Sweeper

show the Board of Director of the bank decided to regularize casual sweeper who are working on daily wages in

different branches in the regular employment of the bank as Consolidated Wage Sweepers and convert the part time

sweeper as full time sweeper or sweeper cum Peon in the regular employment of the bank. Formulated the eligibility

criteria and decided to regularize only those casual sweepers on daily wages who have put 240 days or more with or

without interruption during the period of one year immediately preceding the date of Bank’s Circular to be issued in

this regard. For the purpose of computing 240 days, holidays and Sundays in a week would be included if such person

has been engaged for the rest of the days on the said week. There was a relaxation of age also and fixed the age should

be between 18 years to 60 years. Educational qualification above VI standard should not be bar but no benefit will be

given for higher qualification and would follow the guidelines regarding reservation of vacancies for SC/ST/OBC

candidates.

Exb. W-12 dt.06-11-2017 shows that National Union of Bank Employees had raised an industrial dispute

before R.L.C, Kolkata for non-absorption and non-regularization of casual sweeper named Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani

and Sri Monoj Kumar, who were engaged in the year 2001 as casual sweeper by the bank and whose service have

been discontinued by the bank from December, 2014 without complying the provision of section 25-B and 25-F of

I.D. Act and for regularizing junior casual sweeper named Sri Sukanta Ghosh and Sri Prabir Chatterjee who were

engaged as casual by the bank in the year 2007 and 2001 and therefore requested to impose penalty against the

management of bank for unfair labour practice.

Exb. W-14 series are the notice of the Asst. Labour Commissioner to the bank for its appearance in a

conciliation proceeding of industrial dispute raised by National Union of Bank Employees over unfair labour practice

in non-regularisation of Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani and Sri Monoj Kumar and for their illegal termination without due

compliance of statutory provisions of the Act of 1947.

Since it is the case of the concerned workman that he was retrenched by the bank from the service of casual

sweeper in the month of December,2014. Then he was not in service of the bank in any capacity on the date of

reference of his dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication on 04-10-2019. Therefore, the workman cannot seek

regularization or absorption in permanent post of Sweeper by passing over the recruitment rules, if any, of the bank

on the basis of his past service as a casual sweeper.

However, the documentary evidence and oral evidence of the witnesses discussed above it becomes clear

that Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani was never appointed as a Badli as alleged by the bank rather he was engaged as a casual

sweeper on 14-10-2001 against the permanent vacancy arising out of transfer of permanent sweeper Baijnath Das to

head office in the month of September,2001. That due to expansion of Kolkata Main (Retail) Branch the management

of the said branch expressed necessity to engage casual sweepers to clean the premises of the branch before the start

of banking hours at 10-00 a.m. That exhibited documents further prove that Tarakeshwar Rewani was not only

3502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rendering his service as a casual sweeper but also as a messenger of the bank during banking/ working days and also

during the bank holidays to keep vigil over the renovation work of the main branch in the year 2008. Therefore, it can

be safely assumed that he had indeed rendered more than 240 days service in a calendar year to the bank.

Thus, in view of provision of section 25-B of the I.D. Act, he having rendered more than 240 days service in

a calendar year is/was deemed to be in continuous service of the bank as a casual sweeper. Therefore, in view of

provisions of section 25-F of the Act, the bank cannot terminate the service of Sri Tarakeshwar Rewani by

discontinuing his service or by preventing him from discharging his duty without giving one month’s notice in writing

indicating the reason for retrenchment or without making payment of wages for the period of notice. Further, without

making payment of retrenchment compensation.

The concerned workman having put more than 240 days in a calendar year as a casual sweeper to do the

perennial nature job of the bank and he having engaged in place of permanent sweeper Sri Baijnath Das who was

transferred to head office in the month of September, 2001 is deemed to have been rendered continuous service to the

bank as a casual sweeper. Therefore, he is entitled to get one month’s wage and retrenchment compensation from the

bank in view of provision of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and which bank has failed to pay.

Therefore, the concerned workman is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six

Lakh) for his illegal retrenchment. The bank is directed to pay the compensation within one month from the date

hereof failing which the workman shall be at liberty to get the order executed as per law. Accordingly Reference

No.20 of 2019 is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Office

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1569.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मुंबई ृोटष रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua. II eqEcbZ ds iapkV (a19/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-31011/1/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.19/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. II Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai

Port Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-31011/1/2011– IR(B-1I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/19 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust,

Port House, Ballard Estate,

Mumbai- 400038.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3503

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The General Secretary,

Mumbai Port Trust Engineers’ Guild,

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan,

Nawab Tank Road,

Mazgaon, Mumbai –10.

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

Mr. Umesh Nabar

Advocate

Party No. 2

Mr. V. Randive

Representative

AWARD

(Delivered on 10-07-2024)

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

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

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-31011/1/2011 – IR (B-II) dated 18.04.2012. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

`Whether the demand of the Mumbai Port Trust Engineers `Guild for the grant of pay scale of Rs. 9100-

15100 to the Junior Engineers of Electrical Stream on their financial upgradation as given to the Junior

Engineers Gr. III of Mechanical Stream on financial upgradation under ACP Scheme is legal, just and

proper? What relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?`

Read application Ex-17 filed by the Second Party Union. None present for the Second Party. Mr. Nabar

Advocate present for the First Party. It appears that, the dispute involved in the Reference has been already resolved

therefore the Second Party Union is not interested to prosecute the Reference further. Second Party Union therefore

requested for withdrawal of the Reference. The Counsel for the First Party has given no objection for withdrawal of

the Reference. In view of this, the Reference is disposed off as withdrawn. No order as to costs. The proceeding is

closed. An award be drawn accordingly.

ORDER

i. The Reference is answered in negative.

ii. The Second Party no. 2 is not entitled for any relief as

claimed.

iii. No order as to costs.

iv. The award be sent to the Government.

Date: 10-07-2024

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1570.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मुंबई ृोटष रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua. II eqEcbZ ds iapkV (a45/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-31011/12/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

3504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.45/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II

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

their workmen.

[No. L-31011/12/2011– IR(B-1I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/45 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust,

Port Bhawan, S.V. Marg,

Mumbai-1.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The Secretary,

Mumbai Port Trust, Dock and General

Employees’ Union,

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan,

Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon,

Mumbai – 400010

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

Mr. Umesh Nabar

Advocate

Party No. 2

Mr. V. Randive

Representative

AWARD

(Delivered on 10-07-2024)

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

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

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-31011/12/2011 – IR (B-II) dated 26.09.2012. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the demand of the Mumbai Port Trust, Dock and General Employees `Union, Mumbai for Jr.

Engineers Gr. I to be given promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer Class-I, on the basis of experience of

5 years is just and proper? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

Read application Ex-12 filed by the Secretary of Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees’ Union

verified Mr. Vijay Randive Secretary in person. Mr. Nabar Advocate present for the First Party. It appears that, the

dispute involved in the Reference has been resolved therefore the Second Party Union requested for disposal of

Reference as withdrawn. The Counsel for the First Party has given no objection for disposal of the Reference. In view

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3505

of this, the Reference is disposed off as withdrawn. No order as to costs. The proceeding is closed. An award be

drawn accordingly.

ORDER

i. The Reference is answered in negative.

ii. The Second Party no. 2 is not entitled for any relief as claimed.

iii. No order as to cost.

iv. The award be sent to the Government.

Date: 10-07-2024

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1571.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेससष एस एंड आईबी सर्वषसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मेससष ृीवीएस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मेससष ओठर न जसक् ोठरटी

सॉल् ूिंस, मेससष िी4एस जलजमटेड, े सभी एजक्सस बैंक जलजमटेड के ेकेिार िैं। ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj

muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a39/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/36/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.39/2015) 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. S & II Service Pvt. Ltd.,M/PVS

Pvt. Ltd,M/S Orion Secrurity solutions, M/ S G4S Ltd. All contractors of Axis Bank Ltd. and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/36/2015– IR(B-1I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 39 OF 2015

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd.,

M/S PV/S Pvt. Ltd,

M/S Orion Security Solutions,

M/S G4S Ltd. all contractors of Axis Bank Ltd.

AND

Their Union, Bank Employees’ Federation, West Bengal

Appearance :

On behalf of M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd.: Mr. Tapan Kumar Chakraborty, A.R.

On behalf of M/s. PVS Pvt. Ltd.: Mr. Kaustav Sanyal A.R.

On behalf of M/s. Orion Security Solutions: Absent

3506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On behalf of M/s. G4S Ltd.: Absent

On behalf of Axis Bank: Absent

On behalf of the Union

: Mr. Sudipta Saha Roy , A.R..

Dated: 6th June, 2024

A W A R D

By order No. L-12011/36/2015 –IR(B-I) dated 03-07-2015, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of M/s. S & IB Service Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PVS Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Orion Security Solutions and

M/s. G4S Ltd., contractors of Axis Bank Ltd. is justified in denying (i) Conveyance Allowance, (ii) Gun Allowance

and (iii) Special Allowance to the contractual workmen is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

The facts giving rise to the present reference in brief are that Axis Bank has engaged contractors namely M/s.

S & IB Service Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PVS Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Orion Security Solutions and M/s. G4S Ltd. for supply of security

guards at its different ATMs and branches. The contractors used to pay allowances namely Conveyance Allowance,

Gun Allowance and Special Allowance in addition to their wages from the month of April, 2006. Those allowances

were inseparable part of their wages but the contractors without any notice suddenly stopped payment of Conveyance

Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowance from the month of October, 2008.

That there was an agreement between the registered trade union i.e. Paschim Banga Security and Co-

workmen Trade Union and with one of the contractors M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd. on 4^th November, 2008 in

presence of the principal employer Axis Bank, where the contractor agreed to pay Central Minimum Wages to those

security personnel instead of State Minimum Wages. That on execution of such agreement the contractor employer

stopped payment of Conveyance Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowance on and from October, 2008.

The union approached the contractors and principal employer against the unilateral decision of the employers

stopping Conveyance Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowance on several occasions but of no result.

Finding no other alternative they raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner, but the

conciliation proceeding ended in failure due to adamant stand taken by the contractors and principal employer. The

union has alleged Conveyance Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowance comes within the parameter of

definition of wages as defined under Contactor Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 read with Payment of

Wages Act and section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The denial of legitimate and statutory payment of

wages by the contractors is in violation of section 21 of the CLRA, 1970. They have also alleged the principal

employer failed to ensure payment of statutory wages along with the allowances by the contractor employers.

Therefore, they have alleged the action of the contractor employers denying the aforementioned allowances

to be illegal in violation of section 21 of CLRA 1970 and prayed that the principal employer and contractor employers

be directed to pay the statutory dues from the date it has fallen due.

The record shows, notice of the case has been duly served upon all four contractors’ employers and the

principal employer but the principal employer Axis Bank and the contractors employers namely M/s. Orion Security

Solution and M/s. G4S Ltd. have failed to put appearance and pursue with the hearing. Therefore, they have been

proceeded exparte.

The present reference has been contested only by the contractor employers namely M/s. S & IB Services Pvt.

Ltd. and M/s. Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd. by filing two separate written statements/ objection.,

M/s. Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd. in its written statement has alleged that this Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute as the appropriate Government in the present case is the State Government

and not Central Government. That the union which has espoused the dispute has no locustandi or representative

character to espouse the cause of the concerned personnel. The reference is not maintainable as no proper dispute has

been raised by the union against it. That Axis Bank awarded a contract to it for a specific purpose and for a specific

period. The contract job which was awarded to this agency is not of a perennial in nature. The contract was given for

providing security guards and not for smooth running of commercial activities of the bank. That the Conveyance

Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowances claimed by the union is not statutory entitlement. The payment

of Central Minimum Wages has no basis as the establishment of the contractor comes within the scope of Govt. of

West Bengal. Therefore, the question of application of Central Govt. Minimum Wages does not arise. ALC (C),

Kolkata had/has no locustandi to entertain the dispute raised by the union. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the

reference.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3507

M/s. S & IB Service Pvt. Ltd. too has alleged the contract which was awarded to it by the Axis Bank

contains terms and conditions in relation to the job including monthly rates of payment during the tenure of the

contract. The union has no scope to make any demand which have not been sponsored by the Axis Bank. The

allowances claimed by the union are not statutory payment. The contractor is bound by the terms and conditions

contained in the contract executed between it and the principal employer. That the demand made by the union is not

included in the contract or agreement. That there is no violation of provisions of section 21 of CLRA, 1970. That it

has no financial capacity to meet the demand as raised by the union. Though the rates of wages is revised from time to

time but the demand made by the union is beyond the scope of contract awarded by Axis Bank. Therefore, the

reference is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the reference.

The Bank Employees Federation, West Bengal to substantiate its claim and claim has examined Sri Kapil

Deo Prasad, one of the concerned workmen engaged by contractor M/s. Premier Vigilance Security Pvt. Ltd. as W.W.

1 and Sri Biswajit Ghosh, another workman engaged by contractor M/s. S & IB Services Pvt.Ltd. as W.W. 2.

The union has exhibited following documents :-

1. Photocopy of receipt of security deposit made by W.W. 1 dt.12-08-1999 and which has been marked as

Exb. W-1.

2. Copy of ID Card issued to W. W. 1 by M/s. Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd. dt.01-06-2010 and

which has been marked as Exb. W-2.

3. Another ID Card of W.W. No. dt.31-12-2015 issued by M/s. Orion Security Solution Pvt. Ltd. and

which has been marked as Exb. W-3.

4. Copy of wage slip of W.W. 1 issued by M/s. Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd. for the months of

November, 2008, December, 2008, December, 2009, January,2009, February, 2009, March, 2009 and

April,2009 and which have been marked as Exb. W-4 to W-4/6.

5. Copy of conciliation failure report dt.12-05-2015 of ALC (C ) , Kolkata to the Ministry of Labour and

which has been marked as Exb.W-5.

6. Copy of ID Card of Sri Biswajit Ghosh, W.W.2 issued by M/s. Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd.

and M/s. Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. and which have been marked as Exb.W-6 and

W-7.

7. Copy of Posting Order of Sri Biswajit Ghosh dt.27-12-1999 issued by M/s. Premier Vigilance &

Security Pvt. Ltd. and which has been marked as Exb.W-8.

8. Copy of Posting Order of Sri Biswajit Ghosh dt.08-08-2005 issued by M/s. Security and Investigation

Bureau and which has been marked as Exb.W-9.

9. Copy of record of conciliation proceeding dt.08-04-2014 and 08-09-2014 and which have been marked

as Exb.W-10 and W-10/A.

10. Memo of Settlement between the management of M/s. Security and Investigation Bureau and its

workmen represented by Paschim Banga Security & Co-Workmen’s Union dt.04-12-2008 and which

has been marked as Exb.W-11.

On the other hand the management of M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd. has examined Sri Ajay Mukherjee, Sr.

Manager- Billing & ERP Package as M. W.1. and contesting contractor employer M/s. Premier Vigilance Security

Pvt. Ltd. failed to adduce oral and documentary evidence.

The management of M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd. has produced the following documents:-

1. Copy of Register of Wages in 16 pages and which have been marked as Exb. M-1 to M-1/10.

2. Copy of circular dt.28-07-2023 issued by Office of the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal

regarding Minimum Rate of Wages and which has been marked as Exb.M-2.

3. Photocopy of e-mail dt.04-06-2013 and 28-11-2013 relating to billing calculation sheet of wages

payable to the security agencies w.e.f. 01-04-2013 to 30-09-2013 with rate break up in nine pages and

which have been marked as Exb. M-3 collectively.

That M/s. S & IB Security Pvt. Ltd. has filed written notes of argument.

Having regards to the argument advanced by both sides and the evidence both oral and documentary which

have come on record the issue which needs determination in the present case is legality regarding unilateral decision

of the employers to stop the payment of Conveyance Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowance to the

security guards from the month of October, 2008.

3508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is the case of the union that the contractors and the principal employer suddenly and unilaterally stopped

payment of Conveyance Allowance, Gun Allowance and Special Allowance which the security guards supplied by

the contactors to guard the ATMs and branches of Axis Bank were paid till September, 2008. They have also alleged

those allowances are statutory allowances which do form the integral part of their wages. Such statutory entitlement

cannot be denied by the employers.

Further, the contesting contractor employers have alleged that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain

the present reference as the appropriate Government who can refer the dispute involved is the State Govt. and not

Central Government. Further, it has alleged that the contractors are bound to follow Minimum Rate of Wages fixed by

the State Govt. and not Minimum Rate of Wages fixed by the Central Govt.

First, let me find out whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the present reference or not?

In the present case the dispute is between the employees of the contractors with the contractor employers

engaged by the Axis Bank Ltd. for supply of man power. The establishment involved in the present case is the Axis

Bank Ltd. and principal employer is also the Axis Bank Ltd. That in view of the section 2(a) (i) of the I.D. Act, 1947

the appropriate Government in relation to any dispute concerning bank is the Central Govt. and not the State Govt.

Further, in view of proviso of section 2 (a) (ii) of the Act of 1947, in case of a dispute between a contractor and the

contract labour employed through the contactor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the

appropriate Government shall be the Central Government which has control over such industrial establishment.

Therefore, in view of section 2 (a) (i) and (ii) the appropriate Government who can make reference of an industrial

dispute concerning a bank to a Tribunal or Labour Court is the Central Government and not State Government as

alleged by both the contesting contractor employers. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that it has ample jurisdiction to

entertain the present reference.

Now, let see whether the contractor employers are justified in denying conveyance allowance, gun allowance

and special allowance to the security personnel deployed by them in the establishment of Axis Bank Ltd. and whether

the employer unilaterally stopped payment of those allowances mentioned above?

Exhibit-W-2, W-3 and W-6 prima facie prove W.W.1 and W.W.2 security guards were engaged by

contractors by M/s. Premier Vigilance and Security Ltd. and M/s. Orion Security Solution Pvt. Ltd. of Axis Bank.

Exhibit-W-4 series wage slips of W.W. 1of different months i.e. from the month of November, 2008 to

April, 2019 show that he was paid wages for 26 days in a month along with overtime wage, HRA and Washing

Allowance. That deduction was made towards EPF, ESI and Professional Tax. That he was paid travelling allowance

in the month of November, 2008 and December, 2008.

Exhibit-W-8 and W-9, the transfer order of W.W.2 Sri Biswajit Ghosh shows that contractor employers

namely M/s. Premier Vigilance Security Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Security and Investigation Bureau had right to transfer

their security guards from one branch to another branch of Axis Bank which was earlier known as UTI Bank.

It is very unfortunate to note that union which has espoused the dispute and those two concerned workmen

who have examined themselves as W.W.1 and W.W.2 for reasons best known to them have failed to produce their

wage slips issued by their contractor employers to show that they were paid conveyance allowance, special allowance

and gun allowance till September, 2008 and from October, 2008 payment of such allowances were suddenly stopped

without any notice to them by the contractor employers to substantiate their claim and case.

However, M.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that all the workmen of M/s. S & IB Security Pvt.

Ltd. used to draw conveyance allowance irrespective of their posts in the year 2008. That peon and housekeeping staff

used to draw special allowance along with conveyance allowance and Gunmen used to draw gun allowance along

with other allowances. That payment of those allowances were stopped from the month of October, 2008 without

serving any prior notice to the workmen or to the concerned union. He at the same time stated all the allowances

payable to the workmen depends upon the payment pattern fixed and determined by Axis Bank and it merely

complies the direction of Axis Bank. That workmen were paid minimum wages as fixed by the State Government.

Further, he has stated that by virtue of such settlement it started making payment of minimum rate of wages

as guided by the principal employer Axis Bank Ltd. Therefore, even after the withdrawal of gun allowance, special

allowance and conveyance allowance there was no reduction in the gross wages of the employees. The principal

employer reimbursed the salary paid to its employees and question of less payment does not arise. That Wage

employees. Gun allowance, conveyance allowance and special allowance are not components of basic wages of the

employees concerned and cannot claim as a matter of right.

Thus, from such admission made by M.W.1 it proves the employees of contractor M/s. S & IB Services Pvt.

Ltd. deployed in the establishment of Axis Bank Ltd. were paid conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special

allowance till September,2008 and thereafter it has stopped payment of such allowances.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3509

Nothing has come on record to show that payment of such allowances was stopped by M/s. S & IB Services

Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of settlement it had with the workmen concerned or the union of its workmen or after serving 21

days’ notice to the concerned workmen or to the concerned union as required u/s 9-A of the I.D. Act as stoppage of

allowances also amounts to change in condition of service or at the direction of the Principal Employer.

Exhibit-W-5 a failure report dt. 12-05-2015 submitted by ALC (C), Kolkata to the Ministry of Labour for

making reference u/s 10 (A) of the I.D. Act, 1947 discloses that during the conciliation proceeding or in the course of

discussion union has demanded enhancement of minimum wages for the period from October 2009 to December

2009, National Holidays payment, payment of conveyance allowance and special allowance at the rate of Rs.175/- per

month which was stopped from October,2006. The union further demanded that contractual workmen should be

provided conveyance allowance, special allowance and gun allowance.

Thus, from such report of ALC (C ), Kolkata it appears the conveyance allowance and special allowance

were paid earlier at the rate of Rs.175/- was stopped from the month of October, 2006 and not from October,2008 as

contended by the union in its claim statement. It further shows that union has demanded payment of conveyance

allowance, special allowance and gun allowance to the contractual workmen.

Further, it discloses the contractor employers namely M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PVS Ltd. and M/s.

G4S Ltd. all contractors of Axis Bank Ltd. have agreed to make difference payment, if there is any, for the period

from October, 2009 to December, 2009 and agreed to pay special allowance and gun allowance provided principal

employer reimburse the same.

Exhibit-W-11 memorandum of settlement between the management of M/s. S & IB Security Pvt. Ltd. in

relation to its contract agreement with Axis Bank, Kolkata for deployment of man power in the branches/ATMs of the

Bank and its workmen represented by Paschim Banga Security and Co-workmen Union arrived in terms of section 12

(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 on 04-12-2008, shows that there was a dispute regarding non-payment of minimum wages to

the security personnel at the rates notified by appropriate Government and agency’s practice to bifurcate the minimum

wages into basic wage, HRA and other allowances in order to keep low basic wage for the purpose of computation of

contribution towards EPF, bonus and gratuity. That there is no mention about sudden stoppage of payment of

conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special allowance by the agency. However, it was settled between the

contractor M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd. and the union concerned that minimum wages payable to the personnel

employed by M/s. S & IB Security Pvt. Ltd. at various branches and ATMs of Axis Bank in West Bengal (excluding

Bardhaman, Bankura, Birbhum and Asansol districts) shall be paid as basic wage only and no bifurcation of such

minimum wage as notified by the appropriate Government from time to time shall be done by the employer.

That no copy of agreement or copy of contract executed between the contractors and the principal employer

have come on record to show the terms and conditions of the contract and regarding payment pattern of wages by the

contractors to their employees. But, from the admission made by the M.W.1 in his cross examination, it is seen that

indeed the security guards engaged by them were paid gun allowance and other allowances prior to October, 2008 and

they were paid minimum wages at the rate fixed by State Government.

Exhibit-W-11 discloses that contractor employer had agreed to pay minimum wages as notified by the

appropriate Government from time to time but it does not specifically mention whether notified by the Central

Government or by the State Government. Consequently, it becomes necessary to decide whether the contractor

employer is bound to fix the minimum wages at the rate fixed by the Central Government or State Government as in

the present case the appropriate Government to make reference of an industrial dispute concerning the establishment

of the principal employer/Axis Bank Ltd. happens to be the Central Government. But, matters concerning labours and

its welfare come under the purview of both State and Central Govt. as per constitutional law, thereby resulting in

multi-jurisdictional regulation. India has no National Minimum Wage. Therefore, workers from all industries are

entitled to receive minimum wages fixed by their respective State Govt.

In the present case the dispute is in between the security guards and their employers who have deployed

them to work at different branches and ATMs of Axis Bank situated in West Bengal and as such they are entitled to

get minimum rate of wages as fixed by the State Government. Moreover, section 2 (i) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936

3510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

provides that appropriate Government in relation to Railway, Air Transport Services, Mines and Oil Fields is the

Central Government and in relation to all other cases the State Government. Therefore, the contractors’ employees of

Axis Bank are entitled to Minimum Rate of Wages fixed by the State Government of West Bengal from time to time

It is the case of the union that conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special allowance were integral part

of their wages under Payment of Wages Act and which cannot be withdrawn by the employer unilaterally.

The term ‘wages’ has been defined in section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as follows:-

“wages” means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or

capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable

to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes-

(a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;

(b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave

period;

name);

(d) any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law,

contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions but does not

provide for the time within which the payment is to be made;

(e) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme framed under any law for the time being in

force;

but does not include—

(1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration

payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or

order of a Court;

(2) the value of any house-accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of

any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of [the appropriate Government];

(3) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued

thereon;

(4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment;

(6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in sub-clause (d)]

Therefore, on plain reading of the definition of wages as provided in the Act of 1936, it appears the wages

does not include travelling allowances or the value of any travelling concession. Therefore, this Tribunal is of view

that conveyance allowance does not form an integral part of wages. That apart nothing has come to prove that gun

allowance and special allowance too form part of basic wages.

W.W.2 in his cross examination has stated that he worked for S & IB from 8^th August, 2005 till 2014 and

lastly he worked for SIS and who terminated him. He has also stated that they have raised an industrial dispute for

non-payment of allowances and not for his termination.

W.W.1 too in his cross examination has admitted that he never worked for S & IB. That he used to work for

Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd. as a guard since 1999 till 14-07-2014. That he was not retrenched from the

service by Premier Vigilance. That he was paid conveyance allowance by Premier Vigilance and suddenly payment

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3511

was stopped from January,2009. That he and other made several representations before the authorities of Premier

Vigilance and who informed that due to non-payment of conveyance allowance by the Axis Bank it had to stop the

payment.

So, it is seen that different contractors of Axis Bank had stopped payment of conveyance allowance to their

security guards after October,2008. Exhibit-W-11 dt. 04-12-2008 also does not disclose settlement being entered in

respect of conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special allowance. It shows the settlement was entered between

S & IB and the concerned union with regard to payment of wages at minimum rate of wages fixed by appropriate

Government and for non-bifurcation of such minimum wages.

Be that as it may, it is admitted fact that contractor employer S & IB had withdrawn conveyance allowance,

gun allowance and special allowance from the month of October,2008 onwards without prior notice to the workmen

concerned or to their union. That in view of provisions of section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, no employer

who proposed to effect any change in the condition of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter

specified in fourth schedule has to give 21 days’ notice to the workmen or to the union. In the present case it is seen

all the contactor employers of Axis Bank including M/s. S & IB Security Pvt. Ltd. has failed to give notice u/s 9-A to

the concerned employees or to their union. Therefore, unilateral decision to stop payment of conveyance allowance,

gun allowance and special allowance from the month of October, 2008 onwards, otherwise paid to the security guards

till the month of September,2008 or till December,2008 by M/s. Premier Vigilance without prior notice is held to be

illegal. Moreover, the contractor employers have failed to produce the copy of agreements or contract it had with Axis

Bank Ltd. regarding supply of security guards to show that due to sudden withdrawal of payment by the principal

employer they were unable to make payment of those allowances to their employees who were security guards.

However, in view of the provision of section 9-A of the I.D. Act both the employers are bound to give prior

notice in respect of any change in condition of service which includes allowances also, when the contractor employer

has failed to produce any settlement it had with the workmen or their union for withdrawal of such allowances. The

employers cannot wriggle out of the provisions of section 9-A of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Therefore, the contractor employers are bound to pay conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special

allowance which were earlier paid to those security personnel deployed by them in the establishment of principal

employer Axis Bank Ltd. from the date they have stopped payment unilaterally or at the direction of the principal

employer till those security personnel worked for them in the establishment of the Principal Employer and can claim

reimbursement of the same from the Principal employer.

In case those contractors fail to pay such due to those security guards deployed by them in the establishment

of Axis Bank Ltd., then in view of provisions of section 21 (4) of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,

1970 the principal employer who is the ultimate user of the service of those security guards are bound to pay the

arrears due to those security guards employed by it through different contractors after verification of their service in

its establishment and also after verifying their wage slips of September,2008 onwards till it took their services and

recover the same from its contractors from the pending bills, if any, provided it had already paid those allowances to

the contractors. In case if it had not paid toward such allowances to its contractors then it is bound to make payment

of arrear of conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special allowance to all the security personnel engaged by it

through the above mentioned contractors for the period of contract it had with them or till the period those security

personnel rendered service to its establishment.

Accordingly, Reference no.39 of 2015 is allowed with the finding that unilateral decision of the contractor

employers as well as principal employer Axis Bank Ltd. without complying with the mandatory provisions of section

9-A of I.D. Act, in effecting changes in the service conditions of contractor employees by stopping payment of

conveyance allowance, gun allowance and special allowance is held to be illegal and they are bound to pay the dues

of those workmen from the date, the payment was stopped till their service in the establishment of the Axis Bank Ltd.

Both the principal employer and contractor employers are directed to make payment of the above due within

three months from the date hereof failing which the union shall be at liberty to recover the same according to law.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3512

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1572.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभभ संख्या

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y--22012/35/2021-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.17/2021 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/35/2021 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 17 OF 2021

PARTIES:

Prabir Bouri

Vs.

Management of 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Basudev Choudhury, Advocate.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

18.07.2024

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.

L-22012/35/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 08.09.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of 1 and 2 Incline Under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its 1 & 2 Incline under

Jhanjra Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Prabir Bouri, Cat-I Mazdoor (Man No. 74801), vide ref.

No. GM/JNR/PERS/2013/1648 dated 19-03-2013 is just and legal? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/35/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 08.09.2021 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 17 of 2021 was registered on

20.09.2021 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of their

witnesses.

3513

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman filed his written statement on 24.07.2023. The fact of the case as disclosed in his written

statement is that Prabir Bouri, the workman was a permanent employee at Jhanjra Project Colliery under Jhanjra Area

of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) bearing U.M. No. 747801. He was appointed on

19.09.1985 and had remained absent from duty from 18.04.2012 due to his illness. He informed the management

about the reason of his absence. Despite such information management illegally issued a Charge Sheet to him bearing

No. AGT/JNR/1&2/P/CS/12/789 dated 30.04.2012. A Domestic Enquiry was held against him on 24.07.2012. The

workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding and disclosed the reason of his absence and also submitted Medical

Certificate in support of his illness. No 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued by the management nor any copy of

Enquiry Proceeding was supplied to him before dismissing him from service, violating the principles of natural

justice. It is contended that a major punishment has been imposed against the workman, disproportionate to the

alleged charge. He has been made jobless and forced to a starving condition. The dismissed workman prayed for

setting aside the order of dismissal, seeking reinstatement in service and payment of back wages.

The management of ECL contested the case by filing their written statement on 23.01.2023. It is stated that

Prabir Bouri, General Mazdoor, Category – I, was absenting from his duty at Jhanjra Project Colliery since

18.04.2012 without any information. A Charge Sheet was issued to Prabir Bouri for misconduct vide Charge Sheet

No. AGT/JNR/1&2/P/CS/12/789 dated 30.04.2012 under Clause 26.23 of Certified Standing Order for his habitual

absence from duty without cause and under Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Order for unauthorized absence for

more than ten days. The Charge Sheet was received by the delinquent by putting his signature. The reply submitted

against the Charge Sheet was not satisfactory and a Domestic Enquiry was initiated. Enquiry was held against Prabir

Bouri on 24.07.2012, following the principle of principles of natural justice and the charges were well established

against him. Management issued a 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the charged employee bearing Ref. No.

GM/JNR/PERS/2013/1355 dated 16/19.01.2013. Copy of Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report were supplied to

him with the 2^nd Show Cause Notice and the workman submitted his written reply. The reply of the workman was not

found satisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority as his past record in service was poor. The management having no

other alternative, dismissed the workman from service of the company vide Office Order bearing Ref. No.

GM/JNR/PERS/2013/1648 dated 19.03.2013. It is claimed that the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.

The dismissed workman has examined himself as Workman Witness – 1 and filed his affidavit-in-chief,

wherein he has averred that he informed the management the reason of his absence but the management illegally and

arbitrarily issued Charge Sheet against him. A Domestic Enquiry was held in respect of the charge and he participated

in the enquiry. In the Enquiry Proceeding the workman disclosed that he was suffering from illness but management

did not consider the document. No 2^nd Show Cause Notice was served upon him and the management illegally

terminated him from service violating the principles of natural justice. During the evidence the workman witness

produced a copy of his order of dismissal dated 19.03.2013 as Exhibit W-1.

During cross-examination workman witness denied the suggestion that he worked for thirty-two days in the

year 2009, sixteen days in the year 2010 and forty-one days in the year 2011. He further denied that due to his

unauthorized absence his annual increments were stopped or that he did not remain absent for his illness. The witness

also disowned the signature appearing on the reply to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice and on the copy of the Charge Sheet.

The witness however admitted the signature appearing in the Enquiry Report, and the same has been marked as

Exhibit M-1.

Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem, Manager (Personnel), Jhanjra Project Colliery has been examined as Management

Witness – 1. In the affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Prabir Bouri was chargesheeted on 30.04.2012 under

Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Order for being absent from duty beyond ten days without sanctioned leave or

sufficient cause and under Clause 26.23 for habitual low attendance or absence from duty without sufficient cause. It

is stated that the Charge Sheet was received by the workman by putting his signature on the office copy of the same.

As his reply was not found satisfactory and for his antecedents of habitual absence a Domestic Enquiry was held. It is

also stated that the charge against Prabir Bouri was proved and on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer

management issued 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the workman along with his Enquiry Proceeding. The delinquent

employee submitted reply to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice but it was not found satisfactory and he was dismissed from

service by order dated 19.03.2013. In course of his evidence the management witness produced the following

documents:

(i)

Signature of Prabir Bouri on the Enquiry Proceeding is marked as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 30.04.2012 has been produced as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Copy of the reply to the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 21.07.2012, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding dated 24.07.2012 in three pages has been collectively marked as

Exhibit-5.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3514

(vi)

Prabir Bouri has put his signature on all the pages of Enquiry Proceeding. The signature on page no.

1 and 2 of the Enquiry Proceeding has been marked as Exhibit M-5/1 and M-5/2 and signature on

page no. 3 has already been marked as Exhibit M-1.

(vii)

Copy of the Enquiry Report dated 24.07.2012, as Exhibit M-6.

(viii)

Copy of the 2^nd Show Cause Notice dated 16/19.01.2013 has been produced as Exhibit M-7.

(ix)

Copy of the reply to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit M-8.

(x)

Copy of the order of dismissal dated 19.03.2013, as Exhibit M-9.

In cross-examination the witness denied that the punishment of dismissal of Prabir Bouri from service was

improper or it was illegal.

The point for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against

Prabir Bouri is just and legal. If not, whether he is entitled to any relief?

Mr. Basudev Choudhury, learned advocate for the workman argued that Prabir Bouri was serving the

company as a permanent employee since 1985. He has rendered satisfactory service all through, but the management

of ECL in an arbitrary manner issued a Charge Sheet against the workman for his absence from duty for a period of

only twelve days and imposed a disproportionate punishment without service of Charge Sheet, 2^nd Show Cause Notice

and Enquiry Report. It is further argued that the workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding and produced his

medical certificate in support of his absence from 18.04.2012 to 18.07.2012 but the Enquiry Officer did not consider

the Certificate, covering the period of his absence on the ground that he did not receive medical treatment from

colliery Hospital. Learned advocate argued that the Enquiry Proceeding was held in violation of principles of natural

justice without providing any opportunity to the workman and by way of rejecting his defence without any plausible

cause. Learned advocate asserted that the order of dismissal passed against the workman is illegal, improper, arbitrary

and is liable to be set aside. It is urged that the workman merits reinstatement in service and payment of back wages

till his reinstatement.

10.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management argued that copy of Charge Sheet, Enquiry Report and

2^nd Show Cause Notice were served upon the charged workman who received the same by putting his signatures. In

his cross-examination the workman witness admitted his signatures appearing in the Enquiry Proceeding, which goes

to establish that he was well informed about the Charge Sheet against him as well as the Enquiry Proceeding

conducted by the Enquiry Officer. It is argued that the workman is a habitual absentee and attended his duty for

thirty-two days the year 2009, sixteen days in the year 2010 and forty-one days in the year 2011. Due to his previous

absence the workman was earlier punished by stoppage of one increment in the year 1996, stoppage of two

increments in the year 1997 and final warning in the year 1999. Once again, he was punished by stoppage of three

increments in the year 2000 and stoppage of one increment in the year 2001. He was demoted to the post of Cleaning

Mazdoor, Category – I in the year 2005. Again, he was demoted to the initial Basic of Category – I as a last chance in

the year 2006. Stoppage of one increment in the year 2010 and thereafter stoppage of three increments in the year

2011. It is submitted by the learned advocate that the workman did not rectify his conduct and continued to remain

absent without informing the management of the company and thereby caused disruption in service, being absolutely

unpredictable in his attendance. Learned advocate took me through the Charge Sheet dated 30.04.2012 (Exhibit M-2)

which bears the signature of the workman. The workman submitted a reply to the Charge Sheet on 20.07.2012 i.e.

after two months and twenty days after the issuance of Charge Sheet, wherein he prayed for allowing him to join duty

on the ground that he was under medical treatment and was then found fit to join his duty. Learned advocate drew my

attention to the Notice of enquiry, a copy of which was also served upon the workman. Copy of the Enquiry

Proceeding and Enquiry Report have been produced as Exhibit M-5 and Exhibit M-6. Regarding issuance of 2^nd Show

Cause Notice, the learned advocate pointed out that a 2^nd Show Cause Notice dated 16/19.01.2013 was issued to

Prabir Bouri, which has been produced as Exhibit M-7. Though the workman has denied having received the 2^nd

Show Cause Notice, the learned advocate for management referred to the reply submitted by Prabir Bouri dated

31.01.2013 against 2^nd Show Cause Notice, where he has reiterated his earlier statement that he was under medical

treatment at Khandra BPHC from 18.04.2012 to 18.07.2012. It is argued that the reply to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice

goes to prove that the 2^nd Show Cause Notice was served upon the workman and he had been provided with

reasonable opportunity to meet the charge levelled against him under Clause 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified

Standing Order. It is vehemently argued that there is no illegality on the part of the management in issuing the Charge

Sheet against a habitual absentee who had no responsibility towards his work. It is urged that the Industrial Dispute

raised by the workman eight years after his dismissal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

11.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case.

The evidence on record is rife to establish that the workman had actually remained absent from duty for more than

three months from 18.04.2012 to 18.07.2012 and he submitted his application, seeking permission to join his duty

only from 20.07.2012 (Exhibit M-3). Nowhere in the application he disclosed the nature of the ailment or the place

where he received the medical treatment. Only after the Enquiry Proceeding was started, he made an endeavour to

3515

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

defend the case raising a plea that he was absent from duty due to illness. The Enquiry Officer in his Report (Exhibit

M-6) has stated that the workman did not report to the company’s dispensary and also failed to produce the papers

related to his medical treatment. Besides, the charge of unauthorized absence for more than ten days under Clause

26.29 of the Certified Standing Order, the Enquiry Officer has found the workman a habitual absentee who

performed work for thirty-two days in the year 2009, sixteen days in the year 2010 and forty-one days in the year

2011 and till 18.04.2012 he performed work for only fourteen days. These facts have not been controverted by the

workman. Simple denial of such facts in course of cross-examination does not disprove the charge of misconduct

under Clause 26.23 of the Certified Standing Order. It is evident the that previously the workman had been subjected

to minor punishment on nine occasions from December 1996 to August 2011. The workman did not mend his conduct

nor did he care to attend his work after so many occasions of warning and punishments meted out to him. The

workman submitted his reply to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice which has been produced as Exhibit M-8. The controlling

authority finally issued the Office Order dated 19.03.12013, dismissing him from his service in exercise of power

conferred to him under Clause 27 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the workman and the establishment.

12.

In my considered view the management having provided reasonable opportunity to the workman has

initiated a Departmental Proceeding against him for his misconduct and after following the principles of natural

justice the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charge. The workman failed to satisfy the Disciplinary

Authority by submitting his explanation to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice and the General Manager of Jhanjra Area,

ECL, being the competent authority dismissed him from service. I find no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the

proceeding and the final outcome. The workman having faced nine minor punishments in earlier occasions, failed to

rectify his conduct. Therefore, there is no extenuating circumstance for him to avoid the punishment of dismissal from

service. I do not find any illegality in the Enquiry Proceeding nor the order of dismissal passed against Prabir Bouri.

Therefore, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against the workman. I find no reason to interfere with the

order of dismissal passed against Prabir Bouri. An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the

Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1573.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभभ संख्या

) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y--22012/116/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.04/2023 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/116/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3516

REFERENCE CASE NO. 04 OF 2023

PARTIES: Rajdeep Mukherjee

Vs.

Management of Satgram Incline of ECL and Another

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.07.2024

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/116/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 04.01.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand raised by Union i.e. Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol to the management of

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to regularize as Survey Mazdoor to Shri Rajdeep Mukherjee, General Mazdoor, UM No.

193321, of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is proper, legal and justified? If yes,

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/116/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 04.01.2023 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 04 of 2023 was registered on

05.01.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative appeared for Rajdeep Mukherjee, the aggrieved workman. Case is

fixed up today for the third time for evidence of workman witness. On repeated calls at 01.30 p.m., the workman is

not found available. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present.

After registration of the case, Notice under registered post was issued to the parties. Koyala Mazdoor

Congress filed a written statement on 22.03.2023 on behalf of the workman through Mr. H. L. Soni, Assistant General

Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol. The Agent, Satgram (R) Colliery filed written statement on

28.4.2023. Case was thereafter fixed for evidence of workman witness on 30.08.2023, 13.02.2024 and for ends of

justice case is fixed up today for appearance and evidence of workman witness, in default the case is to be disposed

of.

The aggrieved workman has remained absent on three consecutive dates fixed for evidence. The conduct of

the workman indicates that he is not inclined to proceed with this case. Accordingly, the matter cannot be kept

pending without any reasonable cause. The Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed for default. Let a No Dispute

Award be drawn up. Let the matter be communicated to Ministry for notification.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be

sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1574.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभभ संख्या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y--22012/59/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

3517

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.28/2022 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/59/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 28 OF 2022

PARTIES: S. Mahesh Sekhar

Vs.

Management of Satgram Incline of ECL and Another.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Bipul Banerjee, Advocate.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.06.2024

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/59/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 14.06.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Satgram Incline

under Satgram Area in non-payment of House Rent Allowance from January, 2021 in respect of Shri S. Mahesh

Sekhar, Electric Helper, Man No. 188562 of Satgram Area is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/59/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 14.06.2022 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 28 of 2022 was registered on

14.06.2022 / 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing

them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list

of witnesses.

Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Case is fixed

up today for appearance and evidence of workman witness. On repeated call at 1.10 p.m. none appears for S. Mahesh

Sekhar, Electric Helper who has raised this Industrial Dispute claiming House Rent Allowance from January 2021.

The record reveals that Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned advocate, appeared for the workman on 21.11.2022 and

case was fixed up on 13.02.2023 for filing written statement by workman and for his evidence. On that date, no step

was taken by the workman and case was fixed for ex-parte hearing on 25.04.2023. Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned

advocate appeared on 25.04.2023 and filed a written statement along with an application for setting aside order for ex-

parte hearing. Prayer was allowed and case was fixed on 23.08.2023 for evidence of workman witness. On

23.08.2023, the workman appeared and prayed for adjournment on the ground of absence of his advocate. Case was

once again adjourned to 07.02.2024 for evidence of workman witness. On 07.02.2024 none appeared for the

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3518

management and for ends of justice the case is fixed up today for appearance and evidence of workman witness. Since

no step has been taken by the workman and none appeared today, I am of the considered view that the workman is not

diligent in participating in this case. The same is dismissed for default. Let a No Dispute Award is drawn up.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be

sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1575.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभभ संख्या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y--22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.04/2019 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

APPLICATION NO. 04 OF 2019

PARTIES: Pappu Kumar Kewat

Vs.

Management of Naba Kajora Colliery of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

19.07.2024.

A W A R D

The Application under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 2A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010

is fixed up today for recording evidence of workman. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative for the petitioner

3519

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pappu Kumar Kewat and Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited are

present.

The said application has been filed before this Tribunal, supported by a Certificate issued by the Conciliation

Officer under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 20.11.2018, certifying that Mr. Rakesh Kumar,

President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute

(Amendment) Act, 2010 before the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raniganj at Durgapur

consequent upon the termination of Pappu Kumar Kewat, General Mazdoor, U.M. No. 187970 from the service of the

company w.e.f. 01.07.2017 by the management of Naba Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields

Limited. Since no settlement was reached within the mandatory period of forty-five days a Certificate was issued in

favour of the Union for the purpose of enabling it to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-

Labour Court for adjudication of the said dispute.

In this application under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 2A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act,

2010, the applicant prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and with all other consequential

benefits.

The case is fixed up today for the fifth time for evidence of the workman witness. On repeated calls at 12.00

noon the workman is not found available. Since filing of the application on 08.04.2019 the workman has not appeared

before the Tribunal for once. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative filed an application stating that the workman

was informed at his native place but he did not turn up today and could not be traced. He prayed for closing the case.

Since the workman is not interested to proceed, the industrial dispute challenging the dismissal of Pappu Kumar

Kewat is dismissed for non-prosecution. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up accordingly.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Application under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

dismissed. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Industrial Dispute. Let copies of the Award

in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1576.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

– सह –

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभभ संख्या

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. -,y--22012/199/2004-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.43/2005 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/199/2004–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3520

REFERENCE CASE NO. 43 OF 2005

PARTIES: Raj Kishore Harijan

Vs.

Management of Parasea Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

10.07.2024

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/199/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Parasea Colliery under Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Parasea O.C.P. over dismissing Sh. Rajkishore Harijan, Security

Guard (Trainee) w.e.f. 18.9.93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from

which date? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/199/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2005 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on

31.05.2005 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

The Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on 14.11.2005 on behalf of the aggrieved

workman. Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) contested the case by filing

written statement on 27.03.2007. The brief fact of the case disclosed in the written statement of the union is that

Raj Kishore Harijan was appointed as an Underground Loader and the management of Parasea OCP posted him

as a Security Guard (Trainee). On 09.07.1993 the workman was on duty in the second shift from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00

a.m. (midnight). At about 10.00 p.m. on 09.07.1993, he took permission from the Security Havildar to return home on

the ground of his son’s illness. Sri Krishna Singh, Security Havildar allowed Raj Kishore Harijan to leave the place of

work on that night. At about 11.00 p.m. on 09.07.1993 some miscreants raided Parasea OCP and committed theft of

three hundred feet Power Cable and snatched away company’s gun allotted to another Security Guard. According to

the union the incident took place in absence of Raj Kishore Harijan, who already left his duty, taking permission from

his immediate superior and he is not responsible for the occurrence.

In connection with the incident a Charge Sheet was issued by the management of Parasea OCP bearing No.

POCP/P&IR/C.S./93/367 dated 18.07.1993. According to the Model Standing Order, Raj Kishore Harijan was

suspended by the management of Parasea OCP. It is contended that the Manager who issued the order of suspension

is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority and furthermore the charge levelled against him is

vague, baseless, false and motivated. Furthermore, management did not supply the copy of complaint, names of

witnesses and the statement of the witnesses along with the Charge Sheet. The workman replied to the Charge Sheet,

denying the allegation. After submission of his reply the workman was allowed to resume his duty from 26.07.1993.

An enquiry was initiated in perfunctory manner. After the enquiry was held no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to

the workman and he was dismissed from the service by a letter issued by the General Manager dated 18.09.1993. The

union prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal and claimed that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to

the charge and prayed for an order of reinstatement of workman along with full back wages and consequential relief.

Management in their written statement stated that the concerned workman was chargesheeted on 18.07.1993

under Clause 17(i)(a), 17(i)(f) and 17(i)(p) of the Model Standing Order. The concerned workman appeared before

the Enquiry Officer and he was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. After hearing the workman as well

as management representative, the enquiry was completed and the workman was found guilty of misconduct, in

respect of charges framed. A report was sent before the competent authority and he was dismissed from service

according to the provisions of standing order. Management contended that the union has no locus standi to raise this

Industrial Dispute, as the workman was not a member of the union at any point of time. It is contended that the order

3521

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of dismissal was issued by letter dated 18.09.1993 but the union raised the dispute for the first time on 15.04.2004, i.e.

after a lapse of a decade without showing any reason of delay. It is urged that the workman having left his place of

work, does not deserve any leniency in the matter of imposition of punishment. He is earning his livelihood from

other source as such he is not entitled to any monetary benefit. Management therefore prayed for dismissal of the

case.

The sole question for consideration of this Tribunal is whether the dismissal of Raj Kishore Harijan w.e.f.

18.09.1993 is legal and justified and if the concerned workman is entitled to any relief.

In course of proceeding before this Tribunal Raj Kishore Harijan submitted his affidavit-in-chief where he

stated that on 09.07.1993 he was under training as a Security Guard working in the second shift i.e. 4.00 p.m. to 12.00

a.m. Due to his son’s serious illness, Mr. Sri Krishna Singh, the Security Havildar allowed him to go home at 10.00

p.m. that night. On the same night at about 11.00 p.m. some miscreants raided Parasea OCP working site and

committed theft of Power Cable and snatched company’s security guard which was issued to another security

guard. He also stated that the incident did not occur during his duty hours and that the management issued the Charge

Sheet after nine days as an afterthought to victimize the charged employee and save other persons. The witness

asserted that the enquiry was held in a perfunctory manner and without issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice, the

workman was dismissed from service from 18.09.1993. He further stated that he performed his work with loyalty and

there was no adverse report against him. the workman prayed for his reinstatement and claimed back wages and

consequential reliefs. In course of his re-examination-in-chief on recall the Workman Witness - 1 produced the

following documents :

(i)

Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 18.07.1993 has been produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Copy of the reply against the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

Copy of the letter dated 26.07.1993 issued by the Manager, Parasea OCP addressed to Raj Kishore

Harijan, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of the reply to the Enquiry Notice, as Exhibit W-4.

(v)

Copy of the letter for nominating co-worker for the Enquiry Proceeding, as Exhibit W-5.

(vi)

Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding in sixty pages, as Exhibit W-6.

(vii)

Copy of the Enquiry Report dated 18.09.1993, as Exhibit W-7.

(viii)

Copy of the letter for dismissal dated 18.09.1993 issued by the General Manager of Kunustoria

Area, as Exhibit W-8.

In his cross-examination the workman admitted that he participated in the Enquiry Proceeding. He also

produced a copy of the reply to the Enquiry Notice as Exhibit W-4. He was provided with the assistance of co-

employee during the Enquiry Proceeding and the copy of Enquiry Proceeding in sixty pages has been produced by

him as Exhibit W-6. During Cross-examination the workman stated that he participated in the Enquiry Proceeding on

a regular basis and did not have complain against anybody nor did he have any grievance against any co-worker. The

workman admitted that he was on duty at the time Power Cable was stolen from the site of work. The witness denied

that his dismissal from service was proper and justified.

Initially management filed affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Raj Narayan Bhattacharjee, Senior Manager (Personnel),

Parasea Group of Mines as Management Witness. Since the witness was not found available to stand the test of cross-

examination, the affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Raj Narayan Bhattacharjee has no value in the eye of law. Mr. Soram

Sanjoy Singh, Manager (Personnel), Parasea Colliery, examined himself as Management Witness – 1. He filed his

affidavit-in-chief on 29.05.2023. It is stated in his affidavit-in-chief that Raj Kishore Harijan and one Chottu, his co-

worker, were posted as Security Guards on 09.07.1993 having duty hours from 04.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. At

about 11.00 p.m. when the workman was engaged on duty some miscreants decamped three hundred feet of Power

Cable and snatched the gun from a Security Guard. It was reported that Raj Kishore Harijan and his co-worker,

Chottu were not present at the place of their duty for which Charge Sheets were issued to them on 18.07.1993,

seeking explanation. The reply submitted by Raj Kishore Harijan was not found satisfactory and a Departmental

Enquiry was initiated against him. After going through the Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report, the order of

dismissal was passed against Raj Kishore Harijan. It is stated that the ex-workman is not entitled to any relief. The

witness identified and admitted the documents produced by the workman as Exhibit W-1 to W-8.

In cross-examination the management witness stated that leaving workplace earlier than the normal duty

hours was sufficient to hold the workman guilty of the charge. The employee left the workplace one and half hours

before the expiry of duty hours and the occurrence took place at 11.00 p.m.

10.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, arguing the case for the dismissed workman

submitted that Raj Kishore Harijan was on duty at the work site on the night of 09.07.1993 and by taking leave from

Mr. Sri Krishna Singh, Havildar, left the place of duty at 10.20 p.m. It is submitted that in the Charge Sheet dated

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3522

18.07.1993 (Exhibit W-1) charges were levelled under Clause 17(i)(a) of Model Standing Order for theft of

Company’s property, Clause 17(i)(f) of Model Standing Order for neglect of work, and Clause 17(i)(p) of Model

Standing Order for leaving work without permission or sufficient reason. The workman submitted his reply against

Charge Sheet (Exhibit W-2) claiming that the Security Havildar allowed them to leave the work site early for catching

vehicles on 09.07.1993 at 10.45 p.m. He had left his workplace and the incident of theft and snatching of gun took

place during absence of the charged employee for which he is not responsible and prayed for withdrawing of Charge

Sheet issued against him.

11.

Referring to the Enquiry Proceeding (Exhibit W-6) Mr. Kumar argued that in course of enquiry the statement

of Sri Krishna Singh, Security Havildar was recorded by the Enquiry Officer as MW–2 and it appeared from his

statement that on 09.07.1993 he was on duty at the work site of Parasea OCP from 04.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. As

the Armed Guard was absent Sri Krishna Singh and Chottu performed the duty of Armed Guard. At about 04.15 p.m.

Gulbadan Harijan, Security Guard joined duty as there was shortage of security personnel. The union representative

traversing the statement of Sri Krishna Singh, submitted that the Havildar has also admitted the fact that he permitted

Chottu and Raj Kishore Harijan to leave the workplace before their normal duty hours was over and later he handed

over the Gun and Cartridge of Chottu to one Nilmuni at 10.40 p.m. who came to join the third shift. It is argued that

the occurrence of theft and snatching of Gun took place during the absence of Raj Kishore Harijan and there is no

material to hold Raj Kishore Harijan was guilty of charges of neglect of work, leaving the place without

permission or theft. It is argued that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was served upon the workman. Therefore, the order of

dismissal, without providing any opportunity to the workman to submit his representation in respect of the findings

against him, is in violation of natural justice. It is argued that the order of dismissal passed against the aggrieved

workman is not tenable under the law and is liable to be set aside. Besides, the workman has suffered unnecessarily

requires to be reinstated in service and he should be paid the back wages for the period of his entire dismissal along

with consequential relief.

12.

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that in cross-examination the

workman witness stated that he left his place of work due to illness of his son but in his reply to the Charge Sheet

(Exhibit W-2), the workman stated that in the night shift the security Havildar on duty is aware about the fact that

they are allowed to leave the work site early for availing the vehicle provided by the company. It is argued that there

is no whisper in the reply to the Charge Sheet that on that night any emergency arose due to illness of his son or he

left the place early after obtaining permission from his superior. Learned advocate further argued that admittedly the

workman was absent from his place of duty giving rise to such incident which occur due to shortage of Security

Personnels and Armed Guard at the work site. Mr. Goswami finally argued that the workman in his cross-examination

admitted that he had no grievance about the enquiry proceeding and the Industrial Dispute has been raised in the year

2005 after passage of more than ten years from the date of dismissal. Learned advocate argued that the charge of

negligence in work and leaving workplace without permission of the authority has been proved against the workman

and the charge under Clause 17(i)(a), 17(i)(f) and 17(i)(p) of the Model Standing Order has been proved against the

workman beyond doubt and there is no extenuating circumstance to absolve him of the charge or for setting aside

the order of dismissal. It is contended on behalf of the management that non-issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice ipso

facto cannot demolish the case against the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.

13.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case, argument advanced on behalf of both parties as

well as the materials on record. Admittedly, Raj Kishore Harijan was on duty at the work site of Parasea OCP on the

night of 09.07.1993 as a Security Guard. He left the place of work about one and half hours prior to completion of

duty hours i.e. 12.00 midnight. On that night an incident took place at 11.00 p.m. when some miscreants committed

theft at the company’s site by stealing three hundred feet of Power Cable and snatched a Gun from company’s Armed

Guard. In their written statement, union emphatically stated that the enquiry was held in a perfunctory manner and

that the management failed to prove that the Enquiry Officer had been appointed in the case and the letter of

appointment was served upon the workman. During his examination-in-chief on recall WW-1 produced a copy of

Charge Sheet and the reply submitted by him against the Charge Sheet. Copy of the reply to the Enquiry Notice is

produced as Exhibit W-4 and the charged employee admitted in evidence that he participated in the enquiry

proceeding. Exhibit W-5 establishes the fact that a co-worker was nominated to assist the workman in the Enquiry

Proceeding. Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding has been produced as Exhibit W-6 and Enquiry Report, as Exhibit W-7

collectively. The order of dismissal issued by the General Manager of Kunustoria Area has been produced as Exhibit

W-8. In re-cross-examination the workman admitted that he had no complain against anybody nor grievance against

any co-worker. He also admitted the fact that he was on duty when the cable was stolen. There is no evidence on

record that the charged employee left the workplace for any proper reason. He did not have approval from proper

authority to leave the place of work despite the fact that Sri Krishna Singh, the Havildar had allowed Raj Kishore

Harijan and Chottu to leave the workplace on that night. In cross-examination Mr. Soram Sanjoy Singh, the

management witness deposed that Sri Krishna Singh, Havildar was not the controlling authority of the charged

employee and the Manager of the Colliery is the controlling authority. Therefore, it goes without saying that Sri

Krishna Singh did not have the authority to permit Raj Kishore Harijan to leave his work place on the night of

occurrence. It also transpires from the cross-examination of the MW-1 that an FIR was lodged at the Andal Police

Station regarding the incident of theft and snatching of Fire Arms. The evidence on record is rife to hold that the

3523

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

charge against Raj Kishore Harijan, under Clause 17(i)(f) and 17(i)(p) have been proved. There is no case that the

theft had been committed by the charged workman. Accordingly, there is no material on record to hold that the charge

under Clause 17(i)(a) was proved against the workman. Be that as it may there is sufficient material on record to hold

that Raj Kishore Harijan was guilty of neglecting his duty by leaving his workplace without any sufficient reason. The

only irregularity of the management in this case is that, no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman for

submitting his reply against the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Domestic Enquiry. It is evident that the

management did not comply the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and

Others vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the law as

follows:

“ When the Inquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of

the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the charges

levelled against him. A denial of the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority takes its decision on the

charges, is denial of opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of principles of natural

justice.”

The principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was enforced by the Coal India Limited by

way of issuing a Circular bearing No. CIL C-5A(vi)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994, wherein it has been clearly laid

down that the charged employee had to be supplied with Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report and a 2nd Show

Cause Notice had to be issued to him before taking any final decision of removing him from service. In the instant

case I find that the management has been unmindful of the mandate and failed to observe the pre-requirement before

passing the final order of dismissal.

14.

There is a clear non-compliance of a guiding principle on the part of the management. However, it is also to

be borne in mind that after dismissal of the workman on 18.09.1993, the instant Industrial Dispute has been raised by

the union after passage of ten years from the date of the dismissal. In view of the nature of charge established against

Raj Kishore Harijan with succinct evidence and the inordinate delay of ten years in raising the Industrial Dispute from

the date of dismissal, I do not find any cogent reason for interfering with the order of dismissal, only for non-issuance

of 2^nd Show Cause Notice. Non-issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice before dismissal amounts to an irregularity but

does not destroy the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Under the facts and circumstances and long lapse of time I do

not find it appropriate to interfere with the order of dismissal. The workman having been found guilty of neglecting

his work by leaving his work place without sufficient reason cannot seek reinstatement or back wages.

15.

In the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others

[2010 (6) SCC 773], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down as follows:

“ 9. In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back

wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the

prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such

nature may be appropriate.”

16.

Drawing wisdom from the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matters involving

termination of employees, I find it appropriate to allow a monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs

only) to the dismissed workman for his termination from service without issuing a 2^nd Show Cause Notice. The

dismissed workman is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement nor back wages in this case.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed in part in favour of the workman. His prayer for setting aside the order

of dismissal and reinstatement in service with back wages is disallowed. The workman is allowed a monetary

compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, to be paid by the

management of the company within two (2) months from the date of communication of this Award. Let an award be

drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 1577.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय कंटेनर णनगम णलणमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योणगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 fnYyh ds iapkV (a261/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-203]

सलोनी, उप णनिेशक

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3524

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.261/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No -1

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhartiya Container Nigam

Limited and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-203]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.261.2018

Sh. Bhup Lal S/o Sh. Chandi Ram

Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd. 3025)

170, Bal Mukund Nagar, Giri Nagar,

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019

Claimant…

Versus

1. Chief Manager,

Bhartiya Container Nigam Limited,

Address: C-3, Mathura Road, Opposite Apollo Hospital,

New Delhi-110076.

2. M/s 3455 Sanjay Rana Security Agency,

F-20, Manish Global Mall Sector-22, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110077

Management…

AWARD

1. This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his

termination from the service on 16.01.2018 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and

he be reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with

the management. He has not been provided any legal facilities. He was illegally terminated from his service

on 16.01.2018 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry by the

management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the present

claim petition.

2. Management No.2 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. However, the

management no.1 has appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, case was listed for filing of

rejoinder and framing of issues on the basis of pleadings. Despite providing a number of opportunities,

claimant have not appeared to substantiate his claim.

3. Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 23.04.2024

3525

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1578.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बंगीय ग्रामीण णवकास बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योणगक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a03/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y-12011/54/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2024

S.O. 1578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank and

their workmen.

[No. L-12011/54/2019- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 03 OF 2020

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

Versus

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Casual and Contractual Workers Union.

Appearance:

On behalf of the BGV Bank: Absent

On behalf of the Union: Mr. Mr.Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate

Dated: 19^thJune, 2024

A W A R D

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12011/54/2019- IR(B-I) dated 23-12-2019

and in exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the employer (Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank), Murshidabad by not enhancing the

minimum rates of wages from 01-01-2012 to 30-06-2019 of Casual daily rates workmen deployed in various branches

of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank without giving Notice of change u/s 9A of I.D.Act, 1947, is legal and/or justified? If

not, what relief the workers are entitled to?”

The facts necessary for determination of the present dispute in gist are that Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, a

Govt. of India Enterprise having its headquarters at Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, West Bengal, has been formed

by virtue of Government of India Notification dt.21-02-2007 amalgamating five constituent erstwhile Regional Rural

Banks namely Gour Gramin Bank, Mallabhum Gramin Bank, Sagar Gramin Bank, Nadia Gramin Bank and

Murshidabad Gramin Bank and governed by Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The Bank has 587 branches controlled

by 11 Regional Offices in 12 districts in the State of West Bengal.

However, it is the case of the union which has espoused the dispute that there was no post of

Messenger/Peon/Sub-Staff in the Regional Rural Banks before 08-10-1984. Therefore, the bank used to engage daily

rated casual/ part time/ temporary workers for the post of Messenger/Sweepers for smooth functioning of the banking

business and administrative activities.

Further, it has alleged that Bank has indulged in unfair labour practice and continued with the practise of

engaging casual daily rated workers to do the job of sub-ordinate permanent staff in order to save revenue which is

otherwise payable to the permanent staff.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3526

It has also alleged that the bank follows State Govt. scale of pays to its different category of staff. There is no

scale of pay for the post of Messenger/Peon. That on regularisation of some daily rated Messengers, as a full time

regular Messenger, they are paid salary at the scale of pay of Peons or Grade-4 staff of the State Govt.

The bank are getting perennial nature of job which is normally rendered by regular subordinate staff by

engaging part time casual daily rated workmen in the post of Messenger /Peon/sweeper without filling up the vacant

posts and pay wages on ‘no work no pay’ basis.

Govt. of West Bengal have revised ad-hoc wages to its Gr. D employees by issuing several circulars from

2010 onwards, but bank has failed to revise the wages of its casual daily rated messenger/sweepers since 2012 till

2019. That they are entitled to get revision of their ad-hoc wages at par with the State Govt. Gr.D employees and as

per Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Therefore, the union has alleged that the action of the management of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank not

enhancing the minimum rates of wages from 01-01-2012 to 30-06-2019 of casual daily rates workmen deployed at its

various branches to be illegal. It has also prayed that necessary direction may be given to the bank to pay arrear adhoc

wages w.e.f. 01-01-2012 to 30-06-2019 in accordance with relevant orders of Govt. of West Bengal, with P.F. facility

and enforcement of the provisions of the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on the basis of equal pay for equal

work as per Govt. of India order No.49014/1/2017-Estt (C) H dt.04-09-2019 w.e.f. 01-07-2019 with P.F. facility to its

eligible temporary workers and also for regularisation of those casual workmen who have rendered more than 240

days service to the bank in a calendar year against the post of regular Office Attendant (Multipurpose).

Record shows the bank had put appearance through Ld. Counsel Mr. M. G. Mokaram Hossain on 27-09-

2022 and who undertook to file Vokalatnama but thereafter bank failed to put appearance and contest the case.

Therefore, the present case has been proceeded exparte against the bank.

The union to prove its case and claim has examined Sri Anadi Kumar Mahato, Vice President of the Union

as W.W.1. The union has produced the following docuemnts:-

Copy of bank circular dt.15-01-2011 regarding outsourcing in absence of regular sub-staff at

branches in case of urgent and unavoidable need- revision of rate of daily wage as per Govt. of

West Bengal Minimum Rate of Wages thereof and which has been marked as Exb.W-1.

Copy of memorandums dt.23-11-2010, 12-12-2011, 31-12-2012, 09-01-2015, 14-12-2015 and 21-

06-2018 issued by Govt. of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch granting Dearness

Allowance to the State Govt. employees and further ad-hoc increase in the wages of daily rated

workers under the Govt. w.e.f. 01-12-2010 and which have been marked as Exb. W-2 to W-2/E.

Copy of letter dt. 18-01-2018 of Govt. of West Bengal, Office of the Labour Commissioner

regarding rates of daily wages of daily rated workers under the Govt. of West Bengal whose wages

are not regulated by any of the statutory provisions like the Minimum Wages Act etc. and which has

been marked as Exb.W-3.

Copy of letter dt.05-11-2019 of NABARD with regard to implementation of Minimum Wages Act,

1948- Revised Rates issued to the Chairman of all RRBs and which has been marked as Exb.W-4.

Copy of order dt.23-09-2019 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment regarding rates

of V.D.A. for employees employed in sweeping and cleaning excluding activities prohibited under

the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrine (Prohibited) Act, 1993 and

to industrial workers along with classification of area and which has been marked as Exb.W-5.

Copy of office memorandum dt.04-09-2019 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG &

Pension, Department of Personnel & Training regarding equal pay for equal work for casual

workers in compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s judgments and with regard to payment of minimum

rate of wages to the casual workers and non-employment of daily wagers for doing regular nature of

work and which has been marked as Exb.W-6.

Circular dt.30-07-2019 of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank regarding revision in rate of wages of daily

waged labour (outsourced) in absence of regular Office Attendants at Branches in case of urgent

and unavoidable need and which has been marked as Exb.W-7.

Copy of NABARD’s letter dt.20-06-2019 to the Chairman of all RRBs regarding direction issued to

Labour Commissioners for compliance or adherence to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act,

1948, Manpower Planning as per Mitra’s Committee’s recommendation in a conciliation

proceeding and which has been marked as Exb.W-8.

3527

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Circular dt.24-06-2019 issued by Govt. of West Bengal, Office of the Labour Commissioner, fixing

minimum rate of wages from 1^st July, 2019 to 31^st December, 2019 and which has been marked as

Exb.-W-9.

10.

Copy of circular issued by Andhra Pradsh Grameena Vikash Bank dt.08-05-2017 and which has

been marked as Exb. W-10.

11.

Copy of circular dt.25-10-2016 issued by Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, with regard to rules of

engagement of casual workers by Branches and which has been marked as Exb. W-11.

12.

Copy of circular dt.09-11-2016 issued by Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, with regard to rate of

payment of wages to casual workers and which has been marked as Exb. W-11/A.

13.

Copy of circular dt.27-06-2017 issued by Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, with regard to revision in

payment of wages to casual workers and which has been marked as Exb. W-11/B.

14.

Copy of circular dt.21-05-2015 issued by Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank, with regard to

regularisation of Messengers-cum-Sweepers/Daily Wage Workers working on casual basis/casual

labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) along with list of candidates and which has been

marked as Exb. W-12.

15.

Copy of bio data of Sri Jagannath Mondal along with his Aadhar Card, Voter Identity Card, Ration

Card and which have been marked as Exb.W-13.

16.

Copy of Asst. P.F. Commissioner’s letter dt.11-08-2014 regarding non-extension of schemes

framed under the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of

the casual employees of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Bankura along with list of those employees

and which has been marked as Exb.-W-14.

17.

Copy of Attendance Sheet of Sri Jagannath Mondal from 2001 to 2018 and which have been

marked as Exb.-W-15 (collectively).

18.

Copy of Bank Pass Book of Sri Jagannath Mondal with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Haludkanali

Branch, Bankura and which has been marked as Exb.W-16 (collectively).

19.

Copy of Bio-data of Sri Lalchand Patar along with Voter Identity Card and Aadhar Card and which

have been marked as Exb.W-17.

20.

Copy of representation of Sri Lalachand Patar to the Chairman, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

dt.25-08-2011 for regularisation of service of the post of Gr.C cadre along with his bio data and

which have been marked as Exb.W-18.

21.

Copy of representation of Sri Lalchand Pata dt. 11 -02-2012 to the Regional Manager, Bangiya

Gramin Vikash Bank for regularisation /absorption along with bio-data and which has been marked

as Exb.-W-18A.

22.

Copy of another Representation of Sri Lalchand Patar dt.07-10-2011 to the Regional Manager,

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Bankura and which has been marked as Exb.W-18B.

23.

Copy of another representation of Sri Lalchand Patar to the Chairman, Bangiya Gramin Vikash

Bank for payment of bonus and which has been marked as Exb.W-18/C.

As per order of reference, the dispute that need to be adjudicated by this Tribunal is whether the action of the

management of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank in not enhancing the minimum rates of wages from 01-01-2012 to 30-

06-2019 to its casual daily rates workmen is justified or not and what other relief the workmen are entitled.

However, the union in its claim statement has added further prayer for granting P.F. facilities to those casual

daily rated workers along with regularisation as they have put more than 240 days of continuous service in a calendar

year.

Be that as it may, first let me find out whether Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank has failed to pay Minimum

Rate of Wages to its daily rated casual workmen engaged at its different branches since 2012 to June, 2019?

For determination of this issue it is necessary to find out whether Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank a Govt. of

India enterprise and which has been formed by virtue of Govt. of India Notification dt. 21-02-2007 and is governed

by Regional Rural Banking Act, 1976 is required to make payment minimum rate of wages to its casual daily rated

employees as per Minimum Rate of Wages fixed by the Govt. of West Bengal or by the Central Govt.?

Exb. W-4 proves that RRBs are regulated and controlled by NABARD. By issuing Exb .W-4 NABARD has

directed the Chairman of all RRBs situated throughout India to adhere to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and has

enclosed order no. 1/36(5)/2019/LS-II dt.23-09-2019 issued by the Office of the Chief Labour Commissioner,

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3528

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India and advised to comply with the instruction contained in the order

of the Chief Labour Commissioner, Govt. of India, wherever applicable.

Exb.W-5 appears to be Order no. 1/36(5)/2019/LS-II dt.23-09-2019 issued by the Office of the Chief Labour

Commissioner, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India vide which revised the rates of VDA for

industrial workers w.e.f. 01-10-2019 for different class of areas.

Exb. W-6 Office Memorandum dt.04-09-2019 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG &

Pension, Department of Personnel & Training regarding equal pay for equal work for casual workers in compliance of

the Hon’ble Court’s judgments shows that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular

employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30^th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant

pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day.

In case where the work done by casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the

casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment or the State

Government/Union Territory Administration, whichever is higher as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Persons on daily wages (casual workers) should not be recruited for work of regular nature and directed all

Ministries and Departments to follow the above direction.

Therefore, from the above exhibited documents it is seen the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, a Govt. of India

enterprise, though located in the State of West Bengal, is required to make payment minimum rate of wages, to its

casual employees who are engaged to do work which is not done by a regular employee either State Minimum Rate of

Wages or Central Minimum Rate of Wages whichever is higher or in case those casual workmen are employed to do

the work which is done by regular employees then they are entitled to get 1/30^th of the pay at the minimum of the

relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day.

In the above premises, the Tribunal is of view the casual workers of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank are not

entitled to claim minimum rate of wages which are paid to daily rated workers of the Govt. of West Bengal in view of

Exb.W-2 series as claimed by the union.

Now, let us see whether the bank has indeed failed to pay minimum rate of wages either fixed by the State

Govt. or by the Central Govt. to its casual employees in violation of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from

January, 2012 to June, 2019 as alleged by the union and as reflected in the order of reference?

It is very unfortunate to note that union which has espoused the present dispute has failed to produce a single

scrap of paper such as pay slips, payment vouchers and bank pass books of those casual employees from where it can

be seen that Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank had failed to adhere to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and failed to pay

wages to its daily rated casual workmen engaged by it at its different branches to do the job of subordinate staff in the

capacity of Office Attendant/ Messenger or Sweeper at the minimum rate of wage to which those workmen were

entitled to.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of view by mere asserting that they have not been paid minimum rate of wages

from 01-01-2012 to 30-06-2019 and without being supported by any documents will not by itself prove non-

adherence of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or non-payment of minimum rate of wages either fixed by State Govt. or by

Central Govt. by Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank.

Further, no detailed particulars of the casual employees engaged by the bank at its different branches have

been filed by the union to prove how many persons have been engaged by the bank as casual employees at its 587

branches. No details of those casual workmen who are entrusted to do the work of regular employees and those who

are engaged to do work which is not done by regular employees or to prove casual workers are appointed to do work

of regular nature and period of their engagement have been furnished by the union to prove violation of Office

Memorandum dt. 04-09-2019 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension, Department of

Personnel & Training or to prove that those casual workmen have rendered more than 240 days of continuous service

in a calendar year to the bank save and except the attendance register of only one workman named Sri Jagannath

Mondal.

Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to decide that Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, having headquarter at

Berhampore, Muradhidabad did not pay minimum rate of wages to its casual daily rated workmen engaged at its

different branches from 01-01-2012 to 30-06-2019.

It is settled law that Tribunal has to confine itself within the four corners of the order of reference and it

cannot go beyond it and decide an issue which is not referred to it. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to decide the

issue of regularisation and absorption as demanded by the union in its claim statement.

However, the union by producing the bio data of Sri Jagannath Mondal and his attendant register wants to

obtain a universal order of regularisation and absorption of all daily rated casual workmen engaged by Bangiya

Gramin Vikash Bank. If the union wants absorption and regularisation of the daily rated workers engaged by the bank

3529

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for doing perennial nature of job then the union has to furnish the sanctioned vacant post in the subordinate cadre on

the date of reference, the list of those casual workers engaged by Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Murshidabad at its

587 branches along with their details i.e. when they have joined the bank, the nature of their duty and the period since

when they have been working and that too without any break, their educational qualification to qualify for the vacant

sanctioned post of subordinate staff against which they want regularisation and absorption. Such claim of the union

appears to be speculative.

Further, it is settled law absorption and regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment. Bangiya Gramin

Vikash Bank, being a Govt. of India enterprise has to follow its own recruitment rules and regulations. Just because a

casual daily rated workman had put a long period of service will not mean that he is entitled to automatic absorption

or regularisation against a permanent post. That there should be regular process of recruitment or appointment to fill

up sanctioned vacant post as per applicable recruitment rules and regulations. Therefore, this Tribunal is of view that

those casual workmen cannot claim to be absorbed or regularised against sanctioned permanent post without fulfilling

the requirement qualification for the post and undergoing the rigour of recruitment process. Thus, this Tribunal finds

Exb. W-10, Exb.W-11 and Exb-W-12 irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the present dispute.

However, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank is hereby directed to see that minimum rate of wages fixed by the

Govt. of West Bengal or by Central Govt. whichever is higher is paid to all the daily rated workers engaged by it. The

bank is further directed to adhere to the office memorandum dt.04-09-2019 or further such memorandum issued by

Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training regarding equal pay for

equal work for casual workers engaged by it. The bank is to see if the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers

engaged by it are similar to that of regular employees then it is directed to pay at the rate of 1/30^th of the pay at the

minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day. In case where the work done

by a casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the casual worker may be paid only the

minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment or the State Government/ Union Territory

Administration, whichever is higher, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Accordingly, Ref. No.03 of 2020 is disposed of and an award is passed to that effect.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1579.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

आयुक्त नारकोटटक्स णवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योणगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a71/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-210]

सलोनी, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 71/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Commissioner Narcotics

Departmentand their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-210]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Dilip Kumar Ahirwar

S/o. Shri Narayan Das Ahirwar

R/o. Aditya Tailor, Bharat Talkies Road,

Sinde Ki Chhawani, Lashkar, Gwalior M.P.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3530

Workman

Commissioner

Narcotics Department

19, Mall Road, Morar

Gwalior (M.P.) - 474006

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 01^st day of July-2024)

As per letter dated 08/11/2019 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur, Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, 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. J-1(1-11)/2019-IR dt. 08/11/2019. The

dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether, the action of the management of Commissioner, Narcotics Department, Gwalior in terminating

the services of workman Shri Dilip Kumar Ahirwar w.e.f. 27.08.2002 is just & proper ? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties

appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The case of the workman is mainly that he was appointed/engaged by the Commissioner Narcotics in March-

1995 and worked since then till 27.08.2002 to the satisfaction of the Department, when his services were terminated

without any notice or compensation though he had worked for more than 240 days in every year including the year

preceding his termination. This action of management is against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 (in short the word ‘Act’). He, alongwith other employees similarly situated filed a petition before

the Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur which was registered as O.A. No.-560/2002 and was disposed vide order

dated 27.03.2003 with certain directions.

Since, no compliance was made by the department, hence he alongwith similarly placed other employees

filed another petition O.A. No.-208/2004 which was disposed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order

dated 18.10.2005 with certain directions in the order. This order was also not complied with, hence they again filed a

petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur O.A. No.-386/2011 disposed vide order dated

20.08.2015. A writ petition was filed before Hon’ble High Court Gwalior Bench W.P. No.-7339/20015 but was

withdrawn with liberty to raise an Industrial Dispute in this respect vide order of Hon’ble High Court dated

06.03.2018. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur who

made a reference to this Tribunal after failure of conciliation. The workman has sought the relief of his reinstatement

with back wages and benefits setting aside his termination.

None appeared for management/department inspite of sufficient service of notice on them nor was any

written statement of defense filed. Hence, the reference proceeded ex-parte against management vide order dated

22.10.2022.

In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit and photocopy documents which are mainly Judicial Orders.

I have heard argument of Mr. S.K. Mishra learned Counsel for workman and have gone through record. The

uncontroverted affidavit of workman corroborates his case as pleaded in his statement of claim. Though he has filed

photocopies of salary bills and attendance sheets but has not proved them.

Section 2(oo) and 25-F of the Act are being reproduced as follows :-

2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include –

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

3531

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.

- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given one month 's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of

the notice

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days 'average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

From the uncontroverted affidavit of the workman his engagement and continuous employment for more

than 240 days in every year is held proved. The allegation that no notice or compensation was paid to him is also held

proved.

Hence, in the light of above discussion, the termination of services of the workman is held in violation of

Section 25-F of the Act.

As regards, the consequential relief, perusal of order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27.03.2003

passed in O.A. No.-563/2002 shows that the petition was disposed with following directions :-

1. In the event respondents have availability of work which has been earlier performed by applicants, they shall

be considered for reengagement in preference to juniors and outsiders.

2. Respondents shall consider regularizing applicants against Group-D posts subject to their eligibility as per

rules and availability of vacancy. In the O.A. No.-208/2004, the directions issued in the earlier O.A.

560/2002 with regard to engagement of the applicants.

3. In the 3^rd petition O.A. No.-386/2011 and 805/2013 disposed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its

order dated 20.08.2015 filed by the present workman alongwith similarly placed other co-workers. It was

held that no direction could be issued in favour of the petitioners directing the respondents to regularize

them.

4. In W.P. No.-7339/2015. The petition was permitted to be withdrawn.

In the light of aforesaid orders, the reinstatement of the workman with or without back wages will not be

proper. This is so keeping in view the fact that the workman was not appointed against any sanctioned vacancy

following recruitment process. In the light of judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur

in W.A. No.-1467/2018 passed on 10.02.2022 against order of Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court passed against

award regarding payment of compensation Rs. 75,000/-, passed by this Tribunal in case of a similarly placed

workman Suneel Kumar Kushwaha, the compensation was raised to Rs. 3,00,000/- by the said order in writ appeal

(copy on file), the present workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of all his

claims, to be paid by the management/ department within 30 days from the date of publication of award failing which

interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of award till payment, will meet the ends of justice to which the workman

is held entitled.

In the light of above discussion, the reference is answered as follows:-

Holding the action of the management of Commissioner, Narcotics Department, Gwalior in terminating

the services of workman Shri Dilip Kumar Ahirwar w.e.f. 27.08.2002 unjust & improper, he is held entitled to a

lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of all his claims, to be paid by the management/ department

within 30 days from the date of publication of award failing which interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of

award till payment.

DATE:- 01/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3532

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1580.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योणगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a29/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y-12012/14/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.29/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India their workmen.

[No. L-12012/14/2014- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Bhupesh Raikwar

S/o. Heeralal

Dhangar Mohalla, Balaganj

Mandsour (MP)

Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Mandsour Branch, Krishi Upaj

Mandi Premises, Mandsour (MP)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 08^th day of July-2024.)

As per letter dated 23/04/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as made this reference to

the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per reference number

L-12012/14/2014/IR(B-I) dt. 23/04/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the action of management of the then State Bank of Indore now State Bank of India, Mandsour

Branch in terminating the services of workman Shri Bhupesh Raikwar w.e.f. 12.10.2012 without

following provisions of I.D. Act is justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled ?”

After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were

duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in Mandsour Branch of the

Bank on 08.02.2001. He worked continuously till 12.10.2012. Thereafter he was terminated without notice or wages

in lieu of one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provision of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as

3533

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

required under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He was not paid wages in the light of Bipartite Settlement which he

was entitled to rather the management paid him sometimes in bogus names and on bogus bills raised in the name of

bogus persons just to ensure that the workman did not mature any right to continue with the Bank. He requested that

holding his termination against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits and also

entitled to be regularized as a Peon in the bank from the date of his termination.

The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,

is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked

as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in branch of the Bank and was

paid for it. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving

notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It was prayed that the reference be answered against

the workman.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit. He has filed and proved photocopy documents regarding

letter dated 15.11.2014 of Bank, with photocopy of cheque showing that he was paid bonus Rs. 4785/- and also

photocopy bonus calculation sheet which are Ex. W/1 & W/2, he has also filed is original passbook and has proved it.

Management did not file any affidavit of its witness or any document.

None appeared for workman at the time of argument. Mr. Pranay Chaubey appeared for management. I have

heard his argument and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union. The workman has corroborated his allegations

in his statement of claim. In his cross examination he admits that he was paid bonus for the days he worked. He

further states that he was not paid bonus correctly. Also states that he did not make any complaint regarding in

adequate payment of bonus and also regarding payment made by Bank to him in the name of bogus persons on bogus

bills. The calculation sheet regarding bonus Ex. W/2, filed by the workman himself, admitted by management shows

that he worked within the period 2004-05 to 2012-13 but in none of these years, he completed 240 days in

employment. The maximum period he worked in 2011-12 was of 170 days. Hence, the claim of the workman that he

worked continuously for 240 days in any year is held not proved. Accordingly, termination of his services by Bank is

held not in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

Hence, holding the claim of the workman union not proved, the reference deserves to be answered

against the workman union and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.

DATE: 08/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1581.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkQW bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योणगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a14/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y-39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-33]

सलोनी, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India their workmen

[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B-II)-33]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3534

Shri Arjun Singh Ahirwar (Mali),

S/o. Late Shri Kishanlal Ahirwar,

House Number 62, Gali Number 2,

Barela Village, Lalghati,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of India, S.T.C., Arera Hills,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 11^th day of July-2024.)

As per letter dated 02/03/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number J-1(1-

19)/2022-IR dt. 02/03/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-

“क्या श्री अर्जुन स िंह अहहरवार, कर्ुकार को बैंक ऑफ इिंडिया, प्रबिंधन, ए .टी. ी, अरेरा हहल् , भोपाल (र्ध्य प्रदेश)

व्दारा ेवा े ननष्काषित ककया र्ाना न्यायोचित है? यहद नहीिं, तो उक्त कर्ुकार को कब े और ककन लार्ों के ाथ कायु पर

पजनः बहाल ककया र्ाना िाहहए ?”

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service

of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

DATE: 11/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1582.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa

–सह–

] हैिराबाि ds iapkV (पहचान

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y--22012/41/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

3535

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 129/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/07/2024.

[No. L-22012/41/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 12^th day of July, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 129/2014

Between:

The President (Bandari Satyanaryana),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

Raj Kumar Complex,

Saibaba Temple Road, Jaffar Nagar,

Mancherial -504 208.

… .. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri -504231

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri S. Bhagwanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/41/2014-IR(CM.II) dated 30.6.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Edla Rajesh, Ex.Badli Coal Filler, RK-1 Inc.,

Mandamarri with effect from 27.11.2009 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled

for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 129/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the Workman was appointed as an employee on 4^th January, 2007 and he became permanent

employee during the course of service in the company. The service conditions of the Workman are governed by

various standing orders of the company. It is submitted that the Workman could not attend to his duties during the

year 2008 due to his ill-health and the Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30^th January, 2009 and the

Workman submitted his reply on 15^th March 2009. The same was not considered by the Respondent company and

Workman was dismissed from service through proceedings No.MMR/PER/B/072/09/5942, dated 17^th November

2009. It is submitted that the Workman preferred an appeal to the higher authorities that went in vain and authorities

have mechanically upheld the orders of Chief General Manager, Bellampally Division. It is submitted that the

Workman has put in 3 years of continuous service without any red mark and the Workman still have 20 years of

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3536

service for superannuation. The removal of the service of the Workman who rendered more than 2 years of qualified

service is arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and also against to the provisions of the

Standing Orders of the Company. It is submitted that the Workman was given employment for the post as an Ex.Coal

Filler subject to availability of vacancy of work. Whenever Workman used to go for job it was told that there was no

work, as such it appears to be a contributory negligence. The intention of the company is crystal clear to remove the

masses i.e., excessive labour and Company adopted unfair labour practice and victimisation. The Workman could not

opt for Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of employment, but opted for employment. Now the Workman has got

re-option to claim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of dependent employment through settlements dated 20^th

November, 2009 if employment is not provided. The action of the Respondent amounts to hire and fire, which has no

force in the industrial jurisprudence. It is submitted that there was settlement from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2010 arrived

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) at Hyderabad, that cases of those who were removed from 1^st January,

2000 to 30^th December, 2010, can be considered by the management as per the circular No.P.40/5911/IR/33, dated

10^th March, 2000. The Workman was called for interview. But his case was not considered for reemployment as per

the settlement. Had the Workman was given employment, he would have put in more than additional 20 years of

service. It is submitted that the Respondent did not conduct enquiry properly and no documents were given to the

Workman and no subsistence allowance was paid to him. The Respondent obtained thumb impressions on enquiry

report and conducted inquiry and Workman do not know the English language and enquiry was conducted by the

Respondent without mentioning the contents therein which is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural

justice. It is submitted that after his removal from service by the Respondent dated 13^th October, 2008, Workman and

his children were on roads with untold sufferings. Hence, prayed to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Workman

into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits with full back wages by setting aside the dismissal

order dated 17^th November 2009.

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is submitted that the Workman was appointed on 10/1/2007 as Badli Coal Filler. His date of birth is 22 May 1984.

It is submitted that at the time of dismissal, Workman was working as badli coal filler at RK 1A Mine and not at RK.1

Mine as mentioned in the claim statement. It is submitted that the Workman was dismissed on proved charge of

unauthorised absenteeism on 27/11/2009. It is submitted that the Workman failed to put in 190 actual musters in any

of the calendar years during his service . It is submitted that badli fillers who have put in 190 musters in a calendar

year will be reviewed for regularisation of their services as coal fillers against identified vacancies from time to time,

but the Workman being irregular to duties did not put in 190 musters and hence he continued to work as badli filler

only till the date of his dismissal. It is submitted that the Workman disqualified himself for regularization of his

services as coal filler. During the year 2008, the Workman had put in only 66 actual attendances and remained

absent to duties on the remaining days in the said calendar year which amounts to misconduct under Companies

Standing Orders clause No.25.25, which reads as under:-

“ S.O. No. 25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”

It is submitted that the Workman was issued with a charge sheet dated 22.1. 2009 while he was working at MK 4

Incline and Workman acknowledged the same. Workman has submitted his explanation dated 5.2.2009 stating that

he was working as badli filler at MK 4 Incline and due to ill health of his mother, he went to their native village, i.e.,

Kothagudem and stayed there and Workman assured to be regular to his duties. But Workman did not substantiate

the alleged ill health of his mother and about her treatment at Kothagudem and about his stay with her at

Kothagudem by producing any documentary evidence. Since the explanation submitted by the Workman was not

satisfactory an enquiry was ordered. It is further submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry

Officer, duly following the principles of natural justice and giving every opportunity to the Workman to defend his

case during the course of enquiry. Workman was offered the services of assistance of Co- worker or Trade Union

Representative to assist the Workman during the course of enquiry but Workman denied this offer. The Enquiry

Officer has explained the procedure in Telugu and the Workman having satisfied himself and understood the

procedure, expressed his readiness to participate in the enquiry and the proceedings were recorded in English. The

actual proceedings were held in Telugu only and at every stage, inquiry officer explained the recorded proceedings in

Telugu to the Workman and Workman affixed his signature having satisfied himself. It is submitted that the

Workman has accepted the charges and pleaded guilty of the Charge. It is submitted that Workman assured that he

will be more careful in future and will not remain absent unauthorizedly. He did not avail the opportunity to cross

examine the Presenting Officer. Workman requested to give him a month’s time and assured to be regular and

improve his attendance. Considering his assurance he was given one month time to enable him to improve his

attendance vide letter dated 2.8.2009 with effect from 1.8.2009 with a condition to put in 16 filling musters in the

month and fill two and more tubs per day. It is submitted that the Workman failed to improve his attendance and he

did not put in even a single muster in August 2009. Further, he was given another opportunity for improving his

attendance by giving two more months time. In these two months, he had put in 06 musters and 09 musters only in

September and October 2009 respectively. His year wise attendance during the years: 2007-145 musters, 2008-066

musters and in 2009-059 musters. Workman was supplied with enquiry proceedings and report. But he did not

dispute the same and requested only to allow him for duty and assured to be regular to duties. Hence, the

3537

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent was left with no option except to impose penalty of dismissal and accordingly he was dismissed on 27^th

November, 2009 vide order No.MMR/PER/D/072/09/5942, dated 17^th November 2009. It is further submitted that

the Workman is showing one or other reason without proper and substantiating evidence. Mere stating causes of ill

health without disclosing the nature of ailment and report of treatment, will not suffice. It is further submitted that the

Workman should have reported sick in Colliery hospitals for treatment or get sanctioned leave to his credit or loss of

pay leave instead of remaining absent from duties. In addition to the Workman, the Respondent company extends

medical treatment to parents of the workmen, also in colliery dispensaries, Area hospitals and Main Hospital,

Kothagudem wherein there are Specialised Medical equipment, specialist doctors available. But the Workman did not

avail these opportunities. It is submitted that the Workman made a representation data 6.1.2010 to the Director( PA

& W), Kothagudem and his representation was examined by the Appellate Authority taking into consideration the

enquiry report, enquiry proceedings and other documents and his representation was disposed of through letter dated

5.3.2010 duly explaining the reasons for not considering his appeal. It is submitted that the Workman was given

employment for the post as an ex.coal filler is totally incorrect. In fact, neither the Workman nor any of the badli

filler have ever been rejected for providing employment because the badli fillers who ever attend duty will be

provided work in the leave vacancies of regular employees. The Workman to overshadow his mistake and

misconduct, is trying to blame the Respondent and terming it a contributory negligence which is denied. It is also

submitted that unauthorised absenteeism among employees would dislocate the planned works and at times the Mine

authorities are required to postpone some of the urgent works due to absenteeism among workforce and in the event

of exigencies of works, the Mine management is required to engage employees on overtime also. Hence, the

Respondent company is compelled to take severe action against absentee employees to administer discipline among

the workforce. It is submitted that once employment is obtained and employment is given, it is the bounden

responsibility of the employee concerned to abide by the rules and regulations of the company. He is required to

attend duties regularly and if suffers from ill health, he got every opportunity to take treatment in Colliery Hospital

and then the period would not have been considered as unauthorised absenteeism. He had to have applied for

sanction of leave to his credit or loss of pay leave for sickness, which he did not do and not even communicated to

the Mine Manager about his inability to attend to duties. It is submitted that Memorandum of Settlement was arrived

at on 9.8.2011 with the then recognised Union AITUC. Under item No. 2 of the said memorandum of settlement, it

was agreed to review the cases of those employees dismissed on the ground of absenteeism during the period

1.1.2000 to 31.12.2010 for review by High Power Committee headed by Director (PA & W) of Respondent company.

The conditions for review by High Power Committee for considering the cases of eligible dismissed candidates for

appointment are:- 1. The dismissed employee should be below 55 years on or before 9.8.2011; 2. He should have 190

musters in case of underground employee and 240 mustards in case of surface employee in any 2 calendar years out

of the previous 5 years. Prior to the year of dismissal, or should have put in 150 masters in case of underground

employees and 200 masters in case of surface employee in every year in the previous 4 years. In the present case,

Workman also submitted application for considering his case for appointment and the Workman was called for

interview by Hi-power Committee but the committee did not consider his case fit for giving appointment afresh as he

is not satisfying any of the conditions. It is submitted that as per approved standing orders of the Respondent

company, subsistence allowance is payable to an employee who is placed under suspension pending enquiry but not

to an employee who is not placed under suspension. It is submitted that the Workman as a responsible employee and

as a responsible family head, ought to have realised his responsibilities and discharged them dutifully, which could

have averted the present situation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the case of the Workman.

On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge for

determination:-

Whether the Departmental Enquiry held against the workman is legal and valid?

II.

Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Edla Rajesh, Ex.Badli Coal Filler, RK-1 Inc.,

Mandamarri with effect from 27.11.2009 is justified or not?

III.

To what relief is the Workman entitled?

Findings:-

Point No.I:- The Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Respondent Management has been held legal

and valid vide order dated 18.4.2017.

This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.II:- In the present matter, Workman was chargesheeted for committing misconduct under the

Company’s Standing Order number 25.25, for the habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without

sufficient cause. As he has put in only 066 actual musters during the year 2008 an enquiry against the workman was

conducted by Respondent Management following principles of natural justice. Respondent Management submitted

that workman was given fair opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceedings before enquiry which he has

availed. The workman never raised any objection complaining about causing any prejudice before the enquiry.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3538

Further, Respondent contended that workman has admitted that he received the chargesheet, and was aware of the

charges levelled against him. He also admitted that he understood the charge levelled against him. Further, workman

has accepted the charge levelled against him. During the enquiry, workman also stated that he do not want to take

assistance of any Co-worker or trade union representative in the enquiry. Further, on the request of the Workman,

Enquiry Officer has explained the procedure of inquiry in Telugu, which he understood and thereafter affixed his

signature on the statement stating that he has read and understood the proceeding and participated in the enquiry

initiated against him. Respondent submitted that workman in his explanation has admitted the chargesheet and he

stated that he is admitting the charges mentioned there in.

However, during the enquiry proceeding Respondent management has examined two witnesses, i.e., Sri M.

Srinivas, POA and Presenting Officer in support of charges and witness also deposed during enquiry that the

Workman remained habitually absent for 260 days from duty and he has put in only 066 musters during the period

from January, 2008 to December, 2008. Further, Management witness stated that Workman never got sanctioned

leave before availing and never reported sick in any Company’s hospital during the alleged absent period. Moreover

the cross examination opportunity of witness was extended to the delinquent Workman, but he refused to cross

examine the witness. The other witness, Sri B. Chandrasekhar Paysheet Clerk was examined as Management witness

in support of charge sheet and witness has stated that he was working as a Paysheet clerk for the piece rated Paysheet

of MK 4 incline,Mandamarri area and the Workman remained absent on the dates mentioned in the table given in his

statement. He also stated that for a total number of 260 days Workman had remained absent from duty during the

alleged period mentioned in charge sheet. This witness has also produced and proved the documentary evidence i.e.,

attendance Register pertains from January, 2008 to December, 2008 and H- register, i.e., leave register for the year

2008, through which he has verified and stated that total 260 days absenteeism has been recorded in the attendance

the Workman refused to avail it. The statement of the Workman was also recorded during the enquiry and in his

statement Workman has admitted the fact that he remained absent on the dates mentioned in the chargesheet and it

was his mistake to remain absent. Thus, Workman has accepted the charges and pleaded guilty of the charge.

Further, workman stated that he remained absent in the dates mentioned in the charge sheet due to ill health of his

mother and he did not obtain prior sanction of the leave or sick leave for the said period. Further, the Workman

stated that he was not having any medical treatment slips or reports to produce in the enquiry proceedings to

substantiate his claim. However. Workman has admitted in his statement that it was his mistake for remaining

absent during the period stated in the chargesheet, i.e., from January 2008 to December 2008, for a total period of 260

days. Further, workman was also cross examined by the Presenting Officer for Respondent Management and in his

cross examination workman has admitted that he has not reported sick in the company’s hospital, nor he has got

sanctioned any leave for the period of his absence. Further, workman stated that he accept the charge that he

remained habitually absent from duty as mentioned in the chargesheet, and he is not having any medical slips are

reports during the enquiry to substantiate his statement. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence recorded during the

inquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding the Workman guilty of the misconduct under

Companies Standing Orders No.25.25 for habitual absenteeism from duty without sufficient cause on the basis of

Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a copy of the enquiry report to the Workman, along with show

cause notice. Thereafter, on going through the enquiry report and evidence on record and written representation of

the Workman, Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal of workman from service.

From the perusal of the charges that has been held proved against workman in the domestic enquiry, one

cannot possibly argue that charge was simple in nature. In other words, the charges were of serious in nature. The

workman habitually remaining absent from duty without sufficient cause, due to such conduct of workman.

Respondent Company’s work has suffered a lot. Respondent counsel contended that if the unauthorised absence of

the employees is allowed to continue it would lead to encouraging the indiscipline in the industry which in turn affect

the discipline in the industry. Due to the said conduct of absence from duty of the Workman the work of the

company was disrupted and company also suffered the loss of working days. Therefore, the Respondent prayed that

the conduct of the Workman is grossly serious in nature and the punishment of dismissal from service was appropriate

punishment in this case. Keeping in view the serious nature of the habitual misconduct committed by the Workman.

the order of dismissal passed against him cannot be faulted with nor can be said to be in any way disproportionate to

the gravity of the misconduct. In other words, punishment of dismissal was proportionate with the gravity of charge,

hence deserves to be upheld.

Thus, in view of the provision contained in clause 25.25 of Company’s Standing Orders, the Workman has

committed gross misconduct and he has been rightly held guilty of the charges levelled against him.

In State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, the Apex Court have held:-

“Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions,

we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a

grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with

the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when

3539

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is

made out.”

In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 Apex Court have held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a

fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service

of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a

long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained

absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were

seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it

cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:

"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence,

more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence

and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows

the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only

exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders

the absence unauthorised."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, discussed as above, in the present matter, the

conduct of workman remaining absent from duty without any plausible and reasonable cause for long duration has

been considered a serious misconduct. However, in the present case Workman utterly failed to substantiate his plea

of illness by any evidence for absenteeism from duty during the alleged period. Moreover, Workman has also failed

to explain as to why he did not intimate about his illness to the Respondent Management to obtain the sanctioned

leave or to report sick in the Respondent Company hospital. Thus, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case

I am of the considered view that Workman remained absent from duty for a long period during the year 2008 without

sanctioned leave or intimation to Management and such conduct of the Workman is not condonable in any of the

circumstances.

10.

Further, Workman has pleaded that Disciplinary Authority did not consider his submission before issuing

the impugned order of dismissal and he is sole bread winner of his family and as a result of his dismissal from

service, his whole family rendered without any livelihood. Therefore, prayed for taking lenient view regarding

punishment imposed.

11.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Respondent's Company employs more than 67,000

persons, which includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The production results will depend upon the over all

attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable. In this regard, if

any one remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets effected.

Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill up, and there will be no proper

planning and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That is the reason why the

Respondent's Company is compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees. In the instant case, the

Workman is one such unauthorized absentee and he had put in only 06 musters during the year 2008. He was

dismissed after conducting a fair enquiry, giving full opportunity to the Workman to defend his case and providing

him an opportunity of three months time to improve his attendance. The Workman failed to rectify his mistake. After

issuance of charge sheet he had put in just 059 musters during the year 2009. As such, the Respondent's Company

was constrained to dismiss the Workman for unauthorized habitual absenteeism with effect from 27.11.2009 vide

dismissal order No.MMR/PER/D/072/ 09/5942, dated 17.11.2009.

As regards the power and jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in case of interference in the order of Disciplinary

Authority is concerned, Industrial Courts or High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of

punishment imposed upon by the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on this

point is extracted below:-

a. State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], Hon’ble Apex Court

have held:-

“the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment

imposed upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or

the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of

punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that

the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be

shocking to one's conscience."

b. In Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil Appeal 5762-5763 of 2009 decided

on 24.08.2009, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test of proportionality of punishment and held:-

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3540

“One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable

employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take

into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude

irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”

c. In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022

LLR page 126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held:

“once the enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper, industrial Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction

to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of

conduct.”

Therefore, in view of settled laws laid down by of Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, this Tribunal has very

limited scope to interfere in the order of Disciplinary Authority. However, the workman has failed to establish that

the order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary Authority is either perversed or has been passed without any evidence.

12.

Since, the Workman in the matter on hand has been found habitual absentee from duty, and due to his said

conduct, the work of the Respondent Company got obstructed and Company also suffered loss. Therefore, in such

circumstances, the Respondent Disciplinary Authority was constrained to pass the order of dismissal of Workman

from the service. Thus, Disciplinary Authority has passed the dismissal order dated 17.11.2009 after taking into

consideration the evidence and finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the representation of the workman and also

took into consideration the past conduct of the charge sheeted employee. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity

in the dismissal order of the Workman under challenge in this petition.

This Point No.II is answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

13.

Point No.III:- In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Point No.I & II, and law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court, the Workman is not entitled for any relief and his petition is liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion and finding arrived at Points No.I, II & III, I am of the considered

view that the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of the Workman Sri Edla Rajesh, Ex.Badli Coal Filler, RK-1

Inc., Mandamarri with effect from 27.11.2009 is held legal and justified. Hence, the Workman is not entitled to any

relief as prayed for. As such, the petition filed by the Workman Union being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 12^th day of July, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1583.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एम्स के णलए रोणहत लोचव, एलडी.एआर, एम/एस.ए.एस.एसोणसएट्स के णलए अणभषेक शुक्ला,

एलडी.एआर ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

3541

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

–सह–

नं. II] नई दिल्ली ds iapkV (आई डी नम्बर 22/2019,23/2019

एवं 24/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ सं. ,y--20013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 22/2019,23/2019 and 24/2019) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the Management of Rohit Lochav,ld.AR for AIIMS.Abhishek Shukla,Ld.AR For M/s.A.S.Associates.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/08/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM –

LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 22/2019, 23/2019, 24/2019

Decided on: 07.06.2024.

Sh. Rajender Sharma, Sh. Ajay Kumar and Sh. Harbeer Singh

Vs.

Director (Chief) of NDDTC, AIIMS and Ors.

Counsels:

For Applicants/ Claimants:

Sh. Chandrashekhar Azad, Ld. AR For claimants.

For Managements/ Respondents:

Sh. Rohit Lochav, Ld. AR for AIIMS.

Sh. Abhishek Shukla, Ld. AR for M/s A.S. Associates.

AWARD

These are the three cases filed by different workmen against the same respondents. Having common cause

of action and common respondents, these cases are taken together for deciding the issue of maintainability in view of

section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act which sets out the limitation for filing of claims.

Before proceeding further, the brief fact in regard to these claim petitions are required to be produced.

Workmen particulars, whose claims are being dealt are given below in tabular form:

workman

Post

Salary

Date of

appointment

Date of

termination

Sh. Rajender sharma

Electrician

5500/-

p.m.

01.12.2003

01.06.2013

Sh. Ajay Kumar

Electrician

3500/-

p.m.

01.04.2009

01.06.2013

Sh. Harbeer Singh

Electrician

5000/-

p.m.

02.08.2007

01.06.2013

The case of workmen is that they were appointed through management-1 with their respective dates at the

post of electrician. They had always performed their duty with utmost care and diligence. Management had not been

providing them legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance, earned leave, casual leave, overtime bonus and

pay-scale. When the workmen demanded the above said legal facilities, the management without any intimation,

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3542

started to pay their wages through contractor since 2010. When the workmen raised objection, their services had been

terminated on 01.06.2013. Workmen have been rendered jobless since the date of their illegal termination. Workmen

sent a demand notice regarding their illegal termination and orally requested the management for reinstatement

through the conciliation officer and Assistant Labor Commissioner (Central), (Dehradun) but it yielded no result.

Hence, they filed the present claim with the prayer that they be reinstated with continuity of service and full back

wages along with consequential benefits and regularization of their services at the post of electrician with the

retrospective effect from their initial date of joining. Respondent-1 and respondent-2 had appeared and filed their

respective written statements

where they denied the averment made by claimants in their claim petition. Management-1 stated that the

workmen had left the services of their own. Management-2 denied to have had any employer-employee

relationship between them and the workmen. Issues had been framed in the present cases on 17.09.2019.

Following issues were framed:

Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

Where their exists any relationship as employer and employee between management-1 and

management-2 and the claimants.

Whether the services of the workmen were terminated illegally by the managements.

To what relief the workmen are entitled to.

These matters were listed for filing of reply of application U/s 11

(3)

(b). At that time, this tribunal found that these claim petitions were filed by the claimants in the year

2019, much beyond the period of limitation prescribed U/s 2-A (3). On 21.05.2024, these matters were

fixed for consideration on maintainability of these petitions. On 30.05.2024, AR for the workmen sought

adjournment stating that he was not well. He was given one week’s time for giving clarification in regard

to the fact whether these applications are maintainable in view of specific bar imposed by statute. Before

we proceed further, it is necessary to produce the text of section 2-A:

“2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial

dispute.- [(1)] where any employer discharges, dismisses,

retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any

dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising

out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an

industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is

a party to the dispute.

(2)

Not withstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in

sub- section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal

for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days

from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the

appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such

application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government in accordance with the provisions of this act and all the provisions of

this act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an

industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3)

The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).

A perusal of the aforesaid section would go to show that a dispute connected with or arising out of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of the workman can be directly

agitated by workman U/s 2-A of the act and it is not necessary that such disputes should be sponsored by

the trade union or a substantial number of workmen. However, what is required is that workman who has

been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated as specified in sub-section (1) of section 2-A can

make an application directly to Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of his individual dispute after

expiry of 45 days from the date he has made an application to conciliation officer of appropriate

government for conciliation of dispute. Sub-section 3 of section 2-A lay down the time limit for making

such application to Labour Court or the tribunal. It provides that such application to Labour Court or

tribunal shall be made before expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

otherwise termination of services as specified in sub-section-1. This right is available to the workman

without any effect upon remedy available in section 10 of the act.

3543

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ld. AR of workmen has relied upon the judgments Ajayab Singh Vs Sirhind Cooperation and

Raghubir Singh Vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar passed on 08.04.1999 and

03.09.2014 respectively by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and submitted that limitation act is not

applicable in the Industrial Dispute Act. He submitted that in both of the said judgments, it was held

as such.

On the other hand, Ld. AR for management relied upon the judgments Balwan Singh and Ors. Vs.

Sahara India Parivar and Ors., W.P. (C) 4357/2013 and Sh. Lal Chand Vs. Himachal Pradesh State

Electricity Board Limited and Ors., CWP No. 3058/2023 and stated that the case is barred by

limitation as set out in clause 3 of section 2-A of act.

Judgments relied by AR of claimant are not relevant in the present case. The Apex Court in both the

judgments passed in 1999 and 2014 had held that the limitation act is not applicable to the references

made under Industrial Dispute act, 1947 and those judgments had been delivered in respect of section

10 (1)

industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended at any time to one of the authorities mentioned in the

section. How and in what manner or through what machinery, the government is apprised of the dispute is

hardly relevant. The only requirement of taking action U/s 10 (1) is that there must be some material

before the government which will enable the appropriate government to form an opinion that an

industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. These cases in hand are not referred by the appropriate

government by making the reference to this tribunal. These cases relied by AR of the claimants is not in

reference to section 2-A of the act where the limitation is set out for approaching Labour Court or tribunal

directly after expiry of 45 days of approaching the conciliation officer in respect of their

termination, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal of the services.

Next contention of AR for claimants is that plea of limitation has not been raised by the management, that

is also not relevant. The tribunal is bound to follow the dictate of the law enacted by the legislature.

10.

Reading of section 2-A (3) would lead to an irresistible conclusion that time stipulated for invoking

jurisdiction of Labour Court or the tribunal as the case maybe, has to be necessarily before expiry of three

years from date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services as specified in

sub-section (1). It is mandatory, not directory.

11.

Now, in cases in hand, admittedly, the services of workmen were terminated on 01.06.2013. Failure of

conciliation certificate was issued by the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Dehradun on

20.11.2018 and the claims had been filed after three months of receiving the failure certificate i.e. on

01.02.2019 after 05 years and 08 months of their termination.

12.

In view of the above discussion, all these three petitions are not maintainable in view of specific bar of

section 2-A (3) of Industrial Dispute Act. Hence, these claim petitions stand dismissed. Award is

accordingly passed. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file. Copy of this award is sent to the

appropriate government for notification as required U/s 17 of the I.D Act. These files are consigned

to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1584.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj केन्रीय णचदकत्सालय, बड़कुही, वेकोली ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

] जबलपुर

ds iapkV (एलसी-

आर/

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. -,y--22012/158/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/11/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3544

Management of Central Hospital,Badkuhi,Vekoli and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/158/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Santosh Bathav

Badkuhi, Tehsil – Parasiya

District – Chhindwara– 480001 (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

Chief Medical Officer

Central Hospital, Badkuhi, Vekoli

Pench Area, Parasiya,

Distt.- Chhindwara – 480001 (M.P.)

Management

JUDGEMENT

(Passed on this 21^st day of June-2024)

As per letter dated 31/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as made this reference to

the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per reference number L-

22012/158/2018/IR(CM-2) dt. 31/12/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-

^^1-

D;k] egkizca/kd ¼dk- o vkS- la-½] osdksfy eq[;ky; ukxiqj }kjk vukf/kd`r :i ls vius dk;Z ls

vuqifLFkr dkexkjksa dks fu;af=r djus ds mn~ns'; ls tkjh fd;k x;k ifji= fnukad 27@8@02 ¼izfr layXu½ osdksfy esa

izpfyr LFkkbZ vkKkvksa ds vuqlkj ekU; gS \** ;fn ugh arks D;k mDr ifji= jn~n fd, tkus ;ksX; gS \**

^^2-

D;k] izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] dsanzh; fpfdRlky;] cM+dqgh] osdksfy] isap ijkfl;k] ftyk fNanokM+k }kjk

Jh larks"k ckFko dks fnukad 19@2@18 ls dk;Z ij tkus dh vuqefr osdksfy ds ifji= fnukad 27@8@02 ds vuqlkj uk

nsuk mfpr gS \ ;fn ugha rks mDr dkexkj D;k vuqrks"k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS \**

After receiving the reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and filed their respective

statements of claim and defence.

The case of applicant Workman, as taken by him in his statement of claim, is mainly that he was issued a

chargesheet by management on March 10^th, 2017 with an allegation that he absented himself on authorisedly and

wilfully within the period from February 23^rd, 2017. to March 10^th, 2017, which is misconduct in para 26.30 of the

Certified Standing Orders. He submitted his reply dated March 15^th 2017 by way of registered a post stating that he

had got sanctioned earned leave for five days from February 23^rd 2017 to February 28^th 2017 and thereafter, he

became sick, was under treatment of Doctor in the Government Hospital Betul from March 1^st 2017 to May 22^nd

2017. He further stated that he had sent an information to management, in this respect also. In the meantime, he

remained in judicial custody in relation to a criminal case registered against him for the period August 29^th 2017 to

January 31^st 2018. It is further, the case of the workman that the chargesheet dated March 10^th 2017, which was issued

against him earlier by management and was kept in abeyance was again picked up by management and a departmental

enquiry was ordered against him vide order Dated April 11^th 2018 on the basis of that chargesheet. According to the

workman, when he appeared for resuming his job after his release from custody on bail and requested the

management to allow him to resume his duties on February 19^th 2018, he was not allowed to resume his job and his

prayer was kept pending till July 20^th, 2018 and issue was permitted to resume is duties only on July 20^th 2018. Thus,

this action of management in not permitting the workman to resume his duties on February 19^th 2018, when he

appeared before management and requested for it and keeping his this prayer pending till July, 20^th 2018, is in

violation of paragraph 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders and is arbitrary. The Workman has thus prayed that, he

3545

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

be held entitled to wages for the period from February 19^th 2018 to July 20^th 2018 and also be held entitled to

subsistence allowance for the period spent by him in judicial custody in relation to the criminal case, deeming him to

be suspended during that period, and also be held entitled to earned leave and medical leave as per rules for the period

February 23^rd 2017 to May 2^nd 2017 and other consequential benefits.

The case of management, as taken by them in their written statement of defence, is mainly that the

Workman has been habitual absentee. He has been in the habit of remaining absent from duty without permission

intimation and sanction of leave. He was issued a chargesheet on March 10^th 2017 for absence without any

information or getting leave sanctioned from February 23^rd 2017 to March 10^th 2017. In the meanwhile, management,

received a communication from Police Department that the Workman was required for interrogation in relation to

some police case and he was advised by management to appear before the police in this respect by a letter of

management. The Workman sent his reply on March 14^th 2017, is stating that he had applied leave from February 23^rd

2017 and he could not report on duty due to sickness because he was under treatment from District Hospital and also

that the police had wrongly implicated him in the case for which he was seeking legal remedies. The case of

management is that this ground of sickness and treatment in government Hospital taken by the Workman in his reply

dated March 14^th 2017 was false and fabricated because he did not file any medical subscription, no receipt regarding

payment in purchase of medicines etc. His medical certificate regarding his treatment in District Hospital is also

fabricated. He was in judicial custody from August 29^th 2017 to February 19^th 2018. He was duty bound to inform the

management regarding his arrest by police and judicial custody, but he did not do so and made a representation only

on February 19^th after he came on being released on bail. The enquiry proceedings were initiated against him on the

basis of charge sheet in which he admitted is fault but on the request of union and his assurance that he will improve

himself, the management decided not to take any action against him. According to management, there is nothing

illegal regarding action taken against the Workman. Accordingly, management has requested that the reference be

answered against the Workman.

In evidence, the workman has filed and proved photocopy of charge sheet dated March 10^th 2017, letter of

management to the workman dated March, 1^st 2017 informing him about the police case and requiring him to contact

the police enquiry proceedings, circular of management, dated August 27^th 2002, letter of general manager dated

August 27^th 2002, circular of management, dated July 11^th 2018. With respect to timeline for duty allowance proposal,

letter of management, dated July 9^th /10^th 2018, sent to the workman leveling against him charges of absence without

any sufficient cause and without getting any leave sanctioned for the period February 23^rd 2017 to February 19^th 2018,

letter of management, dated July 20^th 2018 permitting the workman to resume his duties. The Workman has further

filed his affidavit as his examination in Chief. He has been cross-examined by management.

Management has filed the affidavit of its witness as his examination in Chief. He has been cross-examined

by Workman. Management has not filed or proved any documentary evidence.

I have heard argument of learned counsel for management. Mr. Neeraj Kewat. None was present for the

workman at the time of argument, but written arguments has been filed from his side, which is part of record. I have

gone through the written arguments and the record as well.

After having gone through the record in the light of rival arguments, following issue comes up for

determination in this case-

“1.

Whether the action of management in not permitting him to join his duties from February

19^th 2018 ie; the date on which he submitted himself for resuming his duties and requested the

management for it and allowing him to resume his duties only from July 20^th 2018 as well not paying

him his wages for this period also not paying subsistence allowance to the workman for the period he

remained in custody as well not sanctioning him leave for the period under medical treatment is just

and legal ?

Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?.”

Issue number one-

From the evidence on record, the fact that departmental enquiry was conducted against the Workman on the

basis of charge sheet issued against him on March 10^th 2017, which contained charge of wilful absence without any

sufficient cause within the period February 23^rd 2017 to March 10^th 2017, also that no departmental enquiry was

conducted on the basis of charge sheet issued by management against the Workman on July 9^th /10^th 2018, sent to the

workman leveling against him charges of absence without any sufficient cause and without getting any leave

sanctioned for the period February 23^rd 2017 to February 19^th 2018 , is not disputed. The fact that in the departmental

enquiry conducted against the Workman on the basis of charge sheet above referred, the workman admitted, the

charges, though he mentioned reasons behind his absence and assured the management that he will not repeat in

future. There is nothing on record produced by management, nor pleaded by management that any punishment was

awarded to the workman rather management has come with a case that in place of punishment, the Workman was

given a chance to improve himself.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3546

On the cost of repetition, it is further stated that no departmental enquiry was conducted against the

Workman on the basis of the chargesheet Dated July 9^th /10^th 2018, sent to the workman leveling against him charges

of absence without any sufficient cause and without getting any leave sanctioned for the period February 23^rd 2017 to

February 19^th 2018. Hence this chargesheet will be deemed to be in operational.

In the circular of August 27^th 2002, it has been mentioned that when the absence is beyond three months

continuously, the Workman shall not be allowed duty by the area. In such case, disciplinary action should be initiated

for such misconduct. However, if there be any genuine case having proper justification for such absence and Chief

General Manager/General Manager is satisfied, such cases should be forwarded to General Manager (P&IR) WCL

HQ along with complete details and a recommendation for necessary consideration and approval of Director

(Personnel). The letter of management, dated July 20^th, 2018 shows that the Workman was permitted to join after

approval of the Director on his application to resume his duties filed by him on February 19^th 2018. The question

here arises as to whether the Workman is entitled to be deemed to be on duty from February 19^th 2018, when

he appeared for resuming his job and requested the management for this. Keeping in mind the fact that firstly,

he was awarded no punishment for any of misconducts leveled against him in the two chargesheets as mentioned

above, even when enquiry was conducted with respect to only one chargesheet, secondly, the time consumed by

management in getting approval for joining the workman on job could not be attributed on the part of the workman,

and thirdly, management could not cite any provision mentioning that within the period consumed between filing of

application regarding permission to join his job by the Workman and approval of management, the workman will not

be paid any wages, the it equity and Justice both require that the Workman be not denied his wages for this period,

and holding the action of management denying the wages to the workman for the period between February

19^th 2018 to July 20^th 2018 unjustified in law, the management is held liable to pay the wages and all other

service benefits to the workman , deeming him to be in service for this period.

As regards the claim of the Workman regarding subsistence allowance to him for the period, in judicial

custody, references of paragraph 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders is required, which is being reproduced as

follows-

Notwithstanding the provisions contained in the standing orders, as above, the management reserves

the right to suspend or Workman being prosecuted in a court of law for any grave criminal offence involving

moral turpitude or murder until disposal of the trial. In such cases, the Workman concerned shall be entitled

to 50% of wages as subsistence allowance. In case the above workman is finally acquitted he would be paid in

full wages for the period of suspension.

During the period in which the Workman was in judicial custody with the relation to some criminal case as

detailed above, it is to be kept in mind that there is no formal suspension order passed by the management in this

respect. Since the Workman was in custody and does couldn’t not be available for his duties, in absence of any

provision otherwise referred to from the side of management, he shall be deemed to suspended. Thus, he shall be

entitled for subsistence allowance as provided in paragraph 28.9 referred to above, and the action of

management in not paying him subsistence allowance for the period is held arbitrary and against law.

As the claim of the workman regarding his wages for period regarding he produced medical papers with

respect to his illness and treatment in Government Hospital, since there is no finding in enquiry or evidence otherwise

that this certificate was not genuine, the management is held under legal obligation to consider this certificate

and grant the workman medical leave as well salary and other in service benefits for this period ie; from

February 23^rd 2017 to May 22^nd 2017.

Issue number one is answered accordingly.

Issue number two –

In the light of findings recorded in issue number one, the workman is held entitled to relief as detailed in

issue number one.

On the basis of the above discussion, the reference is answered as follows-

AWARD

Holding the action of management in not permitting the workman to join his duties from February

19^th 2018 ie; the date on which he submitted himself for resuming his duties and requested the management for

it and allowing him to resume his duties only from July 20^th 2018 as well not paying him his wages for this

period also not paying subsistence allowance to the workman for the period he remained in custody as well not

sanctioning him leave for the period under medical treatment illegal, the Workman is held entitled to the

wages and all other service benefits, deeming him to be in service for this period between Feb,12^th 2018 to July

20^th 2018. He is further held entitled for subsistence allowance as provided in paragraph 28.9 of Certified

Standing Orders for period he was in custody. He is also held entitled to consideration of grant of medical leave

as well salary and other in service benefits for this period under which he produced medical certificates

regarding his treatment, ie; from February 23^rd 2017 to May 22^nd 2017 under relevant Rules.

3547

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No order as to costs.

Reference stands answered accordingly.

DATE: 21/06/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1585.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लल्यू.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/

) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ सं. -,y--22012/13/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/42/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of W.C.L.and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/13/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Sh. Suraj Pal S/o. Sh. Barelal Balmiki

Near Nagar Nigam Engineers House,

Near TB Memorial Hospital

Madhanta Colony, Chhindwara (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Manager

Western Coalfields Limited

Tansi Project, Kanhan Area, PO: Rampur Bhoya

Tehsil Junardev, Distt.-Chhindwara - 480555

Management

JUDGEMENT

(Passed on this 11^th day of July-2024)

As per letter dated 11/05/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as made this reference to

the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per reference number L-

22012/13/2015/IR(CM-II) dt. 11/05/2015. The dispute under reference related to :-

^^D;k izca/kd] rkulh dUgku {ks= osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dkUgku {ks=] Mqaxfj;k] ftyk fNanokM+k] }kjk

vkosnd Jh lwjtiky firk Jh ckjsyky] iwoZ fyfid] rkulh] dUgku {ks=] osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM dkUgku {ks=]

Mqaxfj;k ftyk fNanokM+k dks mudh tUe frfFk 01-05-1955 ds LFkku ij 01-07-1946 ekurs gq, fnukad 30-06-2006 dks

lsokfuo`Rr fd;k tkuk mfpr gS \ ;fn ugha rks vkosnd D;k vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \**

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3548

Case of the Workman is mainly that he was first appointed on April 1, 1975 by the management, his date of

birth was wrongly recorded as July 1, 1946 in his service records maintained by management. He made his

representation through the Union and personally also had requested the management to record his date of birth May 1,

1955 in his service records. Management did not take any action and superannuated him on June 30^th , 2006 on the

basis of his date of birth July 1^st , 1946, which is arbitrary and is against law. It is further, his case that he made

several attempts right since 1992 to get his date of birth corrected, but no attention was paid by management. He

raised a dispute before the concerned Labour Commissioner. Hence this reference. The Workman has thus prayed

that, holding his date of birth July 1^st , 1955 as correct, he be held entitled to continue in service with all pre-and post-

superannuational benefits till June 30^th , 2015 and the action of management in superannuating him on June 30^th, 2006

be held against law.

The management has taken the case that the Workman was initially appointed as a General Mazdoor with

effect from April 1^st, 1974. Thereafter, he was regularised in services. He was promoted in Clerical Cadre and at the

time of his superannuation, he was working as a Clerk grade II. He had declared his age as 29 years at the time of his

first appointment. It is further, the case of management that under rules, a Register of employment, popularly known

as Form-B register is maintained, which contains the name and parental of the Workman, his permanent address, date

of his birth, identification marks and other information. His date of birth July 1^st, 1946, was recorded in this Register

on the basis of information provided by him, and he authenticated this information by way of putting his signature on

this form. The Workman did not raise any objection regarding his date of birth, never produced any documents

regarding date of his birth, neither at the time of his initial appointment nor letter on, though he had several occasions

to do so during his service. Form PS-3, and Form PS-4, which are prepared by management for the purpose of

Pensionary benefits and are signed by the Workman authenticating the details mentioned in these forms. According to

management, his same date of birth July 1^st, 1946, has been mentioned in these documents. The management has

further requested that the reference be answered against the Workman.

The Workman has filed in evidence and has proved his identity card, excerpts from his service records,

issued by management in 1987, mentioning his date of birth May 1^st, 1955, containing signature of official of

management and the Workman, his application dated July 14^th, 1992 sent by him to the Mines

Superintendent/Manager in which he has raised a dispute regarding discrepancy in his date of birth and has requested

the management to correct his date of birth and other application, sent by the union to the management on April 9^th,

2002 requested correction of his date of birth, notice of superannuation of the Workman, issued by management on

February 27^th 2006, copy of his primary school Mark sheet, copy of certificate of middle school issued in 1971.

Containing his date of birth May 1^st 1955, Mark sheet of middle school, his other schools certificates, which had been

marked Ex. W/ 1 to Ex. W/15, respectively. The Workman has further filed his affidavit as his examination in Chief

and he has been cross-examined by management.

The management has filed in evidence an affidavit of its witness in his examination in Chief. This witness

has proved entry in the Form -B Register maintained by management, Form PS-3 and Form PS-4, which are Ex. M/1

to Ex. M/3.

I have heard argument of Mr. Subodh Agrawal learned Counsel for Workman and Mr. Neeraj Kewat, learned

Counsel for management. I have gone through the record as well.

After going through the record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination in

the case in hand.-

1. Whether the action of management in not correcting the date of birth of the Workman in his

service records is justified?

2. Whether the action of management in superannuated the Workman on the basis of his date of

birth recorded by management in his service records is correct ?

3. Whether the Workman is entitled to any relief ?.

Issue Number One:-

The respective pleadings of both the parties on this issue have been detailed earlier. Both side witnesses have

supported their pleadings in their affidavits as their examination in Chief. Form-B, which is the first document

admittedly maintained by management regarding the Workman at the time of his entry in service, mentioned his date

of birth as July 1^st, 1946. Form PS-3 and Form PS-4, maintained by management on the basis of the Form-B of the

Workman contained July 1^st, 1946 as his date of birth. According to the Workman, the date of birth was wrongly

recorded by management. It is the case of the workmen that he had produced his educational qualifications certificates

containing his date of birth before the management at the time of his entry service, but was ignored by management,

whereas the management side denied this allegation. It is further, the case of Workman that in the year 1987,

management issued service, excerpts of all the Workmen and the workmen were asked by management to verify than

days and file objection if they have any against any of the entries in this service, excerpts. The Workman further states

3549

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that he was issued a copy of service excerpts, which he has filed and proved, which contains his date of birth May 1^st,

1955. Management, though pleads that this document filed and proved by the Workman is not genuine, but does not

specifically deny that such excerpts were issued to the workmen in the year 1987 and also does not deny the

allegation that the Workman was issued any service excerpts in 1987 as claimed by him, proved by him. The

statement of management witness also does not deny or rebut this allegation or statement of the Workman on this

point. The management, though files and proved copies Form-B, Form PS-3 and Form PS-4, but does not file, the

correct copy of service excerpts of the Workman, which the management had issued in the year 1987 to the workmen,

including the applicant Workman.

It is further, the allegation of the workmen that he filed an application before management long back in the

year 1992 , seeking correction of his date of birth in his service records. There is a standard operating procedure

mentioned in the Implementation Instructions 76 (In short II76)with regard to disputes regarding age and date of birth

of the Workmen. The two sets of documents which have been issued and maintained by management, ie; the Form -B,

PS -3, PS-4 on the one hand and the service excerpts of the Workman, issued by management. In 1987 on the other

hand, mentioned two different dates of birth. Naturally, there is a controversy regarding date of birth of the Workman.

Furthermore, it is proved from the evidence of the Workman and copy of the application, which the workmen filed in

the year 1992 to get his date of birth rectified, this fact also establishes that the Workman did raise a dispute regarding

date of his birth. Then also, it was incumbent on the part of management to adopt the procedure as mentioned above

in II 76 to get this controversy resolved. Since, the management did not take any step to get this controversy resolved,

the action of management in not correcting the date of the Workman or at least in not resolving the dispute

regarding the date of birth of the Workman is held improper and unjustified in law. Issue number one is

answered accordingly.

Issue Number Two-

In the light of findings recorded while deciding issue number one, the action of management, superannuating

the Workman on the basis of disputed entry of his date of birth recorded by management, without resolving the

dispute by adopting the procedure mentioned in II76 is held unjustified in law. Issue number two is answered

accordingly.

Issue Number Three:-

On the basis of findings on issue number one and two, the Workman is held entitled to all the in service and

post retirement benefits, including back wages till the date of his superannuation on the basis of his date of birth May

1^st, 1955. Issue number three is answered accordingly.

On the basis of above discussion, the reference is answered as follows.

AWARD

Holding the action of management in superannuating the Workman Suraj Pal on the basis of his date

of birth July 1, 1946 against law, the Workman is held entitled to all the in service benefits, including back

wages, and post retirral benefits admissible to him on the basis of his date of birth May 1^st, 1955 till the date of

his superannuation treating his date of birth May 1^st, 1955. He is further held entitled to receive this amount

within 30 days from the date of publication of this award, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of award date of payment. No order as to cost

DATE: 11/07/2024

P K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1586.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa

–सह–

] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर

) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ सं. -,y--22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1586—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-RC/07/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3550

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L.and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/07/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Purushottam Lal Dwivedi

S/o. Shri Ramgopal Dwivedi

Retd. Belt Operator, Bijuri Colliery,

PO Bijuri Colliery, Distt. Anuppur (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Through its Chairman-cum Managing Director

Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Chief General Manager

Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

District Korea (C.G.)

3. Assistant Manager (Personnel)

Bijuri Sub Area, South Eastern Coalfields

Ltd., Post Office Bijuri Colliery,

Distt.-Anuppur M.P.

Management

(JUDGEMENT)

(Passed on this 2^nd day of July-2024)

The workman has filed this petition U/S. 2-A (2 & 3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter, referred to

by the word ‘Act’ seeking the relief of his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits setting aside his retirement

by management treating his date of birth 26.11.1952.

According to the workman, he was first appointed as a Labour on 26.11.1978 and was posted in the Bijuri

Colliery. He was of 20 years of age according to his school examination certificate, which he had produced before the

management. His date of birth 21.07.1958 as per his school certificate was accepted by management, which is evident

from his pay slip issued by management. Later on, the management changed his date of birth in his service record by

way manipulation to 26.11.1952. He made a representation before the management but no action was taken hence he

preferred a Writ Petition No.-10261/2013, which was decided by Jabalpur Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. vide

order dated 27.11.2013 and the petition was dismissed. In the Writ Appeal No.-1460/2013 filed by the applicant

workman against the said order, the management was directed to constitute a Age Determination Committee, the

applicant was directed to appear before the Age Determination Committee, who was required to examine the

applicant and send report to management. It was further directed that if the Age Determination Committee submits

reports in favour of the applicant, the management shall abide it. According to the workman he appealed before the

Age Determination Committee and submitted his documents. The Age Determination Committee, in his report dated

31.07.1987 had filed report with a finding that applicant had attained the age of superannuation on the date he was

superannuated by management treating his date of birth 26.11.1952. He again approached Hon’ble High Court against

this report, but his petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy in Industrial Disputes Act. According to

the applicant workman, the report of Age Determination Committee is against facts an action of management in

3551

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

accepting the report and superannuating the applicant on the basis of report is bad in law, arbitrary, without

application of mind and unfair labour practice. The applicant has prayed that setting aside his superannuation, he be

reinstated and be paid back wages till date of his retirement on the basis of his date of birth 21.07.1958.

The case of management, has taken in its written statement of claim is mainly that this petition is not

maintainable, as per official records maintained by management, the date of birth of the applicant workman is

required as 26.11.1952 and he has been superannuated after attaining 60 years of age on the basis of this date of birth.

It is further the case of management that the date of birth of the workman was first record in as 26.11.1952 in the

Form-B Register, prepared by management on the basis of information furnished by the workman. A correction has

been made in this document indicating his new date of birth 21.07.1958 as per ADC report which is neither counter

signed, nor authenticating nor verified by any authority, hence are result of manipulation by someone. Also pleaded

by management that in compliance of order of Hon’ble High Court, the workman side his school certificate in support

of his claim regarding his date of birth which was found not genuine and the Age Determination Committee submitted

its report on the basis of its inquiry in the light of I.I.76 which was accepted by management.

Following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor, on the basis of pleadings, vide his order dated

02.06.2016 :-

1. Whether, the claim of the workman relating to date of his birth is tenable under Section 2-A of the

Act ?

2. Whether, the termination/retirement of workman from 30.11.2012 is illegal ?

3. Whether, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages ?

In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief, he was cross examined by

management. The workman filed and proved documents Ex. W/1 letter of management dated 04.04.2014 sent to

workman, Ex. W/2 order of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.-1196/2015, Ex. W/3 school certificate, Ex. W/4

Marksheet, Ex. W/5. Pay slip, Ex. W/6 Form-PS3 and Ex. W/8 Form-PS4.

The management filed affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief. This witness was cross examined

by workman side. Management filed and proved Ex. M/1 & Ex. M/2, photocopy of order of High Court, Ex. M/3

report of Age Determination Committee alongwith proceedings, inquiry report with respect to over writing in Form-B

of the workman, Form-B and various other documents, to be referred to as and when required.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel Shri Shailesh Mishra for workman and learned Counsel for

management and have gone through the record.

Issue No.-1 :-

Section 2-A of the Act requires to be reproduced and is being reproduced as follows :-

2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.

(1)

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an

individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or

arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2)

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-

section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the

dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to

the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of

such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they

apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3)

The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).

A perusal of this provision makes it clear that any termination of services of a workman or any dispute

between the workman and management arising out of such termination will be an Industrial Dispute. A dispute

regarding date of superannuation is no doubt covered in this provision because superannuation is also termination of

service of a workman, hence the objection and argument from the side of management that superannuation or dispute

regarding date of superannuation of a workman is not covered under Industrial Disputes has no leg to stand.

Accordingly, the present dispute is held cognizable by this Tribunal and issue no.-1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-2 :-

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3552

I have gone through the proceedings and report of the Age Determination Committee. There is evidence on

record that date of birth of another workman Dwarika was corrected by management on the report of Age

Determination Committee but it was probably recorded in the Form-B of the present workman. This was a mistake on

the part of officials of management. Perusal of the record makes it clear that the workman filed duplicate copy of

Sambhagiya Purv Madhyamik Pariksha 1972, Sr. No.-1862 in which his date of birth 21.07.1958 was recorded.

Another document Mark Sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Exam-1985, Sr. No.-466228 issued by Board

of Secondary Education filed by the workman showed his date of birth 21.07.1958, whereas the workman was

appointed on 26.11.1978, hence, the Age Determination Committee rightly refused to consider this certificate.

Regarding the Purva Madhyamik Certificate, the Committee observed that this certificate was not submitted at the

time of initial appointment probably because the required qualification was illiterate. According to the Committee in

the records maintained by management with respect to the workman, his date of birth was recorded 26 years at the

time of his appointment which corresponds to his date of birth 26.11.1952 which is supported by Radiological

evidence also. It was also observed that service excerpts of workman was served on him in 1987 and objections were

invited if any entry in the service excerpts was incorrect according to the workman. The workman did not raise any

objection. The correction in the date of birth column was without authority. Hence, in the light of these facts, the

finding of the Committee that the Purv Madhyamik Certificate was not of much credence with respect to the date of

birth of the workman cannot be held to have been recorded against law or facts. The workman was required to

produce cogent evidence by way of producing documents in form of entry in the admission registers and T.C. to

support and corroborate his claim which he did not do before the Committee. Hence, the retirement of the workman

on 30.11.2012 on the basis of date of birth recorded in the service register and Form-B is held correct and this issue is

answered accordingly.

Issue No.-3 :-

On the basis of above discussion, the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Accordingly, the petition is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to

cost.

DATE:- 02/07/2024

P K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1587.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लल्यू.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa

–सह–

] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/

/

) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ सं. -,y--22012/88/2013-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणणकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/1/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of W.C.L.and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/08/2024.

[No. L-22012/88/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/1/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

General Secretary

Joint Coal Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)

3553

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Iklahra, Distt.- Chhindwara (MP)

Workman

Versus

Manager

Western Coal Limited, Newton

Ganpati Khan, Pench Region,

Parasia, Distt.-Chhindwara (MP)

Management

(JUDGEMENT)

(Passed on this 25^th day of July-2024)

As per letter dated 09/12/2013 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-22012/88/2013/IR(CM-II) dt. 09/12/2013. The dispute under reference relates 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 21.07.1998 while working as Tub Loader, and

was required to show cause on the charge mentioned in the charge sheet, which was allegation of following

misconducts under the Certified Standing Orders :-

Clause-26.30 :- Absenting from duty without getting any leave sanctioned or without sufficient reason for

a period more than 10 days.

The substance of the charge was he absented himself from duty without any sufficient reason and without

informing management and getting leave sanctioned within the period from 30.04.1998 to 21.07.1998. According to

the workman, the enquiry was not conducted according to rules and procedure thus prejudicing his defence. The

Enquiry Officer recorded his finding against evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted the

enquiry report and passed disproportionate punishment.

He prayed that setting aside his dismissal, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

Rebutting the allegations of the workman, management has taken a case in their written statement of defense

that the workman has been in the habit of wilfully absenting himself from duty without informing management and

getting leave sanctioned. His attendance was total 102 days within the period January 1997 to April 1998 and 48 days

within the period from 30.04.1998 to 22.07.1998. He was issued a charge-sheet in this respect on 21.07.1998, he

submitted his reply on 26.07.1998. An enquiry was ordered against him and he was permitted to join his duties w.e.f.

1998. He was served a notice of the enquiry but he opted not to proceed in the enquiry and enquiry was conducted in

his absence. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the charge of misconduct proved. The

Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice and the workman was terminated by the order dated 10.02.1999.

According to the management, the charges were rightly held proved and the punishment is also not disproportionate

to the charges.

Following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 18.02.2016 :-

1. Whether enquiry conducted against workman is just proper and legal ?

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal of workman is proved from evidence in departmental enquiry ?

3. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

Issue No.-1 as taken as preliminary issue.

The workman filed in evidence four photocopy documents related to the enquiry which are admitted by

management and marked Exhibits W/1 to W/10. The management filed three photocopy documents which are

charged reply of the workman on charge-sheet order instituting enquiry, copy of peon book entry, enquiry

proceedings, enquiry report, dismissal order.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3554

The workman died during the proceedings. He was substituted by his legal representatives. His wife filed her

affidavit in examination in chief, she was cross examined by management. Management witness also filed his

affidavit. He was cross examined by workman side.

Issue number one was decided on the basis of evidence above mentioned vide order dated 10.08.2022.

Holding the departmental enquiry legal and proper. Parties were directed to lead evidence on other issues. No

evidence was offered by any of the parties.

I have heard argument of union representative and learned Counsel for management Shri Neeraj Kewat. I

have gone through the record as well.

Issue Number Two :-

It comes out from the perusal of enquiry papers that the management representative produced official records

regarding attendance of the workman and it was stated that the workman absented himself without getting any leave

sanctioned and without informing management. It also comes out that the workman did not appear in the enquiry

inspite of notice. He did not cross examined the witness nor did he file any evidence in denfese. This is also worth

mentioning that he had admitted the charge in his reply to the charge-sheet, which is Ex. M/8.

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 quasi judicial 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

3555

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. "

Considering the evidence in the enquiry in the light of the above referred judgments, the finding of Enquiry

Officer holding the charges proved do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the charges against the workman are

held proved. Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-3 :-

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.”

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

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3556

“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 devotion towards duty. No employer can afford

to have an employee on his rolls who is such a habitual absentee, hence the punishment is held proportionate to the

charge proved and issue number three 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 :-

AWARD

Holding the action of Manager, Western Coal Field Limited, Newton, Ganpati Mines, Pench, Parasia,

District Chhindwara in terminating the workman justified in law the workman is held entitled to no relief.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 25/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

3557

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1588.—औद्योणगक णववाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

णनिेशक, भारतीय दिल्म एवं टेलीणवजन संस्थान, पुणे; मेससभ णसग्मा ह्यूमन टरसोसेज (इंणडया) प्राइवेट णलणमटेड,

मंगलवार पेठ, पुणे, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री अणमत काणलिास जगताप, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

णनर्िभष्ट औद्योणगक न्यायाणिकरण, पुणे,पंचाट(संिभभ संख्या IT/5000045/2015) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -42012/170/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सणचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. IT/5000045/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, Film and Television Institute

of India, Pune; M/s. Sigma Human Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd.,Mangalwar Peth, and Shri Amit Kalidas

Jagtap, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.08.2024.

[No. L-42012/170/15-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE.

Presided Over by Shri. S. G. Dabadgaonkar

Reference IT/5000045/2015

Exhibit No.: O-7

DISPUTE BETWEEN :-

The Director,

Film and Television Institute of India,

Law College Road,

Pune 411004.

First Party No. 1

M/s. Sigma Human Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Office No. 303, 3^rd Floor, Block No.3,

Lloyds Chamber, 409, Mangalwar Peth,

Pune – 411 011.

.. First Party No.2

AND :-

Shri. Amit Kalidas Jagtap

1341, Kasba Peth, Near Surya Hospital,

Pune 411011.

Second Parties and 6 Others,

Advocate for first party No.1

Smt. Priyanka Telang

None appeared on behalf of first party No.2.

Advocate for second party workers :

Shri. S. B. Malegaonkar

AWARD

(Delivered on -02-04-2024)

This is a reference forwarded by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, by order dated 12/11/2015

and 27/11/2015 in exercise of powers under Section 10 (1)(d) and (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short

'the I.D. Act' ). Along with the said order, there is Schedule to the reference. It reads as under -

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3558

“Whether the action of the management of Film and Television Institute of India, Pune in not regularizing the

services of Shri. Amit Kalidas Jagtap, 2) Shri. Javed Rasul Banedar, 3) Shri. Rahul Rajendra Pawar, 4) Shri. Prakash

Nivrutti Kamble, 5) Shri. Mahebooh H. Bhagwan, 6) Shri. Mahesh Atmaram Pawar and 7) Shri. Ramchandra Nathu

Ambedkar and putting them on contract basis through contractor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled to ?”

Facts of case of second party in brief:-

Second party workers have filed their Statement of Claim (Exh. U-5). It is their contention that they are

workers within meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and working as Studio Assistant in first party No.1. It is an

institute which caters to educating students in all aspects of film shooting. Job of second party workers is to help

students in handling of equipment as regards film shootings are concerned. The job description of all the above-

mentioned Second Party is as per the Annexure with the Statement of Claim. First Party No.1 institute is established

as ‘Film Institute of India’ in 1960. In the year 1971, it was renamed as ‘The Film and Television Institute of India’

(hereinafter referred to as “FTII”). It is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of

the Government of India. There are two film studio floors. Film editing facilities and video editing facilities are

available from the low end to high end. The institute has sound department and sound studio dubbing with rock-n-roll

projection facilities. On television side there are two Television Studios. The Institute has a full-fledged Graphics

Department, Multimedia Laboratory, Book Film and Video Library and Screenings. The FTII functions as an

autonomous body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and is registered under

the Societies’ Act of 1860.

It is further contention of second party workers that provisions of the I.D. Act are applicable to First Party

No.1 as well as First Party No.2. First Party No.2 is the Contractor. Second Party worker are appointed by the FTII.

However, after putting more than 240 days of continuous service on the roll of FTII for years together, they were

suddenly and illegally put on roll of various contractors without following provisions of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. It

is the contention of Second Party workers that they were ‘de jure’ permanent on the roll of FTII. Second party

workers were appointed some 18 years ago by the FTII as Studio Assistant and are serving on the same post till date.

Their dates of appointment are varying and are specifically mentioned in the Statement of Claim. In the year 2006,

second party workers approached First Party No.1 and requested to make them permanent in FTII. The then Director

of the FTII assured about making them permanent in the job. The post of Studio Assistant is required round the year

as the various courses such as dramatics, dialogue writing, playback, practical etc. require a constant manual backup

by studio assistants.

First party No. 1 unilaterally put second party workers on the roll of various contractors for different periods

such as :-

i) 01/01/2007 to 31/03/2008 – ACES India Pvt. Ltd.

ii) 01/05/2008 to 15/10/2011 – Global Enterprises

iii) 16/10/2011 to 31/12/2013 – Radiant Guard Services Pvt. Ltd.

iv) 01/01/2014 till present – Sigma Human Resources (I) Pvt. Ltd.

The said act was done by the FTII without giving second party workers a notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act.

First Party No.1 has not followed provisions of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the CLRA Act’). So called contracts entered by the FTII with the contractors are sham and

are in negation of the provisions of the CLRA Act and Rules framed thereunder. Salaries of second party workers

were deposited in a Bank under the contingency bill form and under the head of advanced adjustments and when the

money was withdrawn from the Bank, second party workers were paid on vouchers. Many times, cash advance was

taken by one Smt. Shinde on behalf of the FTII, under the head of accounts named Salary. The said exercise was done

by the FTII in collusion with contractors only with object to deprive second party workers of their benefits of

permanency.

It is further case of second party workers that though they are in continuous service since last 18 years, they

have been deprived of benefits of permanency and permanent status on the roll of the FTII. Second party workers,

therefore, preferred a complaint with the Central Labour Office, Pune. As no effective conciliation took place, the

proceedings ended into a failure and the appropriate Government was pleased to make the present reference. It is,

therefore, prayed that second party workers be declared to be permanent on the roll of FTII since the first day they

completed 240 days of their uninterrupted service. It is further prayed for declaration about the very act of changing

rolls of second party workmen from FTII to that of the contractors is illegal being in violation of provisions of Section

9-A of the I.D. Act. It is further prayed to direct first party No.1 to confer permanency status to second party workers

with benefits of arrears of permanency.

Defence of First Party No.1 :-

3559

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

First party No. 1 has filed Written Statement (Exh. C-3) and denied averments in the Statement of Claim. It is

contended that first party No.1 Institute was established in the year 1960 and was registered under the Societies Act,

1860. It is admitted that the Institute is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,

which receives grant in aid from the Government of India. The Institute provides high level of professional education

and technical expertise in the art and technique of film making and television production. It is contended that the

Institute is not covered by the I.D. Act. Being a Society under the Indian Societies Act and being an autonomous

institute, provisions under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) are not applicable to it.

It is contended that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present reference as all the

employees are duly appointed by the Institute, and their service conditions are covered under and regulated by the

provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Jurisdiction in respect of any service dispute between first party

No.1 and its employees, is exclusively with the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is further contended that merely

impleading the Director would not amount to impleading the Institution. The claim is therefore bad for misnomer and

non-joinder of necessary party in respect of first party No.1.

It is further contended that second party workers were hired by the Institute on the basis of ‘as and when

required’ for odd jobs of light boy, studio boy etc. between year 2005-2006 and were duly paid wages on mutually

agreed terms. Second party workers were neither issued any appointment letters nor any office order in respect of

their regular employment. They have never completed 240 working days as their services were used only for short

interval during project/student work in the Institute. The institute started process of hiring workers through outside

agencies since January-2007. Institute hired various service providers for providing manpower on ‘as and when

required’ basis. The FTII and First Party No.2 entered into an agreement dated 01/01/2014 to supply technical/

professional/office job manpower in the Institute and it was further extended upto 31^st March, 2016.

As per terms and condition of the agreement executed between First Party No.1 and First Party No.2, the

employees hired and engaged by the institute from first Party No.2 shall be the employees of First Party No.2. It is

further contented that first party No. 2 shall make disbursement of wages or statutory dues to the said employees. As

per the agreement, second party claimants are workers of First Party No.2 and therefore, there does not exist any

employer-employee relationship between Second Party claimants and First Party No.1. Presently, second party

workers are employed by M/s. Vishal Enterprises. In absence of employer-employee relationship, the claim of second

party workers requires to be dismissed against First Party No.1.

First Party No.1 has also filed detailed para wise reply to the Statement of Claim. It is specifically contended

that allegations in respect of unfair labour practices are false, frivolous and baseless. Workers have never completed

240 days and their services were used for short interval during project / student work in the Institute. Therefore, these

workers are not entitled to benefits of deemed permanency with First Party No.1. It is specifically contended that in

view of decisions of Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Siemens Ltd. [2007 (1) SCC 533] and Secretary, State of Karnataka and

Ors. Vs. Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1], there cannot be regularization of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or

ad hoc employees appointed or recruited or continued for long period. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim

with costs.

As per report of Bailiff (Exh. O-3), notice has been served upon first party No.2, but none appeared before

this Tribunal till date nor filed Written Statement to contest the matter. Inadvertently, ex-parte order was not passed

against it. Subsequently, vide order dated 19/01/2024, ex-parte order came to be passed against first party No.2.

On the basis of rival pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor has framed issues below Exh. O-4. I am reproducing the

said issues with slight changes in accordance with the Schedule to the reference, without changing its meaning, along

with my findings thereon for the reasons stated below :-

Sr.No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the action of the first party management in not

regularizing the second party employees in services and

putting them on contract basis is legal and justified ?

… No.

Whether the second party employees are entitled to the

relief as prayed?

… Permanency since

January -2023

REASONS

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3560

AS TO ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3 :-

In order to establish the claim, the second party workers namely Javed Rasul Banedar and Rahul Rajendra

Pawar have examined on oath below Exh. U-10 and Exh. U-14 respectively and they reiterated contentions put forth

in the Statement of Claim.

In rebuttal, the first party company has not examined any witness. Both the parties have produced bunch of

documents on record, however, except few, remaining are not duly proved.

Argument advanced on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the Second party workers namely Advocate Shri.

Malegaonkar can be highlighted as:-

a) Workers are on the roll of FTII since 2003 onwards,

b) They have completed continuous service of 90 days in each calendar year as per the Industrial Employment

(SO.) Central Rules, 1946;

c) These workers are shown to be transferred to the roll of contractors since 2007 without giving notice of

change under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act,

d) There is no registration of principal employer or license of contractors under the Contract Labour

(Regularization and Abolition) Act, 1970;

e) The workers concerned are terminated during pendency of the present reference by First Party No.2 on

02/07/2018;

f) First Party has not complied with direction issued by the Tribunal vide order Exhibit U-8 Dated 02.12.2017

to produce various documents and therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn.

g) Contention in oral evidence of witness Shri. Banedar that he was in employment of First Party No.1 since

2003 to 2007 is not denied,

h) Document Exhibit U-19 is an important document which clarify status of workers prior to the period since

when contractors came in picture,

i) Reply of First Party to Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 28/04/2015 during the process of conciliation

is material evidence to infer that workers concerned are in continuous employment of First Party No.1 prior to

inception of contractors.

Important points raised by Advocate Smt. Telang for First Party No.1 during final argument can be

summarized as :-

a) As per the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Gazette dated 17/12/1998, the Central Administrative

Tribunal is the authority to decide dispute and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction,

b) The claim in the present reference is not in limitation,

c) FTII being an educational institute, is not an industry as defined under the I.D. Act,

d) Workers concerned were in employment as helping hand – on daily /hourly work. There was no permanent

post available for these workers.

e) No procedure like interview/appointment have been followed by FTII in respect of these workers and this

fact is admitted by witness examined on behalf of workers.

f) If as per argument of the second party, Central Standing Orders are applicable, then the Central

Administrative Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.

g) Letter dated 28/04/2015 is not at all proved and therefore, cannot be relied upon. Even though in the said

letter, words ‘as and when required’ are used and therefore, this document is not helpful to prove continuous service

as claimed by the Second Party.

h) Since 2007, onwards there is no relationship of employer-employee between workers concerned and FTII.

Termination of the workers concerned is by contractor.

i) CLRA Act applies where 20 plus workers are in employment. Strength of these workers was below 20 till

2010 and therefore, CLRA Act is not applicable.

j) Letter dated 28/04/2015 from the proceedings of the Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune is not admissible

before this Tribunal in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry

Kansagra (Date of decision 11.12.2017)

k) Burden to prove continuous service of 240 days is always on the Second Party and it cannot be shifted by

3561

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

drawing any inference against the First Party as per ratio in Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Siriniwas [(2004) 8

SCC 195]

l) In view of decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, Gangadhar Pillai v.

Siemens [2007 (1) SCC 533] and State of Maharashtra v. Anita (AIR 2016 SC 3333), claim of permanency in the

present reference is required to be rejected.

10.

First objection is raised on behalf of first party that the reference is not maintainable before this Industrial

Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. One more objection is

raised that claim of second party workers is not within limitation.

11.

This is a reference under Section 10 (1)(d) and (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act referred by the Central

Government. The Central Government is the sole judge of deciding as to which matter is required to be adjudicated

by the Tribunal. The Central Government, after due assessment and after due process, referred the present dispute for

adjudication to this Authority. Satisfaction of the Government is the condition precedent to refer dispute under

Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Therefore, in my opinion the reference is well maintainable before this Tribunal. As the

dispute is referred by the Government for adjudication, in my view, it is not necessary to see the aspect of the

limitation also, raised by the first party.

12.

I have gone through decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Himachal Pradesh Agro

Industries Corporation Vs. Raj Kumar (MANU/HP/0043/2001), relied on behalf of second party workers. It is held

that the Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act as well as Industrial Tribunal constituted under

the I.D. Act, have concurrent jurisdiction. The employee can either approach to the Administrative Tribunal or

Industrial Tribunal. It was further held that he can elect or choose a Forum. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High

Court has relied upon Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in G.M. Southern Railway Vs.

Presiding Officer [(1987) 4 ATC 912].

13.

From aforesaid discussion it can be concluded that this Industrial Tribunal is having jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute which is referred for adjudication by the Central Government Authority.

14.

One more objection is raised on behalf of First Party No.1 that title of the Statement of Claim is incorrect and

claim against First Part No.1 is not in the statutory and proper name.

15.

I have considered this objection in respect of nomenclature of parties to the dispute. It is required to mention

here that this is not a private civil suit where nomenclature has some importance. The question of nomenclature may

arise in such civil disputes. This being a reference under the I.D. Act referred by the Central Government for the

adjudication, in my view much importance is not required to be given to objection about nomenclature of First Party

No.1. Furthermore, this objection was not raised before the Conciliation Authority under the I.D. Act when the matter

was pending before the said Authority for conciliation. Had the said objection raised at the relevant time, the

concerned Authority would have considered it and would have refer the dispute with correction of nomenclature.

Therefore, being a reference forwarded for adjudication and as First Party No.1 has not disputed about said

nomenclature during the conciliation, it will cause no adverse effect though Director of the said Institute is

implemented as a Party.

16.

First Party No.1 has also raised objection that it is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the

I.D. Act, but is an educational institute. Therefore, the reference is not maintainable. As against this, it is contended

on behalf of the second party workers that on earlier occasions also disputes were referred for adjudication by the

Appropriate Government to this Industrial Tribunal in which the FTII was the party. It is further contended that

similar type of objection about “industry” were raised but same were decided against the FTII. The said matter was

taken upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the FTII, but it could not succeed.

17.

I have gone through copy of Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune dated 02/03/2002 in Reference (IT) No.

23/1996 (List Exh. U-31/3). Similar type of objection was raised by First Party in said matter. The Industrial

Tribunal, after relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Benglore Water Supply Vs. A. Rajappa (AIR 1978

Supreme Court 548), held that the First Party that is FTII is an ‘industry’.

18.

The said Award was unsuccessfully challenged before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as the

Hon’ble Apex Court by the FTII. Copies of decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as the Hon’ble

Apex Court are enclosed along with List Exh. U-31 Sr.No.4 and 5. First Party No.1 has not disputed about earlier

award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal Pune in Reference IT No. 23/1996 or confirmed subsequently by the

Hon’ble Higher Courts. Though, the said dispute was in respect of Canteen Workers of FTII, but objection about FTII

being ‘industry’ was decided in it. Therefore, in my opinion decision in said matter is an answer to the objection

raised by the First Party No.1. On the basis of earlier decisions in which FTII was held as an industry, it can be

inferred that it is an ‘industry’.

19.

Objection is also raised that workers concerned were not appointed on any permanent posts. They were

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3562

doing helping hand work on daily as well as ‘as and when required’ basis. Their appointment was not following any

process. They have not rendered continuous service as claimed in the Statement of Claim. As such, according to First

Party No.1, their claim cannot be considered.

20.

As against this, it is the contention of the second party workers that fact of continuous working by these

workers is admitted by First Party No.1 in the Conciliation proceedings as per letter dated 28/04/2015 issued under

the signature of the Director of FTII. This letter corroborates oral evidence of second party workers that they were

working continuously for years.

21.

It is required to mention here that letter dated 28/04/2015 was not filed in the present proceedings when

documents of reference were received by this Tribunal. Second Party workers filed an application (Exh. U-18) and

sought directions for production of said letter. The application was allowed on merit. As per the direction of this

Tribunal dated 12/04/2023, original letter dated 28/04/2015 was produced by the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Pune along with letter dated 28/04/2023 (Exh. O-6).

22.

I have considered original letter dated 28/04/2015 addressed to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Pune

during the pendency of matter before the said authority in respect of workers Shri. Amit Jagtap and Others (the

present Second Party workers). The said letter was issued under the signature of Shri. U.C. Bokade, Registrar, FTII,

Pune. This appears to be additional reply on behalf of FTII before the Labour Commissioner. It is contended in said

letter that from January-2007 FTII started appointing contractors for hiring the man power required at FTII and the

workers are employed by various out side agencies. It is further mentioned in the said letter that prior to the year

2007, FTII used to hire staff on daily wages under the policy of ‘as and when required’ basis. The Registrar has also

furnished information in tabular format showing engagement of these workers with FTII.

23.

As per the tabular statement which is part of letter dated 28/04/2015, names of Second Party workers –

Prakash Kamble, Javed Banedar, Rahul Pawar, Ram Ambekar, Amit Jagtap, Mehboob Bhawan and Mahesh Pawar are

shown with specification of number of days they worked on daily wages. It appears that name of second party worker

namely Mehboob H. Bhagwan is written as “Mehboob Bhawan”. In reference order, name of the said worker is

shown as Mehboob H. Bhagwan. Neither second party workers nor First Party No.1 have taken care of change of

name of this worker. First Party No. 1 has not raised any objection in respect of name “Bhawan” or “Bhagwan”.

Therefore, I have no alternative to mention said name which is shown in the reference order.

24.

This document not disputed by the second party. However, first party no.1 has objection to rely upon this

document. It is contention of the Ld. Counsel for the First Party No.1 that this document is not duly proved by

leading evidence in the matter. This document was submitted during the Conciliation and therefore, it cannot be used

in the present proceedings. Reliance is placed by First Party No.1 upon Smriti Madan’s case (supra). This decision is

rendered in context of mediation proceedings. Hence, its ratio is not helpful to the First Party in the present matter.

25.

Letter dated 28/04/2015 was not proved by the Second Party. However, as per direction of this Tribunal

dated 12/04/2023 below Exh. U-18, the Labour Commissioner Authority has produced original letter dated

28/04/2015 bearing signature of the Registrar of FTII. This document is admitted by the second party. Though, this

document is disputed by the First Party, but it is on the count of admissibility only and mode of proof. Objection

regarding genuineness/truthfulness of the said document is not raised by the First Party. Furthermore, First Party

No.1 in its written statement has clearly admitted that workers concerned were performing work of ‘Studio Assistant’

during the year 2005-2006.

26.

In my view for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether workers concerned were in employment of

First Party No.1 prior to 2007, letter dated 28/04/2015 coupled with admission of First Party No.1 in its Written

Statement, are very important. This is an admission of FTII in respect of engagement of workers concerned with FTII

prior to 2007. Therefore, this admission can very well be considered for determination of question referred for

adjudication.

27.

From letter dated 28/04/2015, it can be inferred that workers namely Ram Ambekar was working on daily

wages since June 2005 upto December 2006, Mahesh Pawar was working on daily wages since June 2005 up to

December 2006 except November 2006, Prakash Kamble was working since November 2005 till December 2006,

Javed Banedar was working on daily wages since July 2006 up to October 2006 and December 2006, Rahul Pawar

was working on daily wages since June 2006 up to October 2006 and December 2006, Amit Jagtap was working on

daily wages since May 2006 upto October 2006 and December 2006, Mehboob Bhawan was working on daily wages

since June 2006 upto September 2006.

28.

It is the case of second party workers that since January 2007 onwards they are shown to be working under

Contractors. In fact, they were working with FTII but were falsely shown as working under Contractors. The Ld.

Counsel for the Second Party strenuously submitted that change of employer since January 2007 is a change in

service condition of workers concerned. No notice was given under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. Therefore, act of

First Party No.1, being in breach of provisions of law, is illegal.

3563

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.

Section 9-A of the I.D. Act imposes restrictions on employer to effect change of service condition applicable

to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule. The employer is supposed to follow

mandatory provisions laid down in Section 9-A prior to effecting such change.

30.

Fourth Schedule of the I.D. Act is the list of 11 items for which notice of change as contemplated under

Section 9-A is required. Item 11 of the Fourth Schedule is relevant. Therefore, the said item is reproduced as under :-

11 :- Any increase or reduction (other than casual) in the number of persons employed or to be

employed in any occupation or process or shift, not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer

has no control.

31.

As per document that is letter dated 28/04/2015 except worker Mehboob Bhawan (as per the reference order

“Bhagwan”) remaining six workers were working in FTII till the December 2006. It is contention of witnesses

examined on behalf of second party workers that they continued in employment of FTII till raising dispute before the

Conciliation Authority that is till 2015, but they were falsely shown as employees of various contractors from time to

time.

32.

As discussed above, reduction of second party workers from employment of FTII since January 2007 by

showing them under Contractors without following procedure laid down in Section 9-A of the I.D. Act amounts to

breach of provisions of the I.D. Act and therefore, is illegal. As such, workers concerned can very well be presumed

to be in employment First Party No.1 since January 2007 till filing of the reference and thereafter till 02/07/2018

which is undisputedly date of their termination of employment by the last Contractor.

33.

One more aspect needs consideration is that as per order below Exh. U-8 dated 02/12/2017 direction was

issued against the First Party No.1 to produce various documents which include muster roll, name of contractors from

January 2007 to July 2018, copy of agreements executed with contractors for the said period and some other

documents. First Party No.1 admittedly has not abided the said order. Therefore, definitely inference can be drawn

that if these documents, which are in custody of First Party No.1, would be produced, it might cause hardship to its

rights or might be helpful to Second Party workers.

34.

The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 provides for registration of principal employer

and licence to contractors. In spite of direction of this Tribunal, First Party No.1 has not produced such documents

since 2007. Though, argument of First Party is accepted that till 2010, strength of contract workers was below 20 and

therefore, it was not mandatory to seek registration under the said Act, still question arises as to why FTII has not

produced muster-roll or agreements executed with the contractors.

35.

Oral evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the second party goes to establish that they are in

employment of First Party No.1 since 2003 onwards till December-2006. Documentary evidence more particularly

letter dated 28/04/2015 produced by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune, copy of contingency bill

(Exh. U-19) proved by second party workers, if read conjointly with the oral evidence, goes to establish the fact that

workers concerned were in employment of First Party No.1 till December 2006 and thereafter till 02/07/2018 in

employment of First Party No.1 but shown to be working through contractors.

36.

First Party No.1 has admittedly not laid any oral evidence to rebut evidence laid on behalf of second party.

Therefore, second party workers have successfully established that they were in employment of First Party No.1 since

2003 onwards till filing of the present reference that is till 2015 and thereafter till 02/07/2018 when they were shown

to be terminated by the Contractor. The first party No.1 has changed employer of workers concerned unillaterly and

by violating provisions of the I.D. Act. Therefore, inference can be drawn that First party No.1 in order to avoid

benefits of permanency to these workers, changed their service condition, falsely shown them as workers of

contractors. This act of First Party No.1 is not justified being illegal and in violation of provisions of law. Therefore,

contentions of First Party No.1 that it has no relationship of employer-employee with Second Party workers, cannot

be accepted.

37.

Workers concerned have claimed permanency in the employment of First Party No.1. It is their contention

that work is continuously available and there are vacant posts.

38.

As against this First Party No.1 has contended that in view of decision of Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Uma Devi as well as decision in Gangadhar Pillai (supra), even though workers concerned have

completed continuous service for some period, they are not entitled to automatic permanency unless vacant posts are

available.

39.

Ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens [2007 (1)

SCC 533] and State of Maharashtra v. Anita (AIR 2016 SC 3333) relied upon by the First Party No.1 cannot be

disputed. It is a well settled proposition of law that mere continuation of work by the employee for some period or

substantial period does not confer him a right to get permanency in a state instrumentality like FTII. For that purpose,

various factors are required to be considered which include necessity of work, availability of vacant posts, sanction of

such post by appropriate Authority etc.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3564

40.

To show availability of vacant posts the second party workers have relied upon recent advertisement No.

01/2023 issued on behalf of First Party No.1 by its Registrar (List Exh. U-27/1). This advertisement is not disputed on

behalf of First Party No.1. This advertisement invites applications for direct recruitment on as much as 30 different

regular posts in FTII. At Sr. No. 30, posts of ‘Studio Assistant’ is shown. Against this posts, number of vacancies are

shown as 15, out of which 14 are for general category and one is reserved for Scheduled Tribes. It is clear from

aforesaid advertisement published on behalf of First Party No.1 that there are approximately 15 vacant posts of

‘Studio Assistant’ in FTII since 2023. Second Party workers have established that they are working as ‘Studio

Assistant’ in FTII since 2003 onwards till their termination dated 02/07/2018. Hence, they are entitled to get

permanency on the said posts since when the posts are vacant and available.

41.

It is therefore clear from above evidence that vacant posts of ‘Studio Assistant’ are available in FTII for

which it has published advertisement. The workers concerned have successfully established that they worked as a

Studio Assistant continuously from 2003 onwards directly under FTII till December 2006 and thereafter, till July 2018

under different Contractors deployed by First Party No.1 under a sham relation of contractor by violating provisions

of law. This fact also goes to establish that work is continuously available with FTII.

42.

The workers concerned are definitely having good experience to work as ‘Studio Assistant’ for years.

Therefore, if permanency is granted to them on vacant posts available with FTII, it will mitigate the circumstances.

No harm will cause to First Party No.1 as it is in need of the said work continuously, it will get experienced person to

do the said work and it has sufficient vacant posts to occupy second party workers in its employment. Therefore,

demand of permanency in the employment of First Party No.1 at least since January 2023 that is since from

publication of advertisement No. 01/2023 by FTII showing vacant posts of ‘Studio Assistants’, is justified. The

workers concerned are, therefore, entitled for permanency in First Party No.1 since January 2023. Hence, I answer

issue No. 1 in the negative, issue No. 2 accordingly and in answer to issue No.3, pass the following Award :-

AWARD

The reference is answered as follows :-

It is hereby declared that action of First Party No.1 FTII, Pune in not regularizing services of 1)

Shri. Amit Kalidas Jagtap, 2) Shri. Javed Rasul Banedar, 3) Shri. Rahul Rajednra Pawar, 4) Shri. Prakash

Nivrutti Kamble, 5) Shri. Maheboob H. Bhagwan, 6) Shri. Mahesh Atmaram Pawar and 7) Shri. Ramchandra

Nathu Ambedkar as mentioned in reference order (corrigendum) dated 27/11/2015 and putting them on

contract basis through contractors is illegal and unjustified.

The aforesaid workers mentioned in para No. 1.a. are entitled to get all benefits of permanency

since January – 2023 in FTII, Pune.

First Party No. 1 shall implement the award within 3 months.

Inform the appropriate Government as per rules.

Proceedings are closed.

Date : 02-04-2024.

S. G. DABADGAONKAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1589.—औद्योणगक णववाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार मेससभ

डायनाणमक इंटरप्राइजेज, द्वारा-श्री शेओ प्रसाि मीना, प्रोपराइटर, इंरलोक नगर, रतलाम,प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों

और श्री राम सेवक जोठे, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िभष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय,

जबलपुर पंचाट(संिभभ संख्या CGIT/LC/R/11/2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.-एल-42025/07/2024-आईआर(डीयू)-146]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सणचव

3565

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1589.—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/11/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to M/s. Dynamic Enterprises,Through – Shri Sheo Prasad Meena, Proprietor, Indralok Nagar,

Ratlam, and Shri Ram Sewak Jothe, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 13.08.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-IR(DU)-146]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2021

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ram Sewak Jothe

Rajendrapura, Ward Number-4

Purani Itarsi, Itarsi

Distt-Hoshangabad-461111 (MP)

Workman

Versus

M/s. Dynamic Enterprises

Through – Shri Sheo Prasad Meena

Proprietor, 106, Globus Township,

Near Indralok Nagar, Ratlam-457001 (MP)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 31^st day of July-2024.)

As per letter dated 28/12/2020 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi as made this reference to the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the

‘Act’) as per reference number F. No. J-1(1-49)/2020-IR dt. 28/12/2020. The dispute under reference related to:-

After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were

duly served on them. The workman appeared and filed his statements of claim. No one appeared on behalf of

Railways and M/s. Dynamic Enterprises, the contractors.

The case of the workman, in short is that he was appointed on 01.01.2020 by the contractors as Watering

Staff at Railway Station Itarsi within West Central Railway who were the principal employer. He was terminated

without notice or wages in lieu of one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation

of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He requested that

holding his termination against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits and also

entitled to be regularized.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit. He has filed photocopy documents which he did not care to

prove.

Management did not file any affidavit of its witness or any document.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3566

None appeared for managements at the time of argument. Mr. R.K. Soni appeared for workman. I have heard

his argument and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman. He has neither pleaded nor has stated in his affidavit

that he worked for 240 days in a year continuously. He nowhere discloses the date of his termination. He did not

prove the photocopy documents filed by him. Hence, the fact that he worked for 240 days continuously with his

employer in a year is held not proved and on this finding, he is held not entitled to protection of Section 25-F & 25-G

of the Act. Accordingly, his termination is held not unjustified. The workman is also held entitled to no relief.

Hence, holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against

the workman and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.

DATE: 31/07/2024

. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1590.—औद्योणगक णववाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष, बीएचईएल सहकारी सणमणत, साकेत नगर, हबीबगंज, भोपाल (म.प्र.), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री

संजय सहारे, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िभष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर

पंचाट(संिभभ संख्या CGIT/LC/R/17/2023) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.-एल-42025/07/2024-आईआर(डीयू)-147]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सणचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1590.—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/17/2023) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The President, BHEL Co-Operative Society, Saket Nagar, Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.), and Shri

Sanjay Sahare, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

13.08.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-IR(DU)-147]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Sanjay Sahare,

House No. 1113, N-2,

D-Sector, Piplani,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The President,

BHEL Co-Operative Society,

3567

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

248, 2A, Saket Nagar,

Habibganj,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 30^th day of July-2024.)

As per letter dated 02/03/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number J-1(1-

22)/2022-IR dt. 02/03/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-

“ क या कर्ुकार श्री िंर्य हारे को, बीएिईएल ो ायटी प्रबिंधन द्वारा ेवा े अवैध रुप े ननकाला र्ाना

न यायोचित है? यहद नहीिं, तो क या श्री िंर्य हारे र्ें पजनुबहाल होने के हकदार है? ”

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service

of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

DATE: 30/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1591.—औद्योणगक णववाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

णनिेशक, मेससभ एपेक्स लॉणजणस्टक्स, जामनगर, गुजरात; प्रमुख-एचआर, मेससभ लासभन एंड टबो णलणमटेड, रामणबल्ली,

अनकापल्ले, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री के श्रीणनवास राव, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िभष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- हैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभभ संख्या 11/2024) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-आईआर(डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सणचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Director, M/s Apex Logistics, Jamnagar, Gujarat; The Head-HR, M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited, Rambilli,

Anakapalle, and Shri K Srinivasa Rao, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 13/08/2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3568

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25^th day of June, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2024

Between:

Sri K SrinivasaRao,

Veduruvada, Atchuthapuram,

Anakapalli,

Amdhra Pradesh-531001.

.. .Petitioner

AND

1. The Director,

M/s Apex Logistics, 2^nd Floor,

K.P House, Opp. Dhanvantri Ground

Pandit Nahru Marg,

Jamnagar-361008, Gujarat.

2. The Head-HR,

M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited,

NAOB, Rambilli,

Anakapalle-531061.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

None

For the Respondent: None

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/7/2024-B1 dated 08.03.2024 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s Apex Logistics & M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Apex Logistics, Contractor of M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited,

main contractor of NAOB, Rambilli, Anakapalle in terminating the services of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao without

complying Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified or not? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for appearance. Notice sent on petitioner is returned with

endorsement insufficient address”. However, on 24.4.2024, the Petitioner was informed through mobile number as

mentioned with Petitioner’s address in reference. Despite intimation, Petitioner did not appear and not filed any

claim statement. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Hence, ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 25^th day of June, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

3569

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1592.—औद्योणगक णववाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, राष्ट्रीय बीज णनगम णलणमटेड, लालगुडा, णसकंिराबाि; क्षेत्र प्रबंिक, राष्ट्रीय बीज णनगम णलणमटेड,

औद्योणगक एस्टेट, कुरनूल, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री एम. सुरेश बाबू, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िभष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- हैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभभ संख्या L.C. No. 58/2008) को जैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13/08/2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-143-आईआर(डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सणचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 58/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Regional Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,Lalaguda, Secunderabad; The Area

Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Industrial Estate, Kurnool, and Shri M. Suresh Babu, Worker,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/08/2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-143-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -

Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24^th day of July, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 58/2008

Between:

Sri M. Suresh Babu,

S/o Tippanna,

R/o C/o B. Ramudu,

36-46-79, Chittari street,

I-Town, Kurnool – 518 001.

..….Petitioner

AND

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3570

The Regional Manager,

National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,

Lalaguda, Secunderabad -17.

The Area Manager,

National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,

Shed No.3 & 4, Industrial Estate,

Kurnool – 518 001.

Kurnool District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, P. Sudha, M. Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate

AWARD

Sri M. Suresh Babu, who worked as daily wage worker (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents National Seeds

Corporation Ltd., seeking for setting aside the oral order of retrenchment dated 1.4.2007 and subsequent order in

Lr.No.WPMP11021/2007//NSC-KNL/2008-09/415 dated 30.7.2008 and grant relief of reinstatement into service

with full back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:-

The Petitioner submitted that he has joined the service of the second Respondent corporation as daily wage worker in

May, 1994 and worked continuously till he was illegally and orally terminated with effect from 1^st April 2007. It is

submitted that questioning the said termination order, Petitioner along with other employees, filed WP No.8590/

2007 and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted interim direction to continue them in service.

Accordingly, the Petitioner along with other employees continued in service. It is submitted that the WP

No.8590/2007 was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Labour Court

for necessary relief. It is submitted that Petitioner has worked continuously without any interruption and completed

more than 240 days service. Further, it is submitted that he was orally and abruptly terminated by the 2^nd Respondent

on 1.4.2007 without giving any notice, notice, pay and retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25

F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the respondents have adopted unfair labour practice by

retrenching the petitioner. The Respondent entrusted the work to outsourcing agency. Further, it is submitted that the

nature of work which Petitioner was discharging is permanent and perennial nature of work. Consequent to the

dismissal of the Petitioner, 2^nd Respondent again asked the Petitioner not to attend the office with effect from

29.7.2008. It is submitted that even the 2^nd Respondent addressed a letter to the 1^st Respondent dated 11.5.2007

giving details of number of days worked by the Petitioner since there is necessity to continue the Petitioner in service

as he was working in clerical side and his presence is very much essential for day to day transaction. It is submitted

that Petitioner was engaged to attend maintenance of all production, Record works like writing of all forms and

submission to agency, preparing MPR, making entries of GCMs, adjustment bills of growers in the Seed industry and

liaison work with certification agency and also used to prepare sale counter statements and computer job works etc..

It is submitted that Respondent corporation did not assign any reason for retrenching him. Therefore, the order of

retrenchment is not only illegal but it is unjust, contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner submitted that he has worked continuously from 1994 to 1.4.2007 and again from 1.4.2007 to 29.7.2008

continuously. Further, it is submitted that now he is overaged and there is no possibility of getting any alternate

employment and Petitioner with great expectations from the Respondent corporation discharged his duties sincerely

without giving any room for any complaint. Petitioner made a request for regularization of his services along with

other employees and on the basis of their request made by the Petitioner and other employees, he was also called for

interview at New Delhi on 14.5.2008 for the post of Lab Attendant. Accordingly, Petitioner attended the interview

and the results of interview were not communicated to him. Further, it is submitted that several juniors of Petitioner

namely, S/Sri S. Subbaiah, M.M.Subramanyam and Narayana were retained by respondent. Therefore, the order of

retrenchment is illegal and invalid and the same is in violation of Section 25 G&H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is

submitted that the respondents have not prepared any seniority list, which is mandatory under the Andhra Pradesh

Industrial Disputes rules. Since the date of his illegal retrenchment Petitioner remained unemployed as he could not

secure any alternate employment inspite of his best efforts. Therefore it is prayed, to set aside the oral order of

retrenchment dated 1.4.2007 and subsequent order in Lr.No.WPMP11021/2007/NSC-KNL/2008-09/415, dated 30.7.

2008.

3571

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-

It is submitted that the Petitioner joined in the corporation as casual daily wage worker on need basis through gate

employment in the year 1995. The Petitioner has not been appointed in terms of any rules or regulations of the

organization and hence cannot claim any benefit as sought for. Respondent is a Government of India undertaking

under the administrative control of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and was set up in March 1963 to

organize the development of sound seed industry in the in India with the head office at New Delhi and having its

processing unit at Kurnool under Hyderabad region. Corporation is established with an objective of providing quality

seed to the farmers throughout the country and Respondent is engaging seasonal workers on daily wages basis in

every season to meet the processing and packing activities undertaken by these schedule unit on actual need basis

through gate employment and the corresponding minimum wages are being released to the workers as per the

Minimum Wages Act. These labourers were free to work in any other establishment and Respondent have no

binding of employee and employer relationship. The headquarters of NSC took policy decision during the month of

March, 2006, vide H.O. letterNo:16(9)/NSC-Engg./05-06 to call for tenders for these type of works to discontinue

with D/W working system. In response to the above tender notification, tender was given to M/s. Thrupthi

Enterprises, No.33. 3^rd floor, first main, Mahalakshmi layout, Bangalore-96 vide job order dated 19^th January 2007 for

the above purpose, valid from 22.1.2007 to 21.1.2008 and made effect from 22.1.2007. The contractor took over the

job, specifically in the tender. Therefore, with effect from 22.1.2007, the services of Petitioner including this work

dispensed with, as at present, there is no work in the Corporation to reemploy the petitioner. In fact, there was no

casual terms and conditions except that they were taken on seasonal basis on D/W only when there is work and that

was also dispensed with effect from 31^st March 2007. It is submitted that Petitioner has not made out any case for

interference from this court and hence, the ID may be Dismissed.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following points emerge for determination in this

case:-

Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the workman Sri M. Suresh Babu is legal

and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into the service?

III.

To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled?

Findings:-

Point No. I:- The claimant has examined himself as WW1 and in his sworn testimony, WW1 stated that he

joined the services of the 2^nd Respondent Corporation as a daily wage worker in March, 1994 and continuously

worked till he was illegally and orally terminated from the service by the Respondent Corporation w.e.f. 1^st April,

2007. Further, WW1 states that he filed a writ petition No.8590 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court granted the interim direction to continue the Petitioner in the service. Therefore,

further he was continued in service from 1.4.2007 to 29.7.2008. Hon’ble High Court dismissed his petition vide order

dated 11.7.2008 giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Labour Court for necessary relief.

Further, WW1 states that he was directly appointed as daily wager by the Respondent corporation and he

worked under the supervision of the Respondent Corporation and his salaries were paid by the Respondent

corporation only. Further, WW1 states that the Respondent corporation used to maintain the attendance register and in

every completed year of service claimant has completed more than 240 days of service. Further, WW1 states that in

most of the completed years of service, he has put in more than 240 days of service. Witness also states that from the

date of joining service, he was working in the clerical side and also used to maintain all production record works like

writing of all forms and submission to agency preparing MPR, making entries of GCMs adjustment bills of growers

in the seed directory and liaison work with certification agency. Further, WW1 states that Respondent corporation

has also utilised his services for computer job pertaining to all the sections of the corporation and the work done was

of permanent, continuous and perennial nature in the Respondent corporation. Further WW1 states that while orally

terminating the services, Respondent corporation has not issued any notice nor gave notice Pay in lieu of the notice.

Respondent failed to pay the retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, Petitioner submits that the said oral termination of the Petitioner from service by the

Respondent is illegal, unjust, colourable exercise of power, victimization and unfair labour practice and liable to be

set aside.

Claimant has also filed six documents in evidence and witness WW1 has exhibited these documents as

Ex.W1 to W6. WW1 was cross examined at length by the Respondent but nothing contradictory has been elicited

in the cross examination of the witness. WW1 in his cross examination has stated that he worked upto the year 2008

and used to get his payment through muster roll basing on attendance register. The witness is shown Xerox copy of

muster roll Register showing the number of days, duties attended by the witness. Further, witness stated that he

worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year under NSCL. Thus, in his cross examination WW1 has

corroborated his statement of chief affidavit and also corroborated his statement with the document in evidence. The

documents filed in evidence by the Petitioner are, Ex.W1 is the dismissal order of Petitioner, Ex.W2 is the order

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3572

passed in WP No.8590/2007 dated 11.7.2008, Ex.W3 is the details of return of daily wage workers sent by Area

Manager to Regional Manager, NSCL dated 18.7.2005, that goes to show that the claimant joined the service of the

Respondent as a daily wage worker in May, 1994 along with other workmen. Ex.W4, is the letter from Area

Manager addressed to the Regional Manager, NSCL dated 11.5.2007, wherein explaining the reasons for engaging

daily wage labourers, and the name of the Petitioner appears at Sl.No.3 and further showing the number of days

worked by the Petitioner of which details reveals that in the year 1994- 95 Claimant had worked for 292 days ; in the

year 1995-96 worked for 328 days, in the year 1996-97 worked for 327 days; in the year 97-98 worked for 316 days,

in 1998-99 worked for 312 days, in 1999-2000 worked for 315 days; in 2000-01 worked for 345 days, in 2001-02

worked for 330 days; in 2002-03 worked for 297 days; in 2003-04 worked for 253 days; in 2004-05 worked for 48

days; in 2005-06 worked for 269 days and in 2006-07 had worked for 254 days. The details enumerated in the Ex.W4

corroborate the version of the claimant that he had worked in the Respondent corporation as a daily wage worker and

he has worked for 240 days or more continuously not only in each calendar year but also in the calendar year just

preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 2006-2007. Further, Ex.W5 is statement showing the details of bonus

granted to daily wage workers in the year 2007 and that goes to show that the claimant Sri M. Suresh Babu was also

awarded the bonus for the period from April 2007 to March 2008 for a total of 256 days. Further, it has come in

evidence that Petitioner has worked during his engagement as daily wager to the utmost satisfaction of the

Respondent corporation. Further, Ex. W6 is the detailed statement of the daily wage persons who has attended for

office/ plant work during the Holidays for which they have been paid the wages. These documents further goes to

show that claimant and other daily wage workers had also worked on holidays for which they have been paid the

wages as per rule.

On the other hand, Respondent has filed chief affidavit of MW1, Sri M.V. Sudhakar but despite sufficient

opportunity extended to MW1 for cross examination, witness did not turn up. Therefore, the statement of chief

affidavit of MW1 in absence of his cross examination cannot be read in evidence and the contention of the

Respondent remained unproved in the absence of any corroborating evidence. Further, the documentary evidence

filed by the Respondent in support of his contentions also remained unproved in the absence of evidence of any

witness. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner in support of his averment remained

uncontraverted. However, Respondent in his counter has admitted that claimant Sri M Suresh Babu has worked as

casual daily wager on need basis in the year 1995 and as there was no sufficient work for him in the processing plant

used for recording work, he was disengaged. Further, it is contended that Petitioner was not appointed in terms of

any rules and regulations and Petitioner cannot claim any benefit as he sought for in the ID. Thus, the Respondent

himself admitted the fact that the Petitioner had worked in the Respondent corporation as daily wage worker since

1995. As the Petitioner had worked as daily wager in the Respondent Corporation since 1994 upto 2008, therefore, he

is covered under the definition of Workman as defined in Section 2(ss) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and provision of I.D.

Act, 1947 equally applies to his case. Now let us examine whether the Petitioner Workman has been terminated in

contravention of the provision of section 25 F of the ID Act.

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average payfor every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

As per oral and documentary evidence on record, it is undisputedly proved that the Petitioner workman has worked

as a daily wager since 1995 up to 2007-08 in Respondent corporation and has almost completed 240 days continuous

working days in each calendar year of service. Admittedly, Respondent did not issue any notice to him before his

retrenchment from the service and did not paid any wages in lieu of the notice period. Further, no compensation was

paid to the Workman for his retrenchment. Thus, under these circumstances, the action of the Respondent in

terminating the services of the Workman without issuing notice or without payment of compensation is found to be

in contravention of provision of section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the action of the Respondent in the present

matter in terminating the services of the Petitioner under these circumstances is neither legal nor justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Points No.II & III: - Since, the finding given at Point No.I, that action of the Respondent in terminating

the services of the Petitioner Sri M. Suresh Babu was found neither legal nor justified. Now, question arises

3573

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whether claim of the Workman for reinstatement into the service is liable to be allowed. As a matter of fact, the

Workman who worked as daily wager in the Respondent corporation, has been terminated from the service in the

year 2008 and he has put in 14 years of service in the Respondent organization. Now, he has attained the age of

superannuation from the service. Even after putting in 14 years of service in the Respondent corporation and that

was without any blemish, the workman has been terminated from service by the Respondent illegally. At this

juncture he may not be in a position to find another job as being overaged. Therefore, under these circumstances,

appropriate relief to the Workman in this matter would be to grant him compensation for his illegal termination from

the service.

In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal

No.10957/2015 have held:-

“It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of

retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has

completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been

found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between

a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in

Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12], wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the

aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they

worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and

instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice."

23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with

full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may

be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and or malafide and/or by way

of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage

worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages

is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.

Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”

26. Applying the aforesaid principles, let us discuss the present case. We find that the Respondent was working as a

daily wager. Moreover, the termination took place more than 11 years ago. No doubt, as per the respondent, he had

worked for 15 years. However, the fact remains that no direct evidence for working 15 years has been furnished by

the Respondent and most of his documents are relatable to two years,i.e., 2001 and 2002. Therefore, this fact

becomes relevant when it comes to giving the relief. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that the need of

lineman in the telephone department is drastically reduced after the advancement of technology. For all these

reasons, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement.”

Similarly, in the present matter, Petitioner has been terminated in violation of provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947

and in the facts and circumstances of the case he is entitled for getting compensation. Therefore, in view of the law

laid down by the Apex court and in the facts and circumstances of the case the grant of compensation in lieu of the

reinstatement would be appropriate relief in the present matter.

10.

Now question arises how much compensation would be befitting in the present matter so as to make the good

to the Petitioner Workman. As the Petitioner has put in his service in the Respondent corporation and after serving

for such a long period he would not be in a position to get any other employment to earn bread for dependent

members of his family. Therefore, in such circumstances, In view of facts and circumstances of the case the grant of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as a compensation to the Workman in lieu of illegal dismissal would be

appropriate relief.

Thus, Points No.II & III are answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Points No.I II &III, I am of the considered view

that the action of the Respondent M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., in terminating the services of the Petitioner

Sri M. Suresh Babu is held illegal and unjustified as being in violation of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

As such, the oral termination order dated 1.4.2007 is hereby set aside. Since he has been terminated from the service

in the year 2007 and long period has been elapsed since then, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get a

compensation of Rs.2,00,000(Rupees Two Lakhs only) for his illegal termination from service. Thereby the

Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to Petitioner within two months after receiving copy of this

award, with all attendant benefits due to the Petitioner, failing which he has to pay the interest of 12% p.a..

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 17, 2024/श्रावण 26, 1946

3574

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 24^th

day of July, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri M. Suresh Babu

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of termination order dt.30.7.2008

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.8590/2007

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of returns of the daily wage workers at NSC, Kurnool as on 1.7.2005, dt. 18.7.2005

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of details of No. of days of the daily wage workers, from Area manager, Kurnool

to Regional Manager, NSC Ltd., Secunderabad dt.11.5.2007

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of statement showing Bonus of daily wage workers dt.22.5.2008

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of details of Petitioner working on holidays with Respondent No.2

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1593.—औद्योणगक णववाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योणगक एस्टेट, कुरनूल, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री एस. अब्लिुल रहीम,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िभष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- हैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभभ संख्या L.C.No. 59/2008) को जैसा

हुआ था l

[सं.-एल-42025/07/2024-144-आईआर(डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सणचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2024

S.O. 1593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C.No. 59/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Regional Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,Lalaguda, Secunderabad; The Area

Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Industrial Estate,

Kurnool, and Shri S. Abdul Rahim,

Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/08/2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-144-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -

Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 30^th day of July, 2024

3575

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 17, 2024/SHRAVANA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 59/2008

Between:

Sri S. Abdul Rahim,

S/o Abdul Sattar,

R/o 17-173, R.K. Talkies Street,

Kurnool – 518 001.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Regional Manager,

National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,

Lalaguda, Secunderabad -17.

The Area Manager,

National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,

Shed No.3 & 4, Industrial Estate,

Kurnool – 518 001.

Kurnool District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, P. Sudha, M. Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate

AWARD

Sri S. Abdul Rahim, who worked as daily wage worker (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents National Seeds

Corporation Ltd., seeking for setting aside the oral order of retrenchment dated 1.4.2007 and subsequent order in

Lr.No.WPMP11021/2007//NSC-KNL/2008-09/416 dated 30.7.2008 and grant relief of reinstatement into service

with full back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:-

The Petitioner submitted that he has joined the service of the second Respondent corporation as daily wage worker in

January, 1995 and worked continuously till he was illegally and orally terminated with effect from 1^st April 2007. It

is submitted that questioning the said termination order, Petitioner along with other employees, filed WP No.8590/