5256 GI/2024
(3691)
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. 34]
नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 25—अगस्ट् त 31, 2024, िजनवार/ भाद्र 3—भाद्र 9, 1946
No. 34]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 25—AUGUST 31, 2024, SATURDAY/BHADRA 3–BHADRA 9, 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)
जविेि मन्त्राल
(सीृीवी प्रभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1641.— रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा,सरकार भारत के िूतावास, ााँगो मेाँ श्री िेमािीत ृा क, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी,को अगस्ट्त 22,
2024 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2024(29)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-l)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-07092024-256971
CG-DL-W-07092024-256971
3692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2024
S.O. 1641.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Hemajit Pathak,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Yangon, to perform the consular
services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from August 22, 2024.
[F. No.T- 4330/01/2024(29)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)
मत्सस्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल
(मत्सस्ट् ृालन जवभाग)
(रािभाषा अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1642.—केंद्री सरकार, रािभाषा( संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976( ा
संिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, मत्सस्ट् ृालन जवभाग, मत्सस्ट् ृालन,
ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों में जिन्िी का का वसािक ज्ञान र ने
वाले कमवचारर ों की सं् ा 80% से अजिक िो िाने के फलस्ट्वप ृ इन का ावल ों को एतद्वारा भारत के रािृत्र में
अजिसूजचत करती िज।
1. राष्ट्री माजत्सस्ट् की जवकास बोडव
मत्सस्ट् ृालन जवभाग
मत्सस्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल , भारत सरकार
जृल्लर नंबर 235, ृीवीएनआर एक्सप्रेसवे,
एसवीृी एनृीए ृोस्ट्ट
िजिराबाि- 500 052 (तेलंगाना)
2. राष्ट्री माजत्सस्ट् की जवकास बोडव
ृूवी क्षेत्री केंद्र (ईआरसी)
राष्ट्री मी ािल मत्सस्ट् ब्रूड बैंक (एनएफएफबीबी)
कौिल् ागंगा, भुवनेश्वर (ओजडिा)- 751 002
[फा. सं. ई-11016/1/2023-डीओएफ (कंप् ूटर नं.: 23162)]
सागर मेिरा, सं ुक्त सजचव (प्रिा.)
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2024
S.O. 1642.—The Central Government, in pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages
(Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011), the following offices
under the administrative control of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and
Dairying wherein more than 80% of their employees having working knowledge of Hindi, are hereby notified in the
Gazette of India.
1. National Fisheries Development Board
Fisheries Department
Fisheries , Animal Husbandry and Dairying , Government of India
Pillar No.235 , PVNR Expressway ,
SVP NPA Post
Hyderabad - 500 052 (Telangana)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3693
2. National Fisheries Development Board
Eastern Regional Centre(ERC)
National Freshwater Fish Brood Bank (NFFBB)
Kaushalya Ganga, Bhubaneswar (Odisha) - 751 002
[F. No. E-11016/1/2023-DOF (Computer No.: 23162]
SAGAR MEHRA, Jt. Secy. (Admn.)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1643.—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
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/132/2018-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR& EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 111/2018) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/132/2018 – 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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 111/2018
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
State General Secretary,
SCLU (TNTUC), Gandhinagar,
Godavarikhani,
Peddapalli District -505209.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Adilabad-504303.
… Respondents
Appearances:
3694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/132/2018 (IR(CM-II)) Dated
22/11/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Sreerampur area,
Sreerampur-504303 Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Medi Muthayalu, Ex-Coal Filler,
E.C.No.2830540, SCCL, Chennur-I & 1A Incline, of Srirampur Division with effect from 30-07-1998 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. 111/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1644.—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
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y--22012/128/2018-vkbZ-vkj-(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 110/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/128/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3695
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110/2018
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
State General Secretary,
SCLU (TNTUC), Gandhinagar,
Godavarikhani,
Peddapalli District -505209.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Adilabad-504303.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/128/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated
22/11/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Sreerampur area,
Sreerampur-504303 Mancherial District in terminating the services of Sri Dooda Shankar, Ex-Badli Filler,
E.C.No.2901799, SCCL, Srirampur Division with effect from 08-12-99 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. 110/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
3696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1645.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/140/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 85/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/140/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 85/2018
Between:
The Vice President,
(Sri Bandari Lingaiah),
Singareni Collieries Employees
Union (CITU), Q.No. 39-T,
SMG X Road, Bellampalli-504251.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3697
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/140/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated
01/05/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the alleged demand dated 21.07.2015 of Singareni Collieries Employees Union to correct fixation
of pay, increment, payment of arrears and regularization of the services of Smt. Masthan Bee working as
Badli worker under M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd, Mandamarri Area is legal, fair and justified? If yes,
what relief the disputant are entitled to and from which date?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 85/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, Hence, a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1646.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/72/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 84/2018) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/72/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
3698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 84/2018
Between:
Sri Somaram Thirupathi
Branch Secretary, Singareni collieries
Workers Union (AITUC),
Bellampalli Branch, K.L.
Mahendra Branch, Goleti
Adilabad-504292
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Townshio
Adilabad-504292.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/72/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated
08/05/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area,
Adilabad Dist.(TS) in awarding punishment of lowering to the previous posts of security guards to Sri A.
Sadaiah w.e.f 16.05.2016, Sri Mende Thirupathi 24.8.2016 and Sri J. Mallesham w.e.f. 1.3.2016 is fair, legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled to and from which date?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 84/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3699
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1647.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/127/2018-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 113/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/127/2018–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 113/2018
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
State General Secretary,
SCLU (TNTUC), Gandhinagar,
Godavarikhani,
Peddapalli District -505209.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Adilabad-504303.
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
3700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/127/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated
26/11/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Sreerampur area,
Sreerampur-504303 Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Kalaveni Srinivas, Ex-Badli
Filler,Ex-BF E.C.No.2915984,IK-1A Inc., SCCL., Sreerampur Area with effect from 01-02-2009 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. 113/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It
seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1648.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
89/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/88/2015-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 89/2018) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/88/2015 – 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 28th day of June, 2024
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3701
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 89/2018
Between:
The President (Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telangana Trade Union Council,
Raj Kumar Complex, Saibaba temple road,
Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial-504208.
..
Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231.
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/88/2015 (IR(CM-II)) dated
26/06/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand raised by President, Telangana Trade Union Council, Mancherial, Adilabad distt for
dependent employment to Smt. Boda Rukma wife of Sri Boda Chandu, Ex-CF, SMG-3 Inc. SCCL,
Mandamarri Area Adilabad Distt, in spite of Memorandum of Settlement dated 29-10-2011 is justified and
legal. If yes to what relief Smt. Boda Rukma, applicant is entitled from the management of the M/s.
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Mandamarri Area and from which date?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 89/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the dated fixed for file claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity
extended to him. Record reveals that 1st notice dated 15.5.2019 on petitioner was served but no claim statement filed.
2nd notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. 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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1649.—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
3702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/107/2018-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 46/2018) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/107/2018–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46/2018
Between:
Sri Madam Iylaiah,
H.No. 9-4-92,
Vittal Nagar 5 Inc.,
Ramagundam (M)
Peddapalli Dist. (TS)
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area,
Godavarikhani-505209.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/107/2017-IR(CM-II) dated
29/01/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli Dist. (TS) in terminating the services of Sri Madam Iylaiah,
Ex-Coal Filler, GDK-2 INC,. Ramagundam-I area with effect from 22.9.2010 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. 46/2018 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3703
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, the case a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1650.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds
iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/31/2022-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 48/2022) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/31/2022 – 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 5th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 48/2022
Between:
The Singareni Miners and
Engineering Workers Union(HMS)
C-34, Sector-1, Godavarikhani,
Peddapally-577101.
..….Petitioner
3704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area,
Mancherial-505215.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri K Vashudev Reddy, advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/31/2022-IR(CM-II) dated
11/04/2022 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand raised by The Singareni Miners & Engineering Workers Union, Telengana
against the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area in
terminating the services of Shri Boora Laxminarayana, Ex-Badili Filler Sreerampur Area w.e.f. 30-11-2002
vide letter No. SRP/PER/35A/02/5463 dated 30-11-2002 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
applicant Shri Boora Laxminarayana is entitled and what direction are necessary in this regards?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 48/2022 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any
claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his
case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘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 5th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1651.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV
(ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं.
-22012/126/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3705
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 49/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/126/2017–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 5th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2022
Between:
The Singareni Miners
And Engineering Workers
Union (HMS)C-34, Sector-I,
Godavarikhani,
Peddapalli-507101.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area,
Mancherial-505215.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Vasudeva Reddy, advocate
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/32/2022-IR(CM-II) dated
11/04/2022 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli, in spite
of to conduct interview of Sri Ahmed Jani in the year 1996 and sent to Area Hospital, Bellampalli for
Medical fintness and declared fit by the medical authorities, in non-providing dependent employment to Sri
Ahmed Jani, Son-in-Law of late Sd Ismail, Ex-Cook, who had opted for voluntary retirement scheme on
health grounds in favour of employment to his son-in-law Sri S Ahmed Jani, later on died on 10.02.1998 due
to illness, is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant Sri S Ahmed jani is entitled to and what
direction are necessary in this regard?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 49/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
3706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any
claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his
case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘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 5th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1652.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
22012/109/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 57/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/109/2017 – 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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57/2018
Between:
The General Secretary,
(Sri Riaz Ahmed),
Singareni Mines & Engg.
Workers Union (HMS)
H.No. C-34, Sector-I,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3707
Godavarikhani-505209.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani-505209.
…… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/109/2017-IR(CM-II) dated
15/12/2017 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area,
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist, in fixing the basic pay @ Rs. 11,093-38 ps instead of @ Rs. 11959.48 ps in
respect of S/Sri E. Rajeshwar Rao, Kudikala Satheesh, and N. Srinivas, Security, Guards GR-Government,
S& PC, SCCl, Ramagundam-I area is justified or not? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 57/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1653.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/104/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
3708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 61/2018) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/104/2017–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 61/2018
Between:
Bandari Satyanarayana,
President, Telangana Trade
Union Congress, Hamaliwada,
near Ashok Talkies,
Shivaji Band Street,
Mancherial-504208
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri-504231.
..…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/104/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated
26/12/2017 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,
Mancherial Dist. (TS). In terminating the services of Sri Seggam Bhoomaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, RK-1A,
Mandamarri Area with effect from 9.6.2004 in justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled
for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 61/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of
providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3709
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1654.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/6/2018-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 63/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/6/2018–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 63/2018
Between:
The President
(Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telangana Trade Union Congress,
Hamaliwada, near Ashok Talkies,
Shivaji Band Street,
Mancherial-504208
..….Petitioner
AND
3710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area,
Goleti Township (PO)-504292.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/6/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated
02/04/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli area,
Goleti Township (PO), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Sothuku Mondi, Ex-CF, Goleti-I
INC., Bellampalli area Bellampalli area with effect from 15.11.2007 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. 63/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that
notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of
providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1655.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[ सं.
-22012/7/2018-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 20/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3711
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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/7/2018–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2019
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
Sr. Vice President, RCMS Central Committee &
SRP Divn., President, Mancherial,
Hamaliwada, Near Ashok Talkies,
Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Mancherial-504303.
..…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/7/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated
02/01/2019 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur
area, Sreerampur, Mancherial Dist. (TS), in terminating the services of Sri Morla Mallesh, Ex-General
Mazdoor, RKNT, SCCL, Sreerampur area with effect from 18.11.2003 and not reinstating him after
interview held on 14.4.2012 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. 20/2019 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals
that notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite
of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a 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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
3712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1656.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/141/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 5/2019) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/141/2017–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5/2019
Between:
Sri Janagam Mallesh,
S/o Narsaiah,
H.No. 3-5-56/1,
Sundilla (V), Kamanpur (M)
Peddapalli Dist. (TS)
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area,
Godavarikhani-505209
Peddapalli Dist. (TS)
… Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3713
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/141/2017-IR(CM-II) dated
22/03/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the general manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I area,
Godavarikhani, Peddapalli Dist.(TS) in terminating the services of Sri Janagam Mallesh, Ex-Coal filler
GDK-2A INC, Ramagundam-I area with effect from 23.1.2014 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. 5/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of
claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1657.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/105/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 60/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/105/2017–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
3714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2018
Between:
Bandari Satyanarayana,
President, Telangana Trade
Union Congress,
Hamaliwada, near Ashok Talkies,
Shivaji Band Street,
Mancherial-504208
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231.
.. …Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/105/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated
21/12/2017 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mancharial dist. (TS),
in terminating the services of Sri Sange Rajesham, Ex-CF, SMG-1 INC., Mandamarri Area with effect from
11.1.2000 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. 60/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice
sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of
providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3715
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1658.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/30/2016-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 40/2016) 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 13/08/2024
[No. L-22012/30/2016–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
resent: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 40/2016
Between:
Sri Gadde Narsaiah S/o Posham,
H.No. 16-1-82/21, Ballempalli No. 2 Incline Basti
Asafabad Tq.,
Adilabad Distt., Telangana
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township-504292
Adilabad Distt., Telengana
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, Advocate
3716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/30/2016 (IR(CM-II) dated
08/07/2016 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli
Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Distt in terminating the services of Sri Gadde Narsaiah, Ex-Coal Filler,
Goleti No. 1 Incline, SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 15.07.2004 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. 40/2016 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
None present for both sides. Notice sent on petitioner returned unserved with endorsement as ‘addresse
expired, hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no LR petition filed by any legal heir of
petitioner. It seems that LRs do not want to pursue the case. Hence, case is dismissed for default.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of may , 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1659.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22013/01/2024-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 72/2021) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3717
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 72/2021
Between:
The General Secretary,
Singareni Miners & Engineering
Workers Union (HMS)
Q.No. C-34, Sector-1,
Godavarikhani-505209.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Chairman & Managing Director,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Red Hills, P.O. Box No.18,
Khairathabad, Hyderabad
2. The Agen, K-P, U.G. INC,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
Manuguru, Khammam District, Telengana
3. The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Manuguru, Khammam District
Telengana State.
4. The Director (P,A&W),
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Kothagudem,
Khammam District-507101.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Shri K. Vasudeva Reddy, advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.1/12/2021-B1 dated 15/09/2021 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Manuguru Area in
termination of Sri Gurrala Chandrasekhar, General Mazdoor from the services is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 72/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any
claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his
case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed.
3718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 12th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1660.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/103/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 59/2018) 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 14/08/2024
[No. L-22012/103/2017–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 28th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 59/2018
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
Sr. Vice President, RCMS Central Committee &
SRP Divn., President, Mancherial, Hamaliwada,
Near Ashok Talkies,
Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3719
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/103/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated
26/12/2017 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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,
Mancharial dist. (TS), in terminating the services of Sri Eppal Ramulu, Ex-CF, Shantikhani, Mandamarri
Area with effect from 26.9.2007 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. 59/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the dated fixed for file claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity
extended to him. Record reveals that 1st notice dated 21.10.2019 on petitioner was served but no claim statement filed.
2nd notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender.
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 28th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024
का.आ. 1661.—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
–सि–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22013/01/2024-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 69/2021) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
3720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69/2021
Between:
Sri S.Ravi Kumar,
Ex-General Mazdoor,
C/o Smt. A.Sarojana, flat no.G7
Rajeswari Gayathri Sadan,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-II Area,
Peddapalli District.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Shri K. Vasudeva Reddy & B. Kiran Kumar, advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.1/10/2021-B1 dated 02/09/2021
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal
between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-II Area
in terminating the services of Sri S.Ravi kumar, Ex-General Mazdoor, Ramagundam-II Area with effect from
26.03.2007 is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 69/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not
file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to
prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘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 12th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946
3721
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1662.—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.
-22012/126/2017-
(सी.एम-II)]
मणिकंिन एन, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024
S.O. 1662—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 49/2018) 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 14/08/2024.
[No. L-22012/126/2017– 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 28th day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2018
Between:
The Vice President (Sri Bandari Lingaiah),
Singareni Collieries Employees Union (CITU),
Qtr. No. 39-T, SMG X Roads,
Bellampalli-504251
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area,
Madamarri-505231.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/126/2017 (IR(CM-II)) Dated
29/01/2018 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 workmen. The reference is,
3722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
THE SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri, Mancherial Dist.(TS) in terminating the services of Sri Thangellapally Kanakalah, Geni.,
Mazdoor, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Kasipeta Mine., Mandamarri area with effect from
21.12.2014 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. 49/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that 1st
notice dated 19.3.2018 on petitioner was served but no claim statement filed. 2nd Notice sent to petitioner returned un-
served with endorsement as addressee expired’, hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity
no claim statement is filed since 2018. Hence, a ‘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 28th day of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1663.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
यूनियि बैंक ऑफ इंनिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योणगक fookn
esa औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV [17 (C) of 2021] izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-36]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2024
S.O. 1663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17 (C ) of 2021) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management ofUnion Bank of India and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B-II)-36]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
Reference Case No.:-17 (C) of 2021
Between the management of (1) the Managing Director &Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank of India,
Central Office, Mumbai Samachar Marg 239, Back Way Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (2) the
Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Mohanpur, Samastipur-848101 and Their workman Sri
Santosh Kumar Choudhary, S/ Shri Rameshwar Choudhary, Vill- Siswa Khurd, P.O & P.S- Daudpur, Dist- Saran,
Bihar-841205.
3723
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the management:-
Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
Mr. Ambanish Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the workman:-
Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees
Association.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
A W A R D
Patna, dt- 19th July, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID(12)/2021/Dy CLC-Pt dated- 20/25.10.2021 the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Maurya Lok Complex, A Block,
2nd Floor, Room No.-6,16,& 17, Patna-800001 has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) of Section-10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the following dispute between (1) the
Managing Director Chief Executive officer, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai Samachar Marg 239, Back
Way Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (2) the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office,
Mohanpur, Samastipur-848101 and Their workman Sri Santosh Kumar Choudhary, S/O Shri Rameshwar Choudhary,
Vill- Siswa Khurd, P.O & P.S- Daudpur, Dist- Saran, Bihar-841205 for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of the then Andhra Bank (now called Union Bank of India ), Daudpur
Branch, Bihar in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Choudhary, temporary Peon, .e.f. 01.02.2017, is
just and proper? If not, to what relief (s) the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2. As per the statement of claim, the case of the applicant Sri Santosh Kumar Choudhary is that Andhra Bank ( now
called Union Bank of India after merger), opened a branch at Daudpur Dist.- Saran in the year-2013. It is further
asserted that Santosh Kumar Choudhary, workman was orally appointed as temporary peon in the said branch from
01.10.2014 against a permanent vacant post of a peon. The workman discharged all the duties of a peon from
01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 regularly. It is further asserted that the workman as assigned duties and ( i) opening and
closing the bank gate,( ii) cleaning tables, chairs, counters, (iii) stitching of currency notes and vouchers, (iv) placing
the register and book on the counters, (v) taking out cash box from the strong room placing the same at cash counter.
Some times he did postal work of the bank. It is further asserted that the workman discharged his duties right from
8.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M as per the Branch Manager. It is further asserted that the workman was being paid wages on
monthly basis that was initially Rs. 1800/- per month which was raised Rs. 4000/- P.M and lastly workman was
getting Rs. 12000/- P.M. All the payment was made to the workman through debit vouchers and the amount was
credited to his S.B. Account. It is further asserted that the workman was also maintaining attendance in the branch
every day. But all of sudden he was stopped from working on 01.02.2017 by the bank officials without giving any
notice or any retrenchment compensation so termination of the workman is covered u/s- 2 (oo) of the I.D.Act and the
action of the management constitutes unfair labour practice as per Schedule-V read with Section 25(T) of the I.D.Act.
It is further asserted that after termination workman approached several times before higher authorities of the
management bank for his reinstatement and regularisation but his effort was failed then he raised his grievance before
the conciliation officer but management side was not ready to settle the dispute, ultimately conciliation officer has
sent the matter to the appropriate Govt. after failure of conciliation report. Ultimately this case was referred to this
tribunal for adjudication. Thus the workman seeks following relief (s) ;
(i)
Reinstatement in the service of the bank as a temporary peon with back wages and other
consequential benefits.;
(ii)
Regularisation of service as a peon;
(iii)
Payment of due wages, for the period of working;
(iv)
Payment of cost of Rs. 25000/- for contesting the dispute;
(v)
Any other relief (s) as a this tribunal deemed and proper;
3. On the other hand the management side filed written statement and stated therein the claim of the applicant /
workman of this case is not maintainable either on the facts or in the eye of law and it is liable to be dismissed. It is
further asserted that the applicant presented distorted and incorrect version of the facts and he attempted to mislead to
this tribunal by disclosing exaggerated duties. It is further asserted that the dispute raised by the applicant / workman
can’t be termed as Industrial Dispute within the I.D. Act because the applicant is not a workman at any point of time
in the said bank hence there is no question of wrongful termination. It is further asserted that there is no relationship
of the employer and employee because there was no contract of service between the applicant and the bank. The
applicant was never appointed by the bank through sponsored of the employment exchange or through any
3724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
recruitment process demanded by the Govt. It is further asserted that his name was never appeared on the muster roll
of the bank and he was never paid salary. It is further asserted that there is no provision or rules regarding to oral
appointment in public sector bank. It is further asserted that the applicant has not come up with clean hand before this
tribunal and he has conceded relevant facts. The fact is, the applicant was engaged occasionally as casual labourer for
the period and he was paid accordingly. It is further asserted that various allegations, submissions, contentions and
averments made in the application are denied in toto. It is the duty of the applicant to put with strict proof. It is further
asserted that if any appointment is made in violation of the recruitment norms, the appointment becomes void abinitio
and it does not confer any right on the person, was appointed. It is further asserted that raising this dispute by the
applicant is indirectly trying to enter in the service of the bank through back door however, it is clearly held by
Hon’ble Court in Uma Devis case back door entries is bad in law. It is further asserted that the applicant has never
worked regularly as daily wager rather as per requirement of the work he was called for which he was duly paid. It is
further asserted that since the applicant s never appointed in the service of bank, so there is no question of any
termination order for complying with the provision of the I.D. Act. It is further asserted that all the allegations as
raised against the bank is totally denied and his claim is fit to be dismissed.
4.
Having gone through the rival contentions both the sides, the following issues are recasted for adjudication:-
(i)
“Whether the applicant Santosh Kumar Choudhary is regrarded as workman under the provision of
2 (S) of the I.D. Act?”
(ii)
“Whether the Santosh Kumar Choudhary worked regularly from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017
discharging duties as a temporary peon mentioned in statement of claim.”
(iii)
“ Whether the action of the management of the then Andhra Bank (now called Union Bank of
India ), Daudpur Branch, Bihar in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Choudhary,
temporary Peon, w.e.f. 01.02.2017, is just and proper? If not, to what relief (s) the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
(iv)
“Whether the applicant is entitled for any relief?”
5.
In order to establish his claim, the workman sides examined one witness namely Santosh Kumar Choudhary
(W.W-1) the applicant. Besides oral evidence workman side files some documents and got its marked Exts. as:-
(i)
Ext.-W- Payment voucher of dt- 01.10.2014.
(ii)
Ext.-W/1- Deputation of Santosh Kumar to bring P.C set
from Andhra Bank, Gopalganj dt-24.03.2015.
(iii)
Ext.-W/2- Zerox copy of attendance register for the period
of 12.12..2014 to 31.01.2017 ( Page-03 to 15 ).
(iv)
Ext.-W/3- Zerox copy of attendance sheet for the months of January-2017 bearing signature of
initial of Branch Manager Sri Prakash Deepak.
6.
On the other hand management side examined one witness namely Prakash Deepak (M.W-1). Management
side not produced any documents.
7.
First of all this tribunal securitizes the evidence of Santosh Kumar Choudhary of W.W-1. Who stated before
this tribunal who was doing duty at Daudpur Branch of Andhara Bank now called Union Bank of India after merger.
He further stated that he used to come to the branch at 9.00 A.M to open the gate of the bank thereafter, he used to
discharge the duties of cleaning work and also did the duties of hospitality. He further stated that he often brought the
cash from the strong room and for the cash counter. He also did the duty of vouchers binding. This witness further
stated that initially he was getting Rs. 1800/- per month. Payment and after one year it was enhanced to Rs. 4000/- per
month and after six month he started getting Rs. 12,000/- per month and this witness also stated that he was getting
cash payment through vouchers issued in his name. This witness further proved the payment voucher of dt-
01.10.2014 marked as Ext.-W and he also proved the deputation letter of dt- 24.03.2015 given by Manager Daudpur
Branch to bring PC from Branch Manger, Gopalganj as Ext.-W/1. This witness further stated that he worked Daudpur
Branch from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 and he filed the zerox copy of attendance register for the period from
11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 over which he put his signature / initial i.e from the page 03 to 25 marked as Ext.-W/2 and
this witness further proved the 19 page of attendance register of the month January-2017 as Ext.-W/3 on which the
then Manager Prakash Deepak put his initial. This witness further stated that during his tenure at Daudpur Branch
there was no peon posted there. This witness further stated that he has given a written petition to the bank but he has
not kept any copy of his petition. This witness further stated that bank neither sent any notice nor any retrenchment
compensation before terminating him so his claim of reinstatement permanent peon his right.
In cross-examination this witness categorically admitted that in para-13 of the cross-examination he has
received just one vouchers from bank manager Manish Jaiswal of the year 2014 that he placed before this tribunal. In
para-14 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he has bank account but he received his
3725
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
payment once in bank account in the year 2014 and thereafter he received payment through vouchers. This witness
further stated that on Ext.-w/1 Manager did not give any designation after his name in the letter. In para-15 of the
cross-examination this witness categorically admits that he was making initial in English on the attendance register
later on, on the instruction of manager he put the signature in Hindi. In para-16 this witness admits that on page-18 of
attendance register there was signature of one Sanjay and his initial was in English and on page-20 of Ext.-W/2 his
signature was in Hindi not in English. In para-18 of the cross-examination this witness admits that there is his
signature on page-25 of (Ext.-W/2). In para-19 of the cross-examination this witness stated that he was called from
the bank in Jan. 2018 and he discharged duty voluntarily there but this fact is not inserted in his statement of claim. In
para-20 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he has taken the photo of attendance register
through his Mobile and got it printed. In para-22 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he
used to keep the keys of bank main gate and on receiving the key of chest he used to open the Chest. This witness
stated in para-25 he has no written proof of his joining.
8.
On the other hand management examined Prakash Deepak, Assistant Manager of Union Bank of India,
Mohania Branch as M.W-1 who stated before this tribunal he was Manager of Daudpur Branch from 21.11.2016 to
03.06.2018 earlier it was Andhra Bank now Union Bank of India after merger. This witness further stated that during
his tenure he never put any notice for the recruitment of any peon. This witness further stated that when Santosh
Kumar gave his service to the bank one Sanjay Kumar was PTS in the branch he was employee of the bank.This
witness stated on query of this tribunal when ever Sanjay Kumar PTS was on leave than Santosh Kumar was called
and bank took his service for one to two hours. This witness further stated that he was not posted in the said branch in
the year 2014-15 so he can’t say Sanjay Kumar and Santosh Kumar PTS was maintaining his attendance on the same
attendance register and this further stated that the attendance sheet produced by Santosh his forged and there is only
one signature showing Santosh on the attendance sheet of during his tenure. This witness further stated that, on query
by this tribunal, there was separate attendance register for PTS Sanjay in the bank. This witness further stated that he
can’t say Ext.-W/1 bears the signature of Santosh Kumar.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-10 he can’t say when Daudpur Branch of the
Andhara bank was opened and he also can’t say on the opening of the said branch there was no permanent peon. In
para-11 of the cross-examination this witness admits that he joined the Daudpur Branch in the year 2016 and at that
time one Sanjay Kumar was permanent PTS and bank took the service of Santosh Kumar too. In para-13 of the cross-
examination this witness categorically stated that Santosh Kumar received the payment in cash through vouchers. On
tribunal query this witness categorically admits that Andhra Bank was merged in Union Bank of India, so no copy of
the vouchers of Andhara Bank can be given but current vouchers of Union Bank of India can be placed. This witness
further categorically stated in para-14 of the cross-examination that bank gave payment to the workman whenever he
discharged his duties and he used to received weekly payment. In para-17 of the cross-examination this witness
admits that the vouchers was issued to the workman in his name of Santosh. This witness further admits that in para-
18 of the cross-examination that the three vouchers of year-2017 is shown to him, is in the name of Santosh Kumar
and there is his signature also. In para-20 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admits that the voucher
of Rs. 3464/- is shown to him is the payment of seven days given to the workman. In para- 23 of the cross-
examination this witness categorically admits that since Santosh Kumar was daily wager so he did not get any
appointment letter and further in para-14 witness categorically stated that he can’t say whether the workman was
given notice or any sort of compensation because he was transferred from said branch.
9.
It is argued on behalf of the workman side Santosh Kumar the workman has worked in the Daudpur Branch
of the management bank from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 and thereafter, this witness was terminated from 01.02.2017
which was duly corroborated by the workman himself in his evidence and he also filed some documents with regards
to this payment received from the bank. It is also argued that workman filed attendance register i.e from 11.12.2014 to
31.01.2017 ( Ext.-W/2 ) i.e also strong proof the Santosh has discharged the duties in the said branch as daily wager.
It is also argued that the than manager also put his initial over the attendance sheet of month of January 2017 i.e at
page-19 of the attendance register marked as Ext.-W/3. It is further argued that of course workman could not
produced all the payment vouchers because all the vouchers was not given by the management bank but the vouchers
he produced of the year 2017 was duly admitted by the M.W-1 Prakash Deepak i.e in the name of Santosh Kumar it
also shows that during the tenure of Prakash Deepak ( M.W-1 ) he was discharging the duties of daily wager it is
further argued that there was no permanent peon posted in the said branch and the workman discharged his duties like
a permanent employee of the bank as a sub-staff and he worked uninterruptedly continuously from 01.10.2014 to
31.01.2017 work for more than 240 days so his termination covered U/S-2(OO) of the I.D.Act and without notice and
compensation the termination of workman is a kind of unfair labour practice resorted by the bank. It is also argued
that the duties of the workman was perennial in nature but all of sudden he was terminated and appointed a fresh hand
ignoring the claim of workman i.e also violation the provision of Section 25 (G) & 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947. The workman side filed the matter of one Mintu Kumar whose dispute was decided in Reference Case
No.- 06 (C) of 2006 by this tribunal was similar to the matter of this workman in which tribunal passed award in
favour of the Mintu Kumar by reinstating him into the service of bank and also passed the order to regular his
services. It was challenged by the management bank but finally the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.- 1135 of
3726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2019 restored the award passed by this tribunal. Since workman has discharged the duties regular for the three years
continuously so he is entitled for instatement for the services of the bank as sub-staff.
10.
On the other hand representative of the management argued that the claim of the Santosh Kumar for his
reinstatement is not at all established by the workman side because Santosh Kumar never discharged his daily wage
work continuously in the said branch, no documentary proof is given for continuous duty in the Daudpur Branch. It is
further argued that he attendance register produced by the workman is not authentic document because it is not
prepared in the official register and there is no seal of the bank moreover, the claim of the workman there was no
permanent staff posted in the said bank is totally false one Santosh Kumar PTS was posted in the said branch as
permanent PTS. It is further argued that whenever workman gave his services to the Daudpur Branch he was paid
accordingly. So the claim of the workman has no basis and since he was not a employee of the bank there is no
question of termination. It is also argued that it is settled principle of law mere continuous service as a temporary or
adhoc or daily wager can not confer him any right for the service if he did not worked against sanctioned post. There
was no sanctioned post vacant in Daudpur Branch because Santosh Kumar was already posted as permanent PTS
hence the claim of the workman is not at all sustainable.
11.
Considering all the facts and the materials available on the record as discussed above and the submissions as
advanced on behalf of both the sides this tribunal takes the first issue whether the Santosh Kumar Choudhary acquired
status of workman U/S-2(S) of the I.D.Act. Section-2(S) defined about the workman:- [ 2 (S) “workman” means any
person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any
such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that
dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such
person—
(i)
Who is subject to the Air Force, Act, 1950 (45 of 1950 ), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950 ), or
the Navy Act, 1957 (62 or 1957 ); or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)
Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 56a [ ten thousand rupees ]
per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the
powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
In this regards this is the clear cut stance of Santosh Kumar that he was engaged as temporary peon right from
opening of the branch of Andhra Bank at Daudpur Branch and he started discharging his duties as a temporary peon
from 01.10.2014 onwards till his termination dt-31.01.2017, later on te Andhra Bank was merged in Union Bank of
India and this is duly corroborated by the Santosh Kumar in his evidence as W.W-1 and this is not controverted by the
management during the course of cross-examination rather management side admits that Santosh Kumar was engaged
as daily wager for which he was duly paid. This tribunal further find that M.W-1 Prakash Deepak the management
witness also admits in his evidence that he was Branch Manager of Daudpur Branch from 21.11.2016 to 03.06.2018
and during his tenure he, as a Branch Manager took the service of Santosh Kumar and one Sanjay was posted as PTS
( Part Time Sweeper) this version of management clearly shows that Santosh Kumar was engaged by the Daudpur
Branch as a daily wager on being oral appointed by the than Branch Manager and there is no evidence given by the
management side there was any peon ( sub-staff ) was posted in the said branch during the course of the services
given by Santosh Kumar at Daudpur Branch. These all establishes that Santosh Kumar acquires the status of workman
while discharging his duties at Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank and thereafter Union Bank of India after merger till
31.01.2017 so this tribunal does not find force in the contention of the management that Santosh Kumar is not a
workman.
12.
So far as issue no.-(ii) is concerned, whether Santosh Kumar worked regularly from 01.10.2014 to
31.01.2017 discharging duties as a temporary peon at Daudpur Branch. In this context Santosh Kumar as W.W-1
categorically supported his contention as asserted in his statement of claim that he was engaged as a temporary peon
right from opening of the branch of Andhra Bank at Daudpur Branch from 01.10.2014 and he was discharging the
duties of a temporary peon right from opening of the bank from 9.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M at the instruction of the Branch
Manager. He also supported his different duties like the opening of the gate of bank premises thereafter some cleaning
work, of table and counters and he also deposed that he often brought the cash from the chest to the cash counter and
he was also discharged the duties of vouchers binding. This tribunal finds that management side did not controvert the
duties discharged by Santosh Kumar at the Daudpur Branch by way of any cogent oral evidence or documentary
evidence. This tribunal further finds that Santosh Kumar categorically stated that he was getting payment through
debit vouchers initially he was getting Rs. 1800/- P.M after one year it was enhanced to Rs. 4000/- P.M and after six
months he started receiving Rs. 12000/- P.M. In this connection Santosh Kumar proved the payment voucher of dt-
01.10.2014 i.e ( Ext.-W ) the payment of Rs. 420/- for the period of 23.09.2014 to 30.09.2014 @ Rs. 60/- per day this
3727
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext-W corroborated the contention of workman Santosh Kumar he was initially getting Rs. 1800/- P.M in the year
2014 for one year. Moreover, Santosh Kumar in his evidence clearly stated that the bank did not provide other
vouchers. This tribunal further finds that Santosh Kumar filed a deputation letter of dt- 24.03.2015 ( Ext.-W/1 ) that
shows that the then Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Daudpur Branch sent Santosh Kumar to Gopalganj Branch for
bringing PC set. This document also establish this fact that there was no sub-staff posted at Daudpur Branch at that
time that’s why Santosh Kumar was authorised by the then Branch Manager to bring the PC set. This kind of duty can
be done only peon. In support of his continuous working from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 Santosh Kumar filed photo
copy of attendance register i.e period of 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 (Ext.-W/2). This document Ext.W/2 shows, there is
initial of Santosh Kumar on the attendance sheet whenever he discharged his duties from 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017
there is bank seal also on each page of the attendance register i.e from ( Page-03 to 25 ) of the filed documents from
the side of workman. This document also shows that one Sanjay Kumar was also putting his signature over the
attendance register ( Ext.-W/2) as he was working as a PTS i.e duly admitted by the management side. This tribunal
further finds that Santosh Kumar, during his deposition also proved the page 19 of attendance register as Ext.-W/3
that shows that there is signature of then Branch Manager Prakash Deepak ( Ext.-M/1 ) so this document attendance
register ( Ext.-W/2) thoroughly establishes that Santosh Kumar was regularly discharging duties as a temporary peon
from 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 because it bears the seal of the bank and on page 19 there is signature of then Branch
Manager establishing that Santosh Kumar was regularly discharged his duties at Daudpur Branch right from
01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 there is no denial of this fact from the management sides by way of any cogent evidence
moreover, M.W-1 Prakash Deepak clearly stated in his evidence that when he joined Daudpur Branch in the year-
2016 as a Manager, Bank took the services of Santosh Kumar and at that time one Sanjay Kumar was PTS. He also
admits that Santosh Kumar was getting payment through vouchers at weekly basis and this witness also admits the
three vouchers of year 2017 shown from the workman side that is issued in the name of Santosh Kumar and all the
three vouchers bears his signature as a passing officer. This tribunal further finds that the vouchers admitted by the
management witness ( M.W-1 ) of dt- 06.10.2017, the payment of Rs. 2970/- for the working of 01.09.2017 to
10.09.2017, 2nd vouchers is of dt- 06.10.2017 too i.e payment of Rs. 4455/- for the working period 11.09.2017 to
20.09.2017, 3rd vouchers is of 21.11.2017 showing the payment of Rs. 2324/- given to the Santosh Kumar for his five
days work. This tribunal further finds that M.W-1 also admits that the voucher of payment Rs. 3464/- i.e the period
working from 11.10.2017 to 17.10.2017 i.e issued on 14.11.2017. This admission of the management witness clearly
shows that bank was taking the services of Santosh Kumar regularly as a temporary peon corroborates the claim of
the Santosh Kumar so this issue is also thoroughly established by the workman by oral and documentary evidence. So
far as issue no.- (iii) is concerned that is the core issue of the reference. In this context workman alleged that his
service was abruptly terminated on 01.02.2017 however he was discharging duties as a temporary peon in Daudpur
Branch of Andhra Bank from the opening of the said branch regularly. This tribunal finds and hold that Santosh
Kumar has thoroughly establishes he has continuous discharged duties like a temporary peon at Daudpur Branch at
Andhra Bank for more than 240 days in each year till his terminating dt-01.02.2017. This tribunal further finds and
hold that there was no permanent peon posted in the Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank that’s why management bank
took the service of Santosh Kumar as a temporary peon regularly and management also did not place any cogent
evidence that there was any permanent peon posted in the Daudpur Branch. This tribunal further finds that
management has admitted this fact one Sanjay Kumar was posted as PTS but he was not discharging duties of the
peon at Daudpur Branch that’s why management bank took the services of Santosh Kumar as a peon though he was
orally appointed upon opening the Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank. This tribunal further find and hold that taking
the services of Santosh Kumar for fairly long time from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 clearly shows that bank was in
need of services of Santosh Kumar and utilized his services as a temporary peon for more than two years continuously
hence the action of the management in terminating the services of Santosh Kumar without compliance of provision of
section-25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 can’t be held justified and legal. This tribunal further finds and hold
that the workman side pointed out the award passed by this tribunal of one workman Mintu Kumar in Reference Case
No.- 06(C) of 2006 i.e very similar to the case of Santosh Kumar. This tribunal also gone through the case of Mintu
Kumar and found the contention of the workman side is justified in this case also.
13.
On the ultimate analysis of all the facts and material available on the records as discussed above this tribunal
finds and hold that workman Santosh Kumar has thoroughly established his claim by way of oral and documentary
evidence so he is entitled for reinstatement in the services of the bank as a sub-staff now called Union Bank of India
from 01.02.2017 with all consequential benefits. Under the aforesaid facts this is the considered opinion of this
tribunal Santosh Kumar is entitled for his reinstatement in the services of management bank as sub-staff ( class- IV
grade ) from 01.02.2017 with all consequential benefits. Accordingly management of the Andhra Bank now called
Union Bank of India is directed to reinstate the services of Santosh Kumar as a sub-staff within two months from date
of publication / gazettee of this award.This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
19.07.2024
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
3728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1664.—औद्योनिक 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
औद्योनिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योनिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV (a48/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. ,y-12012/130/1999-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2024
S.O. 1664—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin
Bank their workmen.
[No. L-12012/130/1999- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-12012/130/1999-IR (B-I) Dated: 25.07.2003
Jherh deyk nsoh lSuh iRuh Lo- Jh eksgu yky lSuh] fuoklh&fu;j lqokZ ¶ykSj fey] egulj] ftyk& >qU>quw ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
1- ofj"B izca/kd] cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] gSM vkWfQl] lhdj] jktLFkku& 332001
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh vkj- lh- tSu] izfrfu/kh & izkFkhZA
% Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 25-07-2003 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
3729
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin
Bank Sikar in terminating the services of Smt. Kamla Devi Saini w.e.f. 01-01-
1982 is justified? If not, to what relief the disputant concerned is entitled?
2-
rnqijkar fnukad 11-11-2005 dks Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ,d la'kks/ku jsQjsal vkns'k tkjh
djrs gq;s ewy jsQjsal vkns'k fnukad 25-07-2003 esa izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 01-01-1982 tksMs tkus dk
vkns'k fn;k x;kA
3-
fnukad 12-11-2013 dks Je ea=ky; }kjk foi{kh cSad ¼'ks[kkokVh xzkeh.k cSad½ dk foy; jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad esa
gks tkus ds dkj.k foi{kh cSad dk uke jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad ds :Ik esa la'kksf/kr fd;kA
4-
rnqijkar fnukad 18-09-2015 dks Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj us iqu% ,d la'kks/ku vkns'k tkjh dj jktLFkku xzkeh.k
cSad ds LFkku ij cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad i<s tkus dk la'kks/ku vkns'k tkjh fd;kA bl la'kks/ku
vkns'k ds lanHkZ esa la'kksf/kr okn 'kh"kZd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;kA
5-
fnukad 10-01-2006 dks izkFkhZ us vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh ds
v/khu fnukad 08-09-1978 dks ikVZ VkbZe eslsUtj ds in ij dh xbZ FkhA fu;qfDr ds ckn fnukad 31-12-1981 rd
izkFkhZ foi{kh laLFkku esa dk;Z djrh jghA fnukad 01-01-1982 dks foi{kh ds 'kk[kk izca/kd us izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj
fn;kA fnukad 01-01-1982 dks lsokeqDr djus ds iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ;k NaVuh eqvkots dk
Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh
lsokeqfDr ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B vusd Jfed dk;Zjr Fks ftUgsa j[k fy;k x;k vkSj lsokeqfDr ds ckn u;s
Jfedksa dks Hkh HkrhZ fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 G vkSj H dk foi{kh us mYya?ku fd;kA vr%
okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnukad 01-01-1982 dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa foxr
osru ifjykHkksa lfgr izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkosA
6-
foi{kh us vius oknksRrj esa okn ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj fd;kA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd mudh egulj 'kk[kk esa
lQkbZ dk;Z o ihus dk ikuh Hkjus ds fy;s izkFkhZ ls va’kdkyhu dk;Z djus ds fy;s tks izfr fnu vk/ks ls ,d ?kUVs
dk dk;Z Fkk] 20 :- ekfld nj ls ekSf[kd :Ik ls dk;Z fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k]
cfYd mlus Lo;a gh dke ij vkuk can dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us ;g ekeyk 17 o"kZ ckn mBk;k gSA dsUnz ljdkj us Hkh
izdj.k dks foyafcr ekurs gq;s bls U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr ugha fd;kA rnqijkar jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds
vkns'k ij ;g ekeyk Hkstk x;k gSA Je laxBu vkSj cSad ds chp fnukad 29-07-1991 dks tks le>kSrk gqvk Fkk
mlds rgr 21 ikVZ VkbZe O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa tc Hkh fu;fer fjfDr;k gksxha mUgsa izkFkfedrk ls iqu% fu;kstu
dk volj fn;k tkuk r; gqvk FkkA izkFkhZ ds dke ij u vkus ds dkj.k Jh eksrh yky dks lQkbZ o ikuh Hkjus
gsrq j[kk x;k FkkA va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugh gksrhA foi{kh us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh
Hkh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks lCth cspus ,oa nw/k ds O;olk; gsrq _`.k Hkh fn;k x;k
FkkA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
7-
izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds oknksRrj ds mijkar vfrfjDr dFku Hkh izLrqr fd;s] vkSj foi{kh ds vfHkopuksa dks vLohdkj
fd;kA
8-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ deyk nsoh dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ W-1 le>kSrk iznf'kZr
fd;kA
9-
foi{kh us vius lk{; esa NAW-1 lrh’k pUnz xks;y dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ R-1 izn'kZ
R-2 rFkk izn'kZ M-1 ls izn'kZ M-3 izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
10- fnukad 28-05-2024 dks eSaus mHk; i{k ds izfrfuf/k@vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds rdZ lqusa] ,oa izLrqr fd;s x;s fof/kd n`"Vkarksa
esa ikfjr fof/k ,oa lk{; ij euu fd;kA
11- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 08-09-1978 dks va'kdkyhu lQkbZ ,oa ikuh Hkjus gsrq 20 :-
ekfld nj ls fu;qDr fd;k tkuk vkSj izkFkhZ dk fnukad 01-01-1982 rd dk;Zjr jguk foi{kh ds lk{kh lrh'k
pUnz xks;y }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ R-1 esa izkFkhZ dks fnukad 24-10-1981 rd ekfld Hkqxrku djuk Hkh
Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ deyk nsoh us vius 'kiFk i= esa fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd yxkrkj
dke djus dk tks dFku fd;k gS mls foi{kh }kjk fdlh fojks/kh lq>ko ds ek/;e ls [kf.Mr djus dk iz;kl Hkh
3730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ugha fd;k x;k gSA va'kdkyhu ;k iw.kZdkyhu nksuksa gh Jfed deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA foi{kh dk ;g rdZ
gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a dk;Z NksMdj pyh xbZ] fdlh izdkj fl} ugha gqvk gS] D;ksafd dk;Z NksM+us ds mijkar foi{kh
}kjk mls dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA izn'kZ M-3 le>kSrs ds lkFk lyaXu lwph ¼vuqyaXud&,½ esa izHkwn;ky 'kekZ
uked Jfed dh fu;qfDr uoEcj] 1981 esa izkFkhZ ds ckn gqbZ Fkh] fQj Hkh mls fu;fer fu;qfDr ns nh xbZA izkFkhZ
dk uke bl lwph esa bl dkj.k lfEefyr ugha fd;k x;k fd og dke ij ugha vk jgh FkhA tcfd bl lwph esa
,sls O;fDr;ksa ds uke Hkh gS ftUgsa lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks foi{kh }kjk
lsok esa j[kk tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA vr% okn Lohdkj fd;k tkosA
12- mUgksus vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;s %&
1- d:.kk HkêkpkthZ cuke LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky 2007 ¼114½ FLR 352
2- lsdzsVjh ¼iksfylh½ jhtuy Mk;jsDVj ¼QwM½ ,Eiykbt ,slks- cuke ,Q-lh-vkbZ- 2010 ¼124½ FLR 369
3- fMohtuy eSustj U;w bf.M;k ,’;ksjsal da- fy- cuke ,- 'kadj fyaxe 2008 AIR SCW 7325
4- LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke ih-vks- b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy de ysoj dksVZ] vackyk 2019 LLR 412
5- LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke gjh’k pUnz 'kekZ 2006 ¼4½ RLW 3028
6- ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j o vU; cuke ys[kjkt 2005 ¼12½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst 181
7- vt;iky flag cuke gfj;k.kk os;j gkmflax dksi- 2015 ¼145½ FLR 425
8- xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ¼2015½ 12 lqizhe dksVZ dslst 754
9- enu flag cuke tt ysoj dksVZ t;iqj D.B. C.W. fiVh'ku ua- 129@1987 jkt- mPp U;k;ky; fu.kZ; frfFk
22-04-1987
10- iatkc ys.M MoysiesaV ,.M fjDyses’ku dksiZ- fy- p.Mhx< cuke ih-vks- ysoj dksVZ] p.Mhx< 1990 ¼3½ SCC
682
11- lwjtey cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku S.B. C.W. fiVh'ku ua- 1284@2004 fu.kZ; frfFk 21-05-2007
12- xkSjh 'kadj fo’odekZ cuke bZxy fLizax b.MLVªht izk- fy- 1994 III LLJ 689
13- LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk o vU; cuke fot; dqekj 2001 ¼II½ LLJ 1592
14- E;qfufliy dkjiksjs’ku vkWQ fnYyh cuke Jh lq[kohj flag 1994 ¼69½ FLR 17
13- foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd dk ;g fojks/kh rdZ gS fd izn'kZ M-3 le>kSrs ds lkFk layXud lwph esa izkFkhZ dk uke bl
dkj.k lfEefyr ugha gS fd og va'kdkyhu eslsUtj ugha FkhA izkFkhZ Lo;a gh dk;Z NksM dj pyh xbZ FkhA
va'kdkyhu nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa dh lsok ds laca/k esa dksbZ foHkkxh; tkWp fd;k tkuk] ;k mUgsa uksfVl fn;s
tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA blfy, izkFkhZ ds u vkus ij nwljs O;fDr;ksa dks bl dk;Z gsrq j[k fy;k x;kA
izkFkhZ us ;g fookn vR;f/kd foyEc ls izLrqr fd;k gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
14- mUgksus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;kA
1- dsjy LVsV bys- cksMZ cuke Vh-ih- dqUgkyqEek AIR 1977 lqizhe dksVZ 282
15- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ,oa lk{; ij fopkj ds Ik’pkr bl fookn esa fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
1- D;k izkFkhZ us mldh lsok lekfIr frfFk 01-01-1982 ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu
240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k rFkk foi{kh }kjk lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk
vuqikyu ugha fd;s tkus ls ;g lsokeqfDr voS/k gS\
--
--------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkrs le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj vusd Jfed dk;Zjr Fks] rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr
djus ds mijkar u;s Jfedksa dh HkrhZ Hkh foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ\
-----------------izkFkhZ
3731
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3- vuqrks"k%&
16- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fu.kZ; bl izdkj gS%&
17-
18- izkFkhZ Jherh deyk nsoh us vius lk{; ds 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad
08-09-1978 dks nSfud osru ij lUns’k okgd@ihvksu ds :Ik esa gqbZ FkhA mlus fnukad 31-12-1981 rd fujarj
dk;Z fd;k vkSj izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k FkkA bl lk{kh ls dh xbZ izfrijh{kk esa mlus
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fu;qfDr i= i=koyh esa ugha gSaA rFkk 240 fnu lky esa dke djus dk mlds ikl dksbZ
dkxt gks rks /;ku ugha gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z djus
laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA fdarq foi{kh ds lk{kh NAW-1 lrh'k pUnz xks;y us vius izfrijh{k.k
esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd izkFkhZ dks 20 :- eghuk etnwjh nh xbZA lk{kh
;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd geus ,slk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gS tks fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982
rd ds e/; izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus ds laca/k esa gksA bl izdkj ,d vksj rks foi{kh ;g Lohdkj djrs gS fd
mUgksusa fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd izkFkhZ dks ekfld etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k rFkk nwljh vksj ;g Hkh
Lohdkj djrs gS fd bl vof/k esa izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus laca/kh dksbZ izys[k mUgksusa izLrqr ugha fd;kA ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j o vU; cuke ys[kjkt esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd
tc deZdkj us Lo;a dks 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa ijhf{kr fd;k gS rFkk izfrijh{kk esa deZdkj ls dk;Z
vof/k ds laca/k esa dksbZ iz'u gh ugh fd;k x;k gks] rks ;g mi/kkfjr fd;k tkosxk fd izca/ku i{k us mDr vof/k
dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA
19- vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g vk{ksi gS fd izkFkhZ ls izfrfnu vk/kk ls ,d ?kaVk gh dk;Z djok;k tkrk Fkk blfy, mls
20 :- ekfld nj ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA va'kdkyhu dk;Z ds fy;s bl fLFkfr esa ,d o"kZ dh
vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z fnol dh x.kuk fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;
us vius fu.kZ; fMohtuy eSustj U;w bf.M;k ,’;ksjsal da- fy- cuke ,- 'kadj fyaxe esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd
va'kdkyhu deZpkjh ;fn fu;kstd ds fu;U=.k ds v/khu gks rks og deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkosxk rFkk vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25 B vkSj 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k mls ns; gksxkA ekuuh; iatkc gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; us LVsV
vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke ih-vks- b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy de ysoj dksVZ] vackyk ds fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd va'kdkyhu
Lohij Hkh deZdkj gSA mls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr gSA bl rF;kRed vkSj fof/kd
ifjn`’; esa foi{kh dk ;g rdZ fd izkFkhZ }kjk ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z dh x.kuk va'kdkyhu dk;Z ds vk/kkj ij
ugha dh tkuh pkfg;s] Lohdk;Z rdZ ugha gSA
20- vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g Hkh izcy rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a us gh dke ij vkuk can dj fn;k vkSj mUgksaus izkFkhZ dks
lsokeqDr ugha fd;kA blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr NaVuh ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k }kjk bl rdZ dk fojks/k djrs
gq;s ;g dgk x;k fd ;fn izkFkhZ Lo;a dke dks NksMdj pyh Hkh xbZ gks rks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl u
fn;s tkus vkSj dksbZ dk;Zokgh u djus dh fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) ds varxZr ;g lsokeqfDr] NaVuh
gh gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us iatkc ys.M MoysiesaV ,.M fjDyses’ku dksiZ- fy- p.Mhx< cuke ih-vks- ysoj
dksVZ] p.Mhx< rFkk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us enu flag cuke tt ysoj dksVZ t;iqj ds fu.kZ;ksa esa
;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) ds varxZr ÞNaVuhÞ vfHkO;fDr esa viokfnr n'kkvksa ds
vfrfjDr izR;sd izdkj dh lsok lekfIr lekfo"V gSA lsok dk ifjR;kx pwWafda fdlh Hkh viokfnr fn’kk esa lekfgr
ugha gS] vr% og NaVuh gSA blfy, fu;kstd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa ls mueqfDr ugha ys ldrkA
21- ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us lwjtey cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku rFkk ekuuh; cksEcs mPp U;k;ky; us
xkSjh 'kadj fo’odekZ cuke bZxy fLizax b.MLVªht izk- fy-] ekuuh; iatkc gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; us LVsV vkWQ
gfj;k.kk o vU; cuke fot; dqekj rFkk ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; us E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ fnYyh
cuke Jh lq[kohj flag ds fu.kZ;ksa esa bl laca/k esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd dk;Z Lo;a NksMdj tkus dh fn'kk esa
deZdkj dks ;fn uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k gks vkSj deZdkj fu;kstd }kjk mldh lsok lekIr djus dk dFku djs]
rks ;g ugha ekuk tkosxk fd deZdkj us lsok dk ifjR;kx fd;k gSA ,d ckj ;g LFkkfir gks tk;s fd deZdkj dks
fdlh fu'fpr vof/k ds fy, dk;Z ij ugha j[kk x;k] rks deZdkj dks dk;Z ij ysus ls eukgh fof/k ds vuq:Ik
gksuh pkfg;sA ;fn deZdkj dke dks NksM ns rks mlds fo:} tkWp dh tkuh pkfg;sA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds
3732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izdk’k esa foi{kh }kjk izLrqr rdZ lkjghu izekf.kr gksrk gS vkSj ;g Li"V:Ik ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us
foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 01-01-1982 dks dh xbZ lsokeqfDr ds iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k eas 240 fnu ls vf/kd
dk;Z fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ mls dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj
dk Hkqxrku foi{kh us ugha fd;kA foi{kh us Hkh ;g ugha dgk gS fd lsokeqfDfr ds iwoZ mUgksaus vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu fd;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ds
fu.kZ; esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr ikfjr fd;s x;s lsok lekfIr vkns'k dks 'kwU; ,oa voS/k
ekuk gSA
22- ekuuh; dydRrk mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; d:.kk HkêkpkthZ th cuke LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky rFkk lsdzsVjh
¼iksfylh½ jhtuy Mk;jsDVj ¼QwM½ ,Eiykbt ,slks- cuke ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd
tc vf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g iz’u gks fd lsokeqfDr voS/k gS ;k ugh rks vf/kdj.k ;g tkWp ugha dj ldrk gS fd
;g lsokeqfDr Hkh gS] vFkok ughaA vf/kdj.k dks ek= izsf"kr fd;s x;s fookn ds fcUnqvksa dks gh U;k; fu.khZr djus
dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA vU; vuq"kkafxd fcUnqvksa ij ughaA
23- ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke gjh'k pUnz 'kekZ ds fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkjrk jsQjsal ds fuoZapuksa rd gh lhfer gSA vf/kdj.k ds le{k jsQjsal vkns'k dks
pqukSrh ugh nh tk ldrhA bu fu.kZ;ksa ds izdk'k esa bl vf/kdj.k }kjk izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa izsf"kr fookn ftlesa
izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh oS/krk ek= dk ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk gS] rd gh vf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj miyC/k gS mlls
ijs ughaA
24- bl foospu ds mijkar pwfda izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnukad 01-01-1982 vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa ds
foijhr dh xbZ izekf.kr gqbZ gS] ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
25-
26- bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd mls lsokeqDr djrs le; mlls twfu;j dbZ Jfed laLFkku esa
dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkrs le; mlls twfu;j Jh eksrhyky dk;Zjr FksA eksrhyky dks lsok esa j[ks
tkus ds dkj.k gh mls lsokeqDr dj fn;kA fnukad 19-07-1991 dks lEiUu le>kSrs ls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ
dh lsokeqfDr ds le; mlls twfu;j Jfed dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ ls dh xbZ izfrijh{kk esa ,slk dksbZ fojks/kh lq>ko
ugha fn;k x;k gS fd ftlls izkFkhZ ds mi;qZDr dFku fdlh izdkj [kf.Mr gksA foi{kh us vius oknksRrj esa ;g
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds dke ij ugha vkus ds dkj.k Jh eksrhyky dks va’kdkyhu lQkbZ dk;Z ,oa ikuh Hkjus
gsrq j[kk x;k Fkk] ftldks fnukad 24-08-1987 dks fu;fer fd;k x;kA foi{kh ds lk{kh lrh’k pUnz xks;y us bl
rF; dh iqf"V Hkh dh gSA izn'kZ M-3 mHk;i{k ds e/; fnukad 29-07-1991 dks lEiUu gqvk le>kSrk gSA ftlds
lkFk layXu vuqyXud 1 esa izHkw n;ky 'kekZ uked Jfed dk uke lfEefyr gS ftlus cSad dh 'kk[kk esa uoEcj]
1981 esa dk;Z izkjaHk fd;k Fkk vkSj mls Hkh foi{kh }kjk lsok ls gVk;k x;k Fkk] ftldk okn lgk;d Je vk;qDr
¼dsUnzh;½ ds ;gkW yafcr gksuk n’kkZ;k x;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh lrh’k pUnz xks;y us izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd ;g
lgh gS fd bl rkfydk esa lsok ls gVk;s x;s O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gaSA izkFkhZ dk uke bl rkfydk esa blfy,
'kkfey ugha gS D;ksfd og dke ij gh ugh vk jgh FkhA bl fLFkfr esa ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ ls
dfu"B Jh eksrhyky uked O;fDr dks izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds mijkar lQkbZ dk;Z o ikuh Hkjus gsrq va'kdkyhu
j[kk x;k vkSj blh izdkj izHkw n;ky 'kekZ uked O;fDr dks Hkh izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj gksus ds mijkar Hkh le>kSrs ds
varxZr fu;qfDr esa ojh;rk fn;s tkus gsrq mi;qDr ekuk x;kA
27- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ds fu.kZ; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G o H ds fo:} ikfjr lsok lekfIr vkns'k 'kwU; ,oa voS/k gSA bl foospu ds mijkar
;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
28-
15- foi{kh dk ;g vk{ksi gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ;g fookn 17 o"kZ ckn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks vR;f/kd foyafcr gS
blfy, fujLr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA mUgksusa bl lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; dsjy LVsV
bys- cksMZ cuke Vh-ih- dqUgkyqEek izLrqr fd;kA bl fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd
fyfeVs’ku ,DV ds vuqPNsn 137 ds izko/kku lHkh ;kfpdkvksa o izkFkZuk i=ksa ij iz;ksT; gksrs gSA bl laca/k esa
3733
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd leqfpr ljdkj }kjk fnukad 25-07-2003 dks ;g fookn bl
vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;s tkus ds Ik’pkr fnukad 05-11-2003 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr dj fn;k
FkkA leqfpr ljdkj }kjk bl fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd;s tkus ds ckn vf/kdj.k dks ;g
{ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS fd og fookn ds foyaEc ls izLrqrhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij U;k;fu.kZ;u ls badkj djsA
ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us viu uohure fu.kZ; xksihjke ;kno cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku S.B.
C.W. fiVh'ku ua- 11575@2019 fu.kZ; frfFk 17-08-2023 ¼Lo;a vf/kdj.k }kjk½ esa ;g dgk gS fd ;fn ,d
O;fDr foyac ;k ykijokgh dk nks"kh gS rks Je U;k;ky; ds fy, ;g ,d vk/kkj gks ldrk gS fd og vuqrks"k
nsus ls badkj dj ns ;k foxr osru dk vuqrks"k u ns fdarq leqfpr ljdkj fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr
djus ls badkj ugha dj ldrh gSA blds vfrfjDr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; vtk;o flag
cuke ljfgan dks vkWijsfVo ekdsZfVax de izkslsflax lfoZl lkslk;Vh fy- o vU; ¼1999½ 6 SCC 82 ¼Lo;a
vf/kdj.k }kjk½ esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd fyfeVs'ku ,DV dh vuqlwph esa of.kZr vuqPNsn 137 ds
izko/kku vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds varxZr dk;Zokfg;ksa ij iz;ksT; ugha gSA
16- izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa lsok esa fujarjrk o foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZiu dk
vuqrks"k ekWxk gS fdarq bl fookn ds yafcr jgrs gq, gh izkFkhZ dh vk;q lsok fuo`Rr dh ifjlhek dks ikj dj
pqdh gS blfy, izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cgky fd;k tkuk laHko gh ugha jgk gSA bl fLFkfr esa ;g ijh{k.k fd;k
tkuk vko';d gS fd D;k izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ds mijkar fdlh ykHkizn fu;kstu ;k lsok esa jgh gS o /kuksiktZu
fd;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa dgk gS fd lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ ls gh izkFkhZ us foi{kh cSad ls
O;olk; gsrq _`.k fy;k Fkk vkSj mldk iquHkqZxrku dj fn;kA lsokeqfDr ds mijkar fnukad 13-12-1990 dks Hkh
izkFkhZ us Ms;jh O;olk; gsrq foi{kh ls _`.k fy;k ftlds 2006 rd gh 68265@&:- cdk;k FksA bu dFkuksa
dks izkFkhZ }kjk izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku [kf.Mr djus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy, ;s dFku izkFkhZ
}kjk Lohd`r dj fy, x;s izekf.kr gksrs gSA bu rRoksa ds vfLrRo esa ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ds
iwoZ ls gh O;olk; lapkfyr dj jgh Fkh vkSj lsok lekfIr ds ckn Hkh og O;olk; lapkfyr djrs gq;s
ykHkizn fu;kstu esa Fkh mlh dkj.k mlus cSad ls fy, gq;s _`.kksa dk iquHkqZxrku dj fn;k o iqu% _`.k ysdj
/kujkf'k O;olk; esa fuos'k dhA izkFkhZ bl izdkj lsokeqfDr ds mijkar csjkstxkj ugha jgh gSA izkFkhZ ,d
va’kdkyhu vkdfLed Jfed Fkh ftls lQkbZ dk;Z o ikuh Hkjus tSls vYidkyhu dk;Z gsrq ek= 20 :-
ekfld osru ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk caSd ls _`.k ysdj O;olkf;d dk;Z cSad ds v/khu
fu;kstu ds nkSjku Hkh fd;k tkrk Fkk bl izdkj ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd cSad ds fu;kstu esa og iw.kZ dkfyd
deZdkj oLrqr% ugha Fkh] vkSj viuk futh O;olk; Hkh djrh FkhA blfy, bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa
eqnzkLQhfr o Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh laHkkfor osruo`f} dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr
vf/ker ls izkFkhZ dks ,d yk[k :Ik;s ,deq'r izfrdj fnyok;s tkus ij U;k;fgr lk/ku gks ldsxkA
17- vr% fnukad 01-01-1982 dks foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl
voS/k lsok lekfIr ds ifj.kke Lo:Ik izkFkhZ foi{kh ls ,d yk[k :i;s izfrdj ,deq'r izkIr djus dh
vf/kdkjh gSA foi{kh bl jkf’k dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks nks ekg dh vof/k esa djsa vU;Fkk Hkqxrku gksus rd bl
jkf’k ij izkFkhZ] 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gksxhA
18- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
19- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1665.—औद्योनिक 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 औद्योनिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योनिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV
(a91/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. ,y-12012/58/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
3734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2024
S.O. 1665—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12012/58/2012- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-12012/58/2012-IR (B-I) Dated: 16.10.2012
Jh ekWxhyky cqudj ¼e`rd½ iq= Lo- Jh x.ks'k jke cqudj] ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k
1@1 Jherh deyk nsoh] ¼iRuh½
1@2 lqeu oekZ] ¼iq=½
1@3 [kq'kcw oekZ] ¼iq=h½
1@4 eerk oekZ] ¼iq=h½
1@5 dqynhi oekZ] ¼iq=½
1@6 yksds'k oekZ] ¼iq=½
lHkh fuoklh& ?kksMhyk dh <k.kh] ccsjokyks dh <k.kh] tkscusj] t;iqj ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZx.k
1-
eq[; izca/kd] LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] fryd ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqj&
2-
'kk[kk izca/kd] ¼dysDVªsV 'kk[kk½] LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] cuhikdZ] t;iqjA
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh ,e-,Q- csx] vfHkHkk"kd & izkFkhZA
% Jh mn; 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh vkj-ds- tSu] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ &foi{khx.kA
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh] }kjk fnukad 16-10-2012 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating
the services of Shri Mangi Lal Bunkar w.e.f. 10.12.1989 is legal and justified? To what relief
Shri Mangi Lal is entitled?”
3735
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls fnukad 20- 05- 2013 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ
dh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 16- 07- 1985 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh pijklh ds in ij LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
rRdkyhu dysDVªsV 'kk[kk t;iqj esa gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ us 09- 12- 1989 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa voS/k :Ik ls lekIr dj nhA
foi{kh laLFkku esa dk;Z dk dksbZ vHkko ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn Hkh pijklh ds in ij u;h fu;qfDr;kWa dh tkrh
jgh gSA fdarq izkFkhZ dks dksbZ izkFkfedrk ugha nh xbZA lsok lekIr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph Hkh ugha cukbZA izkFkhZ us
lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ ds 12 eghuksa esa rFkk lsok ds izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA fdarq lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ
izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsok
lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G o H ,oa fu;e 78 ds fo:} gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds lsokeqfDr vkns'k dks voS/k ?kksf"kr
djrs gq;s lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru ifjykHk lfgr izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkosA
3-
fnukad 28- 01- 2014 dks foi{khx.k us oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds chp fu;kstd
,oa fu;ksftr dk laca/k dHkh ugha jgkA izkFkhZ us cSad esa yxkrkj dk;Z dHkh ugha fd;kA ek= vkdfLed izd`fr dk dk;Z
le;≤ ij izkFkhZ }kjk fd;k x;kA ftldk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks fd;k x;k] tks mlus fcuk fdlh vkifRr ds izkIr Hkh
fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us fookn dks dkQh foyEc ls mBk;k gS] tks Lohdk;Z ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 16- 07- 1985 ls cSad dh
dysDVsªV 'kk[kk cuhikdZ esa vko’;drk vuq:Ik nSfud rkSj ij j[kk x;k FkkA mlus fnukad 31- 10- 1985 rd dk;Z fd;k
blds ckn rhu o"kZ ds varjky ls ebZ] 1988 esa cSad ds S.M.S. gkbos 'kk[kk esa fnukad 15- 06- 1988 rd dk;Z fd;kA
fnukad 07- 12- 1989 rd izkFkhZ us 130 fnu dk;Z fd;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us fdlh o"kZ esa 240 fnu rd dk;Z ugha
fd;kA izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh pijklh ds in ij ugha jgkA izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k
tkosA
4-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 12-01-2015 dks foi{kh ds oknksRrj dk vfrfjDr dFku Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;kA
5-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ ekWxhyky cqudj dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa WW- 2 txnh'k]
-3 fd'ku flag dks ijhf{kr fd;kA vkSj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ W-1 ls izn'kZ W-9 rd izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
6-
foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa iadt xqIrk] lgk;d egkizca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;kA dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha fd;kA
7-
;g fookn ewyr% LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/ku ds fo:} lanfHkZr gqvk Fkk fdarq dkykUrj esa LVsV
cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj dk foy; LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k esa gks tkus ij fnukad 31- 10- 2019 dks vf/kdj.k }kjk
ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds LFkku ij LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dks i{kdkj ds :Ik
esa la;ksftr fd;k x;kA
8-
fnukad 15- 11- 2023 dks izkFkhZ Jfed ekWxhyky cqudj dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k us
izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij fof/kd izfrfuf/k cuk;s tkus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA ftls Lohdkj djrs gq;s rnqijkar izkFkhZ ds
fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkus dk vkns'k fnukad 03-01-2024 dks ikfjr fd;k x;kA rnquqlkj la'kksf/kr okn
'kh"kZd izLrqr fd;k x;kA
9-
fnukad 30- 04- 2024 dks eSaus mHk;i{k ds vfHkHkk"kdksa ds rdZ lqusA rRi'pkr 06 o 07- 05- 2024 dks nksuksa i{kksa us
vius rdZ ds leFkZu gsrq U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;sA
10-
izkFkhZ i{k dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us ;g fookn fnukad 10- 12- 1989 dks gqbZ lsok lekfIr ds Ik'pkr yxHkx
4&5 o"kZ esa gh izLrqr dj fn;k Fkk ftldk izek.k lk{; ds nkSjku izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ysfdu leqfpr ljdkj }kjk fookn
dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;s tkus esa foyEc fd;k x;kA ftlds fy;s izkFkhZ mRrjnk;h ugha gSA izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ls
mifLFkfr vkSj osru Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHkys[k izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k Fkk fdarq foi{khx.k us og vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha
fd;kA blfy;s foi{khx.k ds fo:} izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dh tkosA izkFkhZ us vkyksP; vof/k esa foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr
jgus ds laca/k esa lgdehZ txnh'k o fd'ku flag dks ijhf{kr fd;k gSA ftuds dFku fdlh izdkj [kaf.Mr ugha gq;s gSA
foi{khx.k ;g rks dgdj vk;s gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 31-10-1985 rd] S.M.S. gkbos 'kk[kk esa 20 fnu vkSj
fnukad 15-06-1988 ls 07-12-1989 rd 130 fnu dk;Z fd;k fdarq bl x.kuk dk dksbZ vk/kkj mUgksaus izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA
izkFkhZ ls dfu"B u;s Jfedksa dks fu;qDr fd;k tkuk Hkh foi{khx.k us [kf.Mr ugha fd;k gSA blfy, lsokeqfDr ds iwoZorhZ
,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dke djus dk rF; izkFkhZ }kjk izekf.kr dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% mldk nkok Lohdkj fd;k
tkosA
11-
mUgksus vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;sA
3736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1-
j?kqohj flag cuke tujy eSustj gfj;k.kk jksMost fglkj ¼2014½ 10 lqizhe dksVZ dslst 301
2-
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,l- lR;e o vU; II LLJ 1996 820 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½
3-
LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke jk.kkjke o vU; WLC ¼jkt-½ 2001 ¼5½ 148
4-
eSustj eS- feRry LVhy esU;q- da- cuke pkSFkkjke o vU; WLC ¼jkt-½ 2005 ¼3½ 430
5-
jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWQhlj ,- ,l- vkbZ- lokbZek/kksiqj 2017 ¼2½ WLC ¼jktLFkku½ UC 637
6-
eS- Jhjke b.MLVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtst cuke egd flag o vU; AIR 2007 SCW 1712
7-
vkj-,e- ;syFkh cuke vflLVsUV ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j AIR 2005 SCW 6103 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½
8-
lfpo] lekt dY;k.k foHkkx cuke yknwjke eh.kk 2020 ¼2½ WWLC ¼jkt-½ 459
9-
xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ¼2015½ 12 lqizhe dksVZ dslst 754
10- thrwHkk [kku laxth tMstk cuke dPN fMLVªfjDV iapk;r 2022 ysVsLV dSl ykW 755 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½
11- esustesaV vkWQ jhtuy phQ bathfu;j ih-,p-bZ-Mh- jkph cuke odZesu }kjk fMLVªfjDV lsdzsVjh 2018 ¼159½
FLR 1026 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½
12- tlesj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk ¼2015½ 4 lqizhe dksVZ dslst 458
13- gjftUnj flag cuke iatkc LVsV os;j gkmflax dksiZ- 2010 II- LLJ 277 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½
12-
foi{khx.k dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks u rks fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj u dksbZ fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;kA foi{kh ds
v/khu pijklh dk in Lohd`r gh ugha gSA ekSf[kd :Ik ls lsok lekIr dj fn;s tkus ds fo:} izkFkhZ us dksbZ izkFkZuk i= gh
ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ dks ;g izekf.kr djuk Fkk fd mlus foi{khx.k ds v/khu ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z lsok lekfIr
ds rqjar iwoZ fd;kA ysfdu og bl rF; dks izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA fnukad 10-12-1989 ds mijkar o"kZ 1995 rd mlus
fdl mn~s'; ls foyEc fd;k bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha gSA izkFkhZ us lsokeqfDr ds Ik’pkr yxHkx 26 o"kZ ckn nLrkost
izLrqr djokus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{kh cSad ds fu;ekuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh vof/k rd Hkqxrku okmplZ vkfn
lqjf{kr j[ks tkrs gSA mlds ckn mUgsa u"V dj fn;k tkrk gSA blfy, foi{kh }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh Jh 'kf'k Hkw"k.k tks'kh
dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djrs gq;s bl rF; dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa foi{khx.k ds fo:} dksbZ izfrdwy
mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA foi{kh lk{kh iadt xqIrk dk ijh{k.k lk{; esa] o"kZ 2023 esa gqvk gSA foi{khx.k us
le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k o"kZ 1995 esa gh tks rF;kRed fooj.k dk;Z fnolksa ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk og miyC/k
vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij FkkA mlh rF;kRed fooj.k ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh lk{kh us lk{; esa vius dFku fd;sA blfy, ;g
ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd foi{khx.k us fujk/kkj dFku fd;s gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fookn fdlh izdkj Lohdkj ugha gSA vr%
okn fujLr fd;k tkosA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;sA
1-
jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh AIR 2002 lqizhe dksVZ 1147
2-
;w-ih- izkstsDV dksiZ- fy- y[kuÅ cuke ih-vks- ysoj dksVZ I dkuiqj 2015 ¼144½ FLR 452 ¼bykgkckn
mPp U;k;ky;½
3-
;wdks cSad cuke ih-vks- ysoj dksVZ o vU; ¼fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;½ 2000 I LLJ 1187
4-
vkbZ-Mh-ih-,y- fyfe- cuke odZesu vkbZ-Mh-ih-,y- fyfe- ¼2007½ I SCC 408
5-
xaxk/kj fiYybZ cuke lhesUl fy- ¼2007½ 1 lqizhe dksVZ dslst 533
6-
djuohj flag cuke mi izca/kd LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k 2023 LLR 1222
7-
jkexksiky lSuh cuke n tt ysoj dksVZ ua- 2 t;iqj 2001 LLR 747 ¼jkt-½
8-
ds-,y- dqekj cuke oh-ih- ikfVy o vU; MANU/MH/ 0856@2007 ¼cksEcs½
9-
ih- d:ibZ;k cuke tujy eSustj FkzwoYywoj VªkaliksVZ dksiZ- AIR 2017 SC 5681
10-
n bathfu;j bu phQ okVj fjlksZlst fMikVZesaV Hkksiky cuke eugj.k 2016 LLR 1244 ¼e/; izns'k½
3737
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11-
xksiky uan fd'kksj 'kekZ cuke eSustj ukukoVh ,slksfl,sV 2007 LLR 1164 ¼xqtjkr½
12-
ch-,l-,u-,y- cuke ekuflag ¼2012½ 1 SCC 558
13-
lhfu;j lqizhVsaUMsaV VsyhxzkQ ¼VªSfQd½ Hkksiky cuke larks"k dqekj lhy o vU; ¼2010½ 6 lqizhe dksVZ dslst
773
14-
,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j ih-MCY;w-Mh- cuke gjpanh o vU; 2016 LLR 261
13-
mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ,oa vfHkopuksa ij euu ds mijkar bl fookn esa fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
1-
D;k izkFkhZ us mldh lsok lekfIr frfFk 10-12-01989 ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa foi{kh
ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k rFkk foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk
vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ls ;g lsok lekfIr voS/k NaVuh gS\
-----------------izkFkhZ
2-
D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZ ,oa izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa
dks lsok esa j[krs gq;s izkFkhZ dks ojh;rk ugha nh xbZ\
---------------izkFkhZ
3-
D;k orZeku fookn izkFkhZ }kjk vR;f/kd foyEc ls izLrqr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k iks"k.kh; ugha gS\
----------------foi{kh
4-
vuqrks"k%&
14-
mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr lk{;] rdZ ,oa U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij fopkj ds mijkar fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij
fu.kZ; bl izdkj gS%&
15-
16-
izkFkhZ ekWxhyky us vius lk{; ds nkSjku eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g rks dgk gS fd mlus fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-
1989 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS fdarq izfrijh{kk esa og Lohdkj djrk gS fd mlus lsokeqfDr frfFk 10-12-1989 ls ,d
dys.Mj o"kZ iwoZ fujarj 240 fnu dk;Z djus laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ;|fi dgrk gS fd mls
fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;k Fkk og i=koyh esa lyaXu gSA fdarq i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ dks tkjh fd;k x;k dksbZ
fu;qfDr i= miyC/k ugh gqvk gSA foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok le;≤ ij vko';drk gksus ij nSfud
osru Hkksxh vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik esa fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-1989 ds e/; yh xbZ Fkh fdarq ;g lsok;as yxkrkj ugha
yh xbZA
17-
izkFkhZ us ;|fi mifLFkfr ,oa osru Hkqxrku vfHkys[k foi{k ls izLrqr djokus gsrq vf/kdj.k ls vkns'k ikfjr
djok;k Fkk fdarq foi{kh us bu izys[kksa dks miyC/k u gksus ds dkj.k izLrqr djus esa foo'rk O;Dr dh gSA foi{khx.k us bu
izys[kksa dks bl vk/kkj ij miyC/k u gksuk dgk gS fd ;g vfHkys[k 35 o"kZ ckn ryc djok;s x;s gS] tcfd bu izys[kksa dks
10 o"kZ dh vof/k ds ckn lqjf{kr ugha j[kk tkrk gSA
18-
tgkW rd foi{khx.k ds fo:} vknsf'kr nLrkost izLrqr u djus ds dkj.k izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;s tkus dk iz'u
gS] bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA bl fu"d"kZ dk vk/kkj ;g gS
fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr frfFk 10-12-1989 ds yxHkx 25&26 o"kZ mijkar fnukad 06-04-2015 dks izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ls
mifLFkfr ,oa osru Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHkys[k izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA vf/kdj.k }kjk ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd
foi{kh ;k rks bu izys[kksa dks izLrqr djs vU;Fkk izLrqr u dj ikus ds laca/k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djsA
foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh 'kf'k Hkw"k.k tks'kh] eq[; izca/kd (HR) dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd okafNr
vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha gS D;ksfd lacaf/kr vof/k yxHkx 35 o"kZ iqjkuh gSA vkSj cSad }kjk ,sls izys[k tks 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd
iqjkus gks] laHkky ds ugha j[ks tkrsA rdZ ds fy;s ;g eku Hkh fy;k tkos fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 06-04-
2015 dks gh izLrqr dj fn;k x;k rks Hkh lsok lekfIr frfFk ls x.kuk djus ij ;g vof/k 25 o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkuh izdV
gksrh gSA foi{kh ds vuqlkj bl izys[kksa dks 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd rd la/kkfjr ugha fd;k tkrkA bl fLFkfr esa foi{khx.k ls ;g
vis{kk djuk fd og 25 o"kZ ckn Hkh bu izys[kksa dks lqjf{kr j[ksxsa] mfpr ugha gSA
3738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19-
izkFkhZ us mls fnukad 10-12-1989 dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds laca/k esa gsM vkfQl o tksuy vkWfQl esa fyf[kr :Ik
esa f'kdk;r djuk dgk gSA ysfdu izkFkhZ }kjk ,sls ifjokn dh dksbZ izfr lk{; esa izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA
20-
tgkW rd foi{kh lk{kh }kjk fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-1989 ds e/; vko';drk vuq:Ik izkFkhZ ls dk;Z djok;s
tkus dk rF; gS bl laca/k esa foi{kh lk{kh iadt xqIrk us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Li"V dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us bl vof/k esa
yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA mlus 'kiFk i= rS;kj djrs gq;s tks fjdkMZ ns[kk] mlh vk/kkj ij ;g dFku fd;kA foi{khx.k
dk ;g rdZ lkjoku izrhr gksrk gS fd mUgksusa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ¼lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh; t;iqj½ dks le>kSrk orkZ
ds nkSjku fnukad 19-09-1995 dks izn'kZ W-4 i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z dh vof/k ogh of.kZr
dh xbZ tks foi{khx.k us oknksRrj esa o lk{kh iadt xqIrk us vius lk{; esa dh gSA blfy, ;g furkar laHko gS fd izn'kZ
W-4 i= ds vk/kkj ij gh foi{khx.k us vius vfHkopu vkSj lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd;s gksaA
21-
izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds v/khu yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa 2 iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa txnh'k ,oa fd'ku flag dks
ijhf{kr fd;k gSA lk{kh WW-2 txnh'k dk dFku gS fd fnuakd 16-07-1985 ls 09-12-1989 rd izkFkhZ us dysDVªh 'kk[kk
esa dk;Z fd;kA fdarq bu lk{kh us ;g ugha dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us bl vof/k esa dk;Z] yxkrkj fd;k gksA lk{kh Lohdkj djrk
gS fd fu;qfDr vLFkkbZ Fkh vkSj mls osru Hkqxrku VsEijsjh okmplZ ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk FkkA ;g lk{kh bl lq>ko dks
vLohdkj djrk gS fd izkFkhZ us lsokeqfDr frfFk ds iwoZ fdlh vkSj 'kk[kk esa Hkh dk;Z fd;k gksA tcfd izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh
nksuksa gh Lohdkj djrs gS fd izkFkhZ us 20 fnu S.M.S. gkbos 'kk[kk esa Hkh bl vof/k ds nkSjku dk;Z fd;k FkkA
22-
izkFkhZ dk lk{kh WW-3 fd'ku flag dgrk gS fd ekWxhyky dks] tc vknfe;ksa dh deh gksrh Fkh rks vko';drk
vuqlkj nwljh 'kk[kkvksa esa Hkh Hkstk tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku igys okmplZ ls rFkk ckn esa csadj pSd ds ek/;e ls gqvk
FkkA ;fn csadj pSd ls izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku gqvk gksrk rks ml Hkqxrku dh izfof"V izkFkhZ ds cSad [kkrs esa Hkh gks ldrh Fkh] fdarq
izkFkhZ us cSad [kkrs ds LVsVesaV@iklcqd dh izfr lk{; esa izLrqr gh ugha dh gS] u gh csadj pSd dh dksbZ izfr izLrqr dh
xbZ gSA
23-
bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr bu lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa esa izkFkhZ ds vU; 'kk[kk esa dk;Z djus vkSj Hkqxrku dh jhfr
ds laca/k esa fojks/kkHkklh dFku lkeus vk;s gSA izkFkhZ us lsokeqfDr ls iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu lsok djus ds
laca/k esa dksbZ izys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh us okafNr izys[kksa dks izLrqr u djus dk tks Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;k gS
;g rdZlaxr vkSj vkSfpR;iw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA lsok lekfIr ds mijkar 25 o"kZ O;rhr gks tkus ij ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh
Jfed dh mifLFkfr vkSj osru ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k lqjf{kr j[kus dh vis{kk foi{kh ls fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj U;k;ksfpr
ugha gSA foi{kh }kjk izn'kZ W-4 i= fnukad 19-09-1995 tks le>kSrk orkZ ds nkSjku izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ds vk/kkj ij
izkFkhZ ds dk;Z fnolksa dh x.kuk djuk dgk gSA ;g i= lsokeqfDr ds yxHkx 5 o"kZ mijkar gh izLrqr gqvk Fkk rc rd
lacaf/kr vfHkys[k u"V ugha fd;k x;k FkkA blfy, foi{kh }kjk fy;k x;k x.kuk dk vk/kkj vkSfpR;iw.kZ gSA
24-
izkFkhZ us vius leFkZu esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke jk.kkjke o vU;]
eSustj eS- feRry LVhy esU;q- da- cuke pkSFkkjke o vU;] jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWQhlj ,-,l-vkbZ- lokbZek/kksiqj
rFkk lfpo] lekt dY;k.k foHkkx cuke yknwjke eh.kk rFkk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; eS- Jhjke
b.MLVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtst cuke egd flag o vU;] vkj-,e- ;syFkh cuke vflLVsUV ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j rFkk xkSjh 'kadj
cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku izLrqr fd;s gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k lkj:Ik esa ;gh gS fd lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d
dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds rF; dk fl}hHkkj ;}fi deZdkj ij gS] fdarq tc og fu;kstd ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k
izLrqr djokus dk vkxzg djs vkSj fu;kstd okafNr vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus dk dksbZ lUrqf"Vizn Li"Vhdj.k u ns rks ,slh
fLFkfr esa fu;kstd ds fo:} izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA
25-
foi{khx.k us bl laca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh-
gknheuh] bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ;w-ih- izkstsDV dksiZ- fy- y[kuÅ cuke ih-vks- ysoj dksVZ I dkuiqj
rFkk fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ;wdks cSad cuke ih-vks- ysoj dksVZ o vU; izLrqr fd;s gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g
vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd fu;kstd ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa deZdkj dks lUrq"Vhizn lk{;
izLrqr djuh gksxh] ek= 'kiFk i= izLrqr djuk i;kZIr ugha gSA
26-
bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds izdk'k esa bl fu"d"kZ dks iqf"V feyrh gS fd izkFkhZ viuh lk{; ls lsokeqfDr ds
iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA foi{kh us ;|fi vknsf'kr izys[kksa
dks izLrqr ugha fd;k gS fdarq mlus tks Li"Vhdj.k bl laca/k esa fn;k gS og vkSfpR;iw.kZ gSA lk{; ds bl foospu ds
mijkar pwfda izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha dj
3739
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ik;k gS blfy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds varxZr uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk
fd;s tkus dk dksbZ volj gh mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA blfy;s ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
27-
28-
izkFkhZ ekWxhyky us bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh lsokeqfDr ds ckn Hkh foi{kh }kjk mlh in ij
u;h fu;qfDr;kW Hkh dh xbZ gSA ftu ij cuokjh yky 'kekZ] Hkwjkey 'kekZ] mes'k dqekor vkSj Vsdpan ukbZ ds uke of.kZr
fd;s x;s gSA fdarq izkFkhZ dks izkFkfedrk ugha nh xbZ gSA bl laca/k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd bu pkjksa O;fDr;ksa ds ukeksa dk
o.kZu ftUgsa dfFkr :Ik ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk uofu;qDr fd;k x;k] izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku
esa ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk bu O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa tkjh fd;k x;k dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k ;k Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHkys[k Hkh
lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] u gh foi{kh ls ,slk vfHkys[k izLrqr djokus gsrq dksbZ fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA mYys[kuh;
;g Hkh gS fd izkFkhZ ds lk{kh txnh'k o fd'ku flag us bu uofu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa dqN ugha dgk gSA tcfd izkFkhZ
ds vuqlkj bu O;fDr;ksa dh fu;qfDr dysDVªh 'kk[kk esa gh dh xbZ FkhA vkSj ;g nksuksa lk{kh izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vkSj
mlds Ik'pkr dysDVªh 'kk[kk esa gh dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ us bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; lsUVªy
cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,l- lR;e o vU;] thrwHkk [kku laxth tMstk cuke dPN fMLVªfjDV iapk;r esa ikfjr fof/k dk
voyEc fy;k gSA fdarq bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr dh xbZ fof/k izkFkhZ ds i{k esa blfy, lgk;d ugha gS D;ksfd izkFkhZ }kjk crk;s
x;s pkj O;fDr;ksa dh fu;qfDr lsokeqfDr ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkuk gh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA
29-
foi{kh }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; jkexksiky lSuh cuke n tt ysoj dksVZ ua- 2
t;iqj bl laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd deZdkj dks ;g izekf.kr djuk gS fd izca/ku us
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 H vkSj G ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dhA ek= dfu"B O;fDr;ksa ds uke vafdr djuk bl mn~s';
dh iwfrZ ugha djrkA
30-
ekuuh; cksEcs mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds-,y- dqekj cuke oh-ih- ikfVy o vU; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k
x;k gS fd ewyHkwr vfHkopu ds vHkko esa lk{; xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;|fir vfHkopuksa ds fu;e dBkSjrk ls
ykxw ugha gksrsA
31-
izkFkhZ ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh vkdfLed Jfed gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gS ftls fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-1989 ds
e/; le;≤ ij vko';drk gksus ij foi{khx.k }kjk dke ij j[kk x;kA blfy, ;g Li"V gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ
dh fu;qfDr fofgr p;u izfdz;k ds vuq:Ik LFkkbZ fjDr in ds fy;s ugha dh xbZ FkhA vr% ofj"Brk lwph dk la/kkj.k ,oa
Þckn esa vkvks igys tkvksÞ ds fu;e dk vuqlj.k u rks visf{kr gS] u gh vko’;dA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr
fd;k tkrk gSA
32-
33-
bl laca/k esa foi{kh }kjk izLrqr ;g rdZ fd izkFkhZ us lsokeqfDr ds 35 o"kZ ckn ;g fookn izLrqr fd;k gS] tks
vR;f/kd foyfEcr gSA ;g rdZ miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij Lohdk;Z ugha gSA izn'kZ W-1] lgk;d Je vk;qDr ds i= ls
;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 27-01-1994 dks gh ifjokn izLrqr dj fn;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 13-11-1995 dks foQyrk
izfrosnu tkjh gks pqdk Fkk fdarq leqfpr ljdkj }kjk fookn dks U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr ugha fd;k x;kA rnqijkar izkFkhZ
ds iz;klksa ds dkj.k fnukad 16-10-2012 dks ;g fookn lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk dkfjr foyac 4&5 o"kZ dk
gh gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; j?kqohj flag cuke tujy eSustj gfj;k.kk jksMost fglkj esa ;g vf/ker
O;Dr fd;k gS fd deZdkj dks foyac ls fookn izLrqr djus ds vk/kkj ij vuqrks"k ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bl
fof/k ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ }kjk dkfjr 4 o"kZ ls vf/kd ds foyac ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds fookn dk U;k; fu.kZ;u fd;s tkus ls
badkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k iw.kZ ugha gSA vr% ;g fcUnq foi{khx.k ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
34-
35-
fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZ dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G vkSj H
dk dksbZ laj{k.k ns; ugha ik;k x;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
36-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
37-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
3740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1666.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
सीजीएम (एचआर),एनटीपीसी णलणमटेड, नोएडा, उत्तर प्रिेश; जेपीजी इंजीणनयर,द्वारा-श्री झूलन प्रसाि गुप्ता
(माणलक),नांगलोई,नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री प्रकाश पंणडत एिं 05 अन्द्य, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 84 of
2023) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42012/05/2023-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84 of 2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The CGM (HR), NTPC Ltd., Noida, Uttar Pradesh ;JPG Engineer, Through- Shri Jhoolan Prasad
Gupta (Proprietor), Nangloi, New Delhi, and, Shri Prakash Pandit & 05 others, Worker, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42012/05/2023-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 84/2023
Sh. Prakash Pandit & 05 others,
C-419, Block-C, New Ashok Nagar,
East Delhi, Delhi-110096.
Versus
1.
The CGM (HR), NTPC Ltd.,
NTPC Engineering Office Complex,
Plot No. A-08-A, Sector-24, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301.
2.
JPG Engineer,
Through- Sh. Jhoolan Prasad Gupta (Proprietor)
E-03/240, Shani Bazar Road, Shiv Ram Park,
Nangloi, New Delhi-110041.
AWARD
The appropriate government, Sh. D.K. Himanshu, under Secretary had sent reference referred dated
15.05.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words.
“1. Whether the claim of Sh. Prakash Pandit & 05 others (list enclosed)
through Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress Zila Council, Noida that they were
illegally terminated by the management of M/s. JPG Engineers in the
establishment of NTPC at PMI, Noida is proper, legal and justified? If yes,
to what reliefs are the disputant workers entitled and what directions, if
any, are necessary in the matter?
3741
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Whether claim of Sh. Prakash Pandit & 05 others for payment of their
alleged legal dues on account of full and final settlement to be done from
management of M/s. JPG Engineers in respect of work done by them in the
establishment of NTPC at PMI, Noida along with appropriate compensation is
proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs are the disputant workers
entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
Notices were issued to both the parties. AR for the management-1 & 2 have been appearing before this
tribunal. They have not come forward to file their claim statement before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of
opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims, it
appears that they are not interested to pursue their case. This tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant
award. No dispute 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.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date 06th, August, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1667.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
प्रबंि णनिेशक, बी.जी. णशके कंस्रक्शन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइिेट णलणमटेड, मुंििा, पुिे; श्री राम एंटरप्राइजेज, नरेला औद्योणगक
क्षेत्र, दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री महेश कुमार सैनी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 116 of 2022) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-148-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116 of 2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Managing Director, B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Mundhwa, Pune ; Shree
Ram Enterprises, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi, and, Shri Mahesh Kumar Saini, Worker, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-148-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI
ID No.-116/2022
Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Saini,
R/o House No.-383, Jain Nagar, Karala Road,
Rohini, Sector-22, New Delhi-110085.
VERSUS
1.
The Managing Director,
B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
Civil Division, 72-76, Industrial Estate,
Mundhwa, Pune-411036.
2. Shree Ram Enterprises,
Flats DDA, Plot No. G-09,
3742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No. 1333, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi-110040.
Appearance:
For Claimant: Sh. Prashant Singh.
For Management: Ms. Priya Jha for the management-1.
AWARD
Record perused. Workman wants to withdraw the present claims, due to the technical error. Their statement
recorded separately.
In view of the external records, claim of the claimant dismissed as withdrawn. They are at liberty to file the
same to the appropriate forum. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to record room. A copy of this award is
hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.
Dated: 15.07.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1668.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
बी.जी. णशके कंस्रक्शन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइिेट णलणमटेड, नेहरू प्लेस, नई दिल्ली; श्री राम एंटरप्राइजेज, नरेला, नई दिल्ली-
द्वारा - हहंिुस्तान इंजीणनयररंग एिं जनरल मजिूर यूणनयन, सुल्तानपुरी, दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री
मनोज कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई
दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 158 of 2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-149-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 158 of 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi; Shree Ram Enterprises,
Narela, New Delhi-Through- Hindustan ngineering & General Mazdoor Union, Sultanpuri, Delhi, and,
Shri Manoj Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-149-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI
ID No. 158/2021
Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh,
R/o E-115, Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur North West,
Delhi-110086.
VERSUS
1.
B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
H.O. 1308, Hemkund Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
2.
Shree Ram Enterprises,
Sector-G-7, G-8, DDA Project, Near
Mansa Devi Mandir, Narela, New Delhi-110040.
Through- Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union,
3743
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Head Office: D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086
Appearance:
For Claimant: Sh. Kailash Kumar Jonwal.
For Management: Ms. Priya Jha for the management-1.
AWARD
Record perused. Workman counsel wants to withdraw the present claims, due to the technical error. Their
statement recorded separately.
In view of the external records, claim of the claimant dismissed as withdrawn. They are at liberty to file the
same to the appropriate forum. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to record room. A copy of this award is
hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.
Dated: 15.07.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1669.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
226 कंपनी एएससी (सुप), दिल्ली कैंट, नई दिल्ली; राम हसंह कादियान सुरक्षा एजेंसी, दिल्ली कैंट, नई दिल्ली, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और आई.डी. संख्या 154/2019, श्री राजेश, आई.डी. संख्या 155/2019, श्री संजीत कुमार,
आई.डी. संख्या 156/2019, श्री मो. अशरफ,द्वारा- इंडणस्रयल िकिसि यूणनयन, पालम कॉलोनी, नई दिल्ली, कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 154
of 2019,155 OF 2019, & 156 OF 2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-150-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 154 of 2019,155 OF 2019, & 156 OF 2019) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to 226 Coy ASC (Sup), Delhi Cantt., New Delhi ;Ram Singh Kadiyan
Security Agency, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, and, I.D. No. 154/2019,Shri Rajesh, I.D. No. 155/2019,Shri Sanjeet
Kumar, I.D. No. 156/2019,Shri Md. Ashraf, Through- Industrial Workers Union, Palam Colony, New Delhi,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-150-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 154/2019
Sh. Rajesh, S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o- K-5/95, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
I.D. No. 155/2019
Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Mehto,
R/o- Chiaiya, Thana-Sahiyana, District-Sitamani, Bihar-845415.
I.D. No. 156/2019
3744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Md. Ashraf, S/o Rasheed Ahmad,
R/o-324, Dhampur, Pipalsana, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh-246761.
Through- Industrial Workers Union,
F-328, Gali No. 22, Sadhnagar-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
Versus
1.
226 Coy ASC (Sup),
Prakesh-G, Type-G, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010.
2.
Ram Singh Kadiyan Security Agency.
Prakesh-G, Type-G, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010,
Counsels:
For Claimant: None
For Respondent: Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. AR.
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose of these three 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 their illegal termination. Claims of
the workmen are that they have been serving the management-1 through management-2. Name and particular of their
employment are given below-
List of Workmen
Sr.
No.
Name
Father’s
Name
Post
Dates of
Joining
Dates of
Termination
Last Drawn
Salary
1
Ashraf
Rasheed Ahmed
Barber
02.08.2012
15.11.2017
Rs. 11,500/-
2
Rajesh
Om Prakash
Washerman
02.07.2008
15.11.2017
Rs. 11,500/-
3
Sanjeet
Kumar
Nand Kr.
Shrivastava
Cook
01.06.1996
15.11.2017
Rs. 11,500/-
They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records are clean and they have
not given any complaint so far. During the services, management had not provided any legal facilities i.e. Pay Slip,
Leave Book, bonus, overtime salary, weekly and events holidays etc. Management got annoyed with the demands
raised by the claimants had thrown them out from the service of the management on 15.11.2017. They had sent the
demand notice to the management on 27.11.2017 through speed post to take back their services but management never
replied. They had sent the complaint to the labor commissioner, but, it has resulted into failure. Hence, they have filed
the present claims.
W.S has been filed by the respondent-1. Management-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2021.
Management-1 had denied the averment made in the claims. He had submitted that their claims are liable to be
dismissed.
After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 15.09.2021 i.e.-
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the management-1 and the claimant.
3. Whether the claimant was appointed in the premises of Management-1 by the Security Agency
respondent-2.
4. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management-1.
5. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.
3745
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. On behalf of management-1, Sh. Atul Bhardwaaj
appeared. Claimants have not brought any evidence i.e documents and oral to substantiate their claims, inspite of
providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims, it
appears that they are not interested to pursue their cases. Their claims stand dismissed. Awards are 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- 22.07.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1670.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
कुलपणत, जाणमया णमणलया इस्लाणमया णिश्वणिद्यालय,जाणमया नगर, ओखला, नई दिल्ली; शमाि एंटरप्राइजेज,निािा,नई
दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और आई.डी. संख्या 124/2023,श्री प्रेम पाल, आई.डी. संख्या 122/2023,श्री
इणततयाज, द्वारा-अणखल भारतीय आम मजिूर रेड यूणनयन,कालकाजी, नई दिल्ली, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट
केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 124 & 122 OF 2023) को
जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-151-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124 & 122 OF 2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla,New Delhi;
Sharma Enterprises, Nawada, New Delhi, and, I.D. No. 124/2023, Shri Prem Pal, I.D. No. 122/2023, Shri
Imtiyaz, Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Worker, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-151-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 124/2023
Sh. Prem Pal, S/o Late Sh. Suranjan,
Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
I.D. No. 122/2023
Sh. Imtiyaz, S/o Sh. Muslim,
Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
Versus
1.
The Vice Chancellor,
Jamia Millia Islamia University,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2.
Sharma Enterprises,
3746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
92-B, Plot No-01, Ground Floor, Nawada,
Nawada Metro Station, New Delhi-110059.
AWARD
The appropriate government, Sh. D.K. Himanshu, under Secretary had sent two references referred dated
04.07.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words.
“Whether claims of Sh. Imtiyaz, S/o Sh. Muslim and Sh. Prem Pal, S/o Sh. Suranjan through All India
General Mazdoor Trade Union, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.10.2021 against the management of M/s
Sharma Enterprises, New Delhi (Contractor) under Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi that
their services were terminated w.e.f. 05.11.2020 and 01.09.2020 without notice, without reason and
without due payment which is violation of Section 33 and 25 F of the I.D Act, 1947 as their common
demand through Union is pending in CGIT cum LC, No.-2, New Delhi bearing ID No. 155/2020, is
proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs as sought vide letter dated 11.10.2021 are the
disputant worker entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
Notices were issued to both the parties. AR for the management-1 & 2 have been appearing before this
tribunal. Both claimants have not been appearing since long. They have not come forward to file their claim
statements before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the workmen are not interested in pursuing their claim. This tribunal has no
option except to pass the no disputant award. Hence, no disputant award is passed. Awards are passed accordingly
Files are consigned to the record room. Copies of these awards are hereby sent to the appropriate government for
notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.
Date 31st, July, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1671.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
महाणनिेशक, भारतीय पुरातत्ि सिेक्षि, णतलकमागि, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री सोमप्रकाश
भारद्वाज (एस.पी भारद्वाज), कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 44 of 2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है
जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-152-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44 of 2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Tilakmarg, New Delhi, and, Shri Som
Prakash Bhardwaj (S.P Bhardwaj), Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-152-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 44/2018
Sh. SomPrakashBhardwaj (S.P Bhardwaj),
S/o Sh. Hari Chand,
R/o A-81, Village-Nathupura,
3747
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Burrari, North Delhi, Delhi-110084.
Versus
1.
The Director General,
Archaeological Survey of India,
2.
Tilakmarg, New Delhi-110001.
AWARD
Dated:29.07.2024
1.
Claimant has filed the claim U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after refered as an Act). Workman
has been claiming to have been working as Monument Attendant (ex-Serviceman) on contractual basis with the office
of the Delhi Circle, Safdarganj Tomb since 15.03.2012 at the last drawn salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. His
services has been terminated by the management without assigned any reason on 30.06.2017. His fault is only that he
had orally requested the management to regularize him as his permanent employee keeping in consideration of the
tenure and quality of his services rendered by him. He had sent the demand notice letter through his counsel to the
management for regularisation, reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of the services. However,
management did not give any reply. He was finally constrained to approach the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner/Conciliation Officer, but the management did not settle the dispute with the claimant. Hence, he had
filed the present claim petition.
2.
Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. Respondent appeared and filed the W.S. Management
had taken several preliminary objection inter-alia that Archaeological Survey of India is neither an industry nor
industrial establishment undertaking so as to attract the provisions of I.D Act; Archaeological Survey of India is
discharging its duties for the preservation and conversation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological
sites which are declared to be of national importance; Archaeological Survey of India has not violated any provision
of the I.D Act and every action is within the ambit of law; reference is bad in law, without application of mind.
3.
On merit respondent had admitted that Sh. S.P Bhardwaj was engaged as a Monument Attendant since
15.03.2012 purely on contract basis for watch and ward of the monument protection, cleaning/sweeping of the
premises area of the monument, reporting of unauthorized construction around the monument and others duties
assigned by the sub-circle in-charge. Initially his period was purely on contract basis for one year and extendable on
satisfactory performance assessed by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). However, the contract might be
terminated by any time, on giving one month notice. His contract was expired on 30.06.2017 and his services were
discontinued. However, he had denied that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has been indulging in unfair
labour practices and violated the industrial/labour law. He submits that the claim be dismissed. Rejoinder has also
been filed by the claimant affirming the averment, what has been stated by him in his claim statement and denied the
averment made by the respondent in the WS.
4.
After completion of the pleadings following issues have been framed vide order dated 06.02.2019 that is –
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable and the alleged dispute is an Industrial Dispute.
2. Whether there exists any employer and employee relationship between the respondent & workman.
3. Whether the service of the workman has been illegally terminated by the respondent.
4. Whether the respondent is liable for adopting unfair labour practice.
5. Whether the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages.
6. To what other relief the parties are entitled to.
5.
In order to prove his case, workman had appeared in the witness box. He had filed the affidavit in support of
his claim. He has reiterated the averment made by him in the claim statement. In rebuttal, management has examined
one witness Ms. Kamlesh Devi. He has also reiterated the stand taken by the respondent in his WS. He had relied
upon three document i.eMW1/1, MW1/2 and MW1/3.
6.
Counsel of the claimant had argued since the management witness had admitted in the cross-examination
that he has been continuously working from 15.03.2012 to 30.06.2017; his services records are clean therefore, he had
proved that he had worked more than 240 days in a year. Even no notice of termination/discontinuation to the
engagement was ever given. This fact is also admitted by the respondent witness herein. Therefore the management
has violated the section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act. Even the witness had admitted that benefit of PF and ESI was not
extended to the claimant by the management during the course of his engagement. He has further submitted that the
management witness has not placed any document to show that the post against which the claimant was working were
filled up through SSC before the dis-engagement of the claimant.
3748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Per-contra respondent counsel had advanced the argument stating that the engagement of the workman is
purely contractual. On expiry of the contract, his services were discontinued. He submits that discontinuation of the
service does not come within the definition of retrenchment, therefore there is no question arises for the illegal
termination of the respondent. He submits that the claimant himself admitted in the cross-examination that he does not
know whether the Archaeological Survey of India is an industry? Even he had submitted that if assumed not
admitted that his termination was illegal then also the workman stated that he was getting pension of Rs. 21000/- per
month from the service rendered by him in Indian Army.
8.
In the light of the above evidence and argument advanced by the respective AR of the party in advance, my
issue wise finding are as follows.
Issue no. 1 & 2 have been taken together at the same has been bearing upon each other.
9.
At the outset, it is important to mention here that the respondent has taken the plea that the proceeding is not
maintainable because the alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute because Archaeological Survey of India is
discharging his sovereign function. However, keeping the monumental faith and employing the contractual employee
for guarding their sites does not come within the purview of sovereign function. If the plea of the management is
taken as true then every government function would be exempted from the purview of Industrial Law. Job profile of
the workman as mentioned in the contractual employment Ex. WW1/M1 was to protect and cleaning/sweeping of the
premises and surrounding of the monument. It is the common knowledge that people use to come to visit the
monument for seeing the monument and there is no evidence led by the management contrary to the fact that no one
is allowed to visit the above said sites. It is further the common knowledge that visitors visiting the site used to pay
the fee. Therefore the management even though, being the government functionaries has come within the definition of
an industry if we applied the tripple test. Admittedly the workman was employed by the management on contractual
basis from 15.03.2012 initially for one year and his terms have been extended several times, so, the relationship of the
employee and employer has been established beyond doubt. Therefore, these two issues have gone in favour of the
workman and against the management.
Issue no.-3 & 4 have been taken together as the same are bearing upon each other. Workman had claimed to
have worked with the management from 15.03.2012 to 30.06.2017 on contract basis.
10.
Before parting the decision on this issues, text of Section 2 (oo) and 25F of the Act are required to be
produced herein:
Section 2 [(oo)] “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-
(a)
Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b)
Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
[(bb)] termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of 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
(c)
termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
section 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 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in
excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate
Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification
in the Official Gazette].
Definition of retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination
of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of
superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract
3749
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of
continued ill health by condition doesn’t fall within the ambit of retrenchment.
11.
Management has further taken the plea that the workman service is purely on contract basis, it was
stipulated in the initial contract and subsequent contract which were extended from time to time that his services can
be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. It has taken the pleas of exception as prescribed in Section 2
(oo) i.e. non renewal of the contract. However, the plea raised by the management in his WS is not tenable because of
the fact that the contract had renewed from time to time and has been continued from 15.03.2012 to 30.06.2017.
Section 2 (oo) of the Act which defines the definition of retrenchment and contract of employment which has been
excluded within the definition of retrenchment shall be for a specific period and for specific purpose. But, admittedly
the workman job is in perennial and regular in nature as contract had been extended from time to time. Management
witness has also admitted that the workman had worked with them till 30.06.2017. His contention is that his contract
was not renewed because, there was a direction from the Head Quarter not to extend his engagement. She also
admitted that the claimant during the course of engagement was discharging his duty with sincerity and to the
satisfaction of the authority. Management witness has admitted that all such post already were filled through Staff
Selection Commission (SSC), even the PF and ESI were not extended
12.
Extending of the contract from time to time as reflected from the document produced by the workman and
the management clearly established that there is a unfair labour practice adopted by the management. Job of the
workman was perennial in nature i.e. cleaning the monuments of the management at different places. No record has
been produced by the management that all the posts in which the workman was working has been filled through SSC.
Even, for the sake of assumption, if it is assumed that the posts were filled up by SSC then also management cannot
escape from its liability under Industrial Disputes Act. Once it is established that there is an employer-employee
relationship between the workman and the management, and the management entering into the contract is not for any
specific purpose for specific period then it is assumed that the nature of the work is perennial nature and it has not
come within the exception created by the Section 2 (oo) which defines retrenchment. Once the workman has been
retrenched from service then prior to retrenchment, management has to follow the principles set out in Section 25 of
the Act. Section 25F couched in a negative form, imposed a restriction on employer try to retrench the workman and
laid down that no workman employed in an industry who has been in a continuous employment for not less than one
year under an employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month notice in writing indicating the reason
for retrenchment and the period of notice has been expired or the workman had been paid for the period of notice or
he had been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen day average pay for every completed
year of continuous service or part thereof. Here, admittedly respondent has not done anything.
13.
In view of the above discussion the termination of the workman is held illegal in violation of the principle of
Section 25F.
Relief
Generally, when the termination is held illegal then naturally reinstatement with full back wages would
follow. However, in the present case, workman is a retired army personnel at the time of his deposition, he was 51
year of age now, he is almost 59 year of age, therefore reinstatement cannot be given to him being inappropriate relief
in view of the illegal termination of the workman. Therefore, lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four
Lac Fifty Thousand only) is an appropriate relief. Award is passed accordingly. Management is directed to pay the
above said compensation within four weeks.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1672.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
णनिेशक स्थापना, णित्त मंत्रालय, डीएफएस, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री णगरीश चंि, कामगार,
द्वारा -अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रीय जनरल मजिूर यूणनयन, तीस हजारी, दिल्ली , के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक
अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 217 of 2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया
है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-153-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
3750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 217 of 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director Establishment, Ministry of Finance, DFS, New Delhi, and, Shri Girish Chand, Worker,
Through- The President, Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union, Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-153-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 217/2021
Sh. Girish Chand, S/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh,
Through- The President Ms. Nitika Bhola,
Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union, B-40, 1st Floor,
Boulaward Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.
Versus
The Director Establishment,
Ministry of Finance, DFS,
New Delhi-110001.
Counsels:
For Claimant: Armaan Bhola, Ld. AR.
For Respondent: Sh. B.C Bhatt, Ld. AR.
AWARD
The present claim has been filed U/s 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act (herein after refered as an Act). In
the entire claim, claimant has not stated anything about his employment with the respondent. Entire crux of the case
of the workman is that his father was a regular and permanent employee of the management and he was working at
the post of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff). He has unblemished and uninterrupted record. His father was expired on
07.09.2013 leaving behind his family member in harness. He has applied for job on compassionate ground, but not
given. Nowhere, he has stated that he has ever been given a job temporarily or regular.
Section 2A of the ID Act in which the application has been filed deals with the termination. Before we
proceed further, text of the Section 2A is required to be reproduced which are given under:
[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.
3751
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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)].
Ld. AR for the workman Sh. Armaan Bhola has no answer about the fact, how his application U/s 2A of I.D
Act is maintainable. Section 2A has been inserted in the I.D Act in 1965. It gives the individual workman the right to
approach the industrial tribunal/labour court directly in case of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment without
sponsoring his case by any union. However, the right is not an absolute. It is conditional that first respondent has to
approach the conciliation officer for conciliation and, if the conciliaton does not have yielded any result within 45
days. Secondly, this right has to be exercised within three years of dismissal, termination, and discharge.
But, the fact of the claim does not reveal that workman has ever got any job on compassionate ground,
therefore, there is no question arises of his termination, discharge or dismissal.
In view of the facts mentioned above, claim filed by the claimant deserves dismissal being not maintainable.
Hence, claim is 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- 23.07.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1673.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
काहलंिी कॉलेज नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री णिजय पाल, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट
केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 185 of 2018) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-154-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 185 of 2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Kalindi College New Delhi, and, Shri Vijay Pal, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-154-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
ID No. 185/2018
Sh. Vijay Vs. Kalindi College
Counsels:
For Applicant/ Claimant:
Sh. Vijay Pal, Ld. AR.
For Management/ Respondent:
None for the management.
AWARD
1. A very short question arises in the present claim filed by the claimant U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947; whether the services of the workman was terminated due to the efflux of time.
3752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Claimant in his claim petition asserted that he is a law abiding and peace loving citizen of India and he worked
with the management at the post of SafaiKaramchari/M.T.S. since 18.10.2010 and management had issued the
appointment letter bearing no. KC/PF/22753 as SafaiKaramchari at the basic salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month. He was
not provided minimum wages, casual and yearly leave, wages on register etc. Management again executed an
agreement for the period of six month only and thereafter renewal had been done from time to time. His last drawn
salary was 15,070/- per month. On 31.03.2017, the management suddenly stated that there is no need for his service
anymore and he was asked to deposit his clearance letter stating that he had taken all his dues as full and final. His
service had been terminated without giving any reason and was illegal. He was suffering from 80% disability. He had
filed his claim before the Deputy Chief Commissioner, Central District, Jeevan Deep Building, 4th Floor,
SansadMarg, New Delhi. No conciliation took place and the concerned officer had issued the failure report on
13.09.2018; hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.
3. Written statement had been filed by the respondent where he admitted that the claimant was appointed vide letter
no. KC/PF/22753 dated 18.10.2010 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- per month. He had also admitted
that contract of the claimant was renewed by the respondent from time to time, till around January 2016. Contractual
appointment of the claimant including the rules relating leaves, remuneration etc. was governed by the University of
Delhi and UGC rules and regulations. He had taken the plea that behavior of the claimant started deteriorating day by
day and he started to become negligent towards his duties. Staff members of the college requested the claimant to be
more careful in his work but the claimant paid no heed to the said requests. Even the behavior of the claimant became
worse that led to a level where the claimant would just come to the college and used to spend entire day idly without
doing any work. A warning letter was issued to the claimant dated 26.11.2016 against acknowledgement and the
claimant was given the final opportunity to mend his ways. On 27.12.2016, a general notice was issued by the
respondent college, wherein it was specifically informed to all the contractual staff that their renewal would depend
only on the basis of satisfactory performance. The tenure of claimant was again extended for a period of one month
from 01.03.2027 to 31.03.2017. As such, the respondent submits that contract had been expired with an efflux of
time.
4. Rejoinder had been filed by the claimant where he denied the averment made by the respondent in his written
statement and affirmed the averment made by him in the claim statement.
5. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 12.03.2019, following issues had been framed:
1. If the proceeding is maintainable and the claimant is a ‘workman’ under the definition of Law.
2. Whether the termination of service of the workman by the respondent is illegal and amounts to unfair labour
practice.
3. To what relief the workman is entitled to.
6. In support of his claim, workman had examined himself and he had filed the affidavit affirming the averment
made in the claim statement. He has relied upon five documents i.e. termination order (Ex. WW1/1), appointment
letter (Ex. WW1/2), copy of the attendance sheet issued by the management (Ex. WW1/3), copy of the identity card
issued by the management (Ex. WW1/4), copy of the disability certificate (Ex. WW1/5). Witness was cross-examined
at length; however, nothing substantial had been extracted from the mouth of the witness. His testimony almost has
gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontroverted to the fact that he was appointed and was terminated on such dates
respectively.
7. Nothing has been brought by the management to contest his plea regarding claimant’s behavior. Management
has not led any evidence despite providing a number of opportunities; even a cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed but
thereafter management stopped appearing in this tribunal.
8. AR for claimant Sh. Vijay Pal has forcedly argued that the continuity of the contract for almost seven years
isa sham and bogus arrangement. Workman has completed the 240 days in a year admittedly. The management has
not followed the provision of 25F of Industrial Dispute acttherefore his termination be declared as illegal and he be
reinstated with full back wages. He has relied upon the judgment Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council,Sanaur
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 11th April, 2011 whereby the court had held in the similar
circumstances termination of the workman is illegal.
9. I have heard the claimant and gone through the record and evidence thereof and my findings are as follows.
Admittedly, the claimant is aworkman. Issue no. 1 and 2are related to each other. Unless the claimant proves that he
is a workman, no proceeding can be launched under Industrial Dispute act, 1947. Before parting the decision in the
above said case, section 2 (oo), 2 (s) and 25F of the actis required to be reproduced herein:
Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the workman, it reads as under:
2 [(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether
the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
3753
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a
supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 3 [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by
the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly
of a managerial nature.]
Section 2 [(oo)] “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does
not include-
(a)
Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b)
Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
[(bb)]
termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of 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
(c)
termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
section 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 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess
of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
10. Section 2(s) contains an exhaustive definition of the term ‘workman’. It takes within its ambit any person
including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical
or supervisory work for hire or reward and it is immaterial that the terms of employment are not reduced into writing.
The definition also includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an
Industrial Dispute or as a consequence of such dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute. Certain exclusions are also given in the definition itself. The source of employment, the method of
recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service. The quantum of wages/pay and the mode of
payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s)
of the act.
11. Definition of the retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination
of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted
by way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of
superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract
being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of
continued ill health by condition doesn’t fall within the ambit of retrenchment.
12. Once the employer challenge the dispute on the ground that an employee is not a workman within the
meaning of section 2(s) of the act as herein then he has to satisfy that the workman is not employed for hire or
reward. Herein, the claimant has successfully proved that he has been employed for hire or reward; therefore, he is a
workman because admittedly, he worked on the post of SafaiKaramchari since 16.10.2010 and his job was of manual
nature. He has been paid at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month initially; therefore, no question arises that he is not a
workman.
13. Management has further taken the plea that the workman’s service is purely on contract basis and it was
stipulated in the initial contract and subsequent contracts which were extended from time to time that his service can
be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. He had taken the plea of exception as prescribed in section 2
3754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(oo) that is non-renewal of the contract. However, the plea raised by the management in its written statement is not
tenable because of the fact that the contract has been renewed from time to time for a period of six months to a year
and it has been continued in the span of seven years and suddenly the claimant’s service has been terminated because
his behavior is not up to mark. However, no evidence has been brought by the management to prove the fact that his
behavior is not up to mark. Section 2 (oo) which defines the definition of retrenchment states that the contract which
has been excluded within the definition of retrenchment shall be for a specific period but admittedly the workman’s
job is perennial and regular in nature and his contract has been extended without any break for seven years.
Therefore, the case of the workman does not fall within the exception created by the section 2 (oo) of the act.
14. Now come to the next question whether the service of the workman has been terminated illegally. Section 25F
couched in a negative form, it imposes a restriction on the employer’s right to retrench the workman and laid down
that no workman employed in any industry who has been in a continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has been expired, or the workman has been paid for the period of notice and he
has also been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every
completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excesses of six months and notice in the prescribe
manner has been served on the appropriate government. These provisions are mandatory in nature. Admittedly, the
respondent has not complied with any condition of retrenchment under the impression that the workman’sservices can
be terminated at any time which is a false creation. Hence, it is held that the service of the workman has been
terminated illegally. Therefore, issue no. 1 and 2 goes in the favor of claimant and against respondent.
Order
In view of the findings in issue no. 1 and 2, naturally the workman whose service was terminated illegally is required
to be reinstated. Hence, this tribunal orders that the workman be reinstated within four weeks from the date of passing
of this award with full back wages. Award is accordingly passed. Copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for notification U/S 17 of the I.D Act. File is consigned to record room.
Dated 25.07.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1674.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार णनगम णलणमटेड, िेहरािून, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री रोशन लाल, कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 92 of
2015) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-155-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dehradun, and, Shri Roshan Lal, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-155-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
ID No. 92/2015
Sh. RoshanLal Vs. B.S.N.L.
3755
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Counsels:
For Applicant/ Claimant:
None for the claimant.
For Management/ Respondent:
Sh. Dipak Thukral, Ld. AR for management.
AWARD
Dated: 29.07.2024
1.
Sh. P.K. Venu Gopal (Section Officer), government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter
dated 09.09.2014 had sent the reference to this tribunal for disposal in the following words:
‘Whether the action of the management of Dehradun Telecom District, BSNL, Dehradun in retrenchment
from the services of workman ShriRoshanLal S/o Sh. Jaya Das w.e.f. 01.08.2012 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?’
2.
After receiving the reference, both claimant and respondent had been served with the notice. Claimant filed the
claim in the present petition stating that he was recruited as a casual labour with Durbhash Kendra, Tyuni (Dehradun)
on 01.10.1997 at the rate of 80 rupees/day by Sub-Divisional Engineer Sh. R.S. Kathait. His job was to lay the
telephone cables. On 02.03.1998, he was appointed at the monthly pay of Rs. 1200/- but no appointment letter was
given. Salary was paid in the bank account. In 2001, name of Durbhash Kendra was changed to Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (BSNL). In 2011, claimant’s salary was increased to Rs. 4500/-. He had requested the authority to
regularize him but respondent didn’t regularize him, instead he was told in the March 2012 that General Manager has
asked him to remove from service; In case, he wants to work at the rate of Rs. 2500 per month, he will be allowed to
work. As such, he had started to work at the above said rate considering his family situation.
3.
It is further his case that on 16.09.2011, cable was stolen from Telephone Exchange, Chilhar and letter to that
effect was given in his name by the Sub-Divisional Engineer to Dur-Sanchar Dakpatra. On 01.08.2012 when he was
going to Vikasnagar from Tyuni for taking his salary, the bus was met with an accident and 27 passengers died in that
accident, the claimant was also seriously injured and was admitted in the hospital. On 01.03.2013, when he had come
to join his duty after getting fit, he was told that another worker was deployed in his place. He had requested the
respondent to take him back on duty but no one paid any heed; as such, he filed the present claim before the Labour
Commissioner and his claim was referred to this tribunal for disposal.
4.
Respondent had appeared and filed the written statement. He had taken several preliminary objections inter-alia
that claimant was never appointed at any post nor was he kept as a daily casual labour; no wages had been paid by the
employer. On merit, he denied each and every fact. However, he admitted that in the month of October 2000, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited was incorporated. He submits that the claim petition be dismissed.
5.
Rejoinder has been filed by the claimant in which he denied the averment made by the respondent in his W.S.
and affirmed the averment made by him in the claim statement.
6.
From the pleadings of the party vide order dated 05.04.2016, following issues had been framed:
1.
Whether the action of the management of Dehradun Telecom district, BSNL, Dehradun in retrenchment from
the services of workman Sh. RoshanLal S/o Sh. Jaya Das, w.e.f. 01.08.2012 is legal and justified? If so its
effect?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
7.
Both claimant and respondent had led the evidence in support of their claim and rebuttal. Workman had
examined himself as WW1. On behalf of the management, one Vivek Tiwari had come into witness box.
8.
On behalf of the claimant, it had been argued that it is a clear example of unfair labour practice adopted by the
employer. He had drawn the attention of this tribunal towards a number of documents brought by him in the evidence
i.e. photocopy of First Information Report U/s 379 IPC regarding the theft of cable given by Sub-Divisional Engineer,
the document of work allotment to him by Divisional Engineer Sh. S.K. Sharma, Nine copies of certificates issued by
customers in favour of Sh. RoshanLal, information given to Patwari about the theft, details of the account of the
claimant in which an amount of Rs. 4,182/- and Rs. 8719/- was deposited on 17.11.2011 in provident fund. He
submits from the evidence he had established that there is a connection between him and respondent of employee and
employer otherwise there is no reason as to why these documents are in his possession. He had further drawn the
attention of this tribunal towards the cross-examination of the management where management witness submitted that
he had no personal knowledge about the claimant Sh. RoshanLal, he didn’t know if Sh. RoshanLal was engaged with
D.O.T. in the year 1997; he could not say whether in the year 1997 and 1998 Sh. R.S. Chauhan was the Sub-
Divisional Engineer and claimant was appointedby him;he didn’t admit that D.O.T. became BSNL and all the casual
3756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workers for D.O.T. were terminated, even he had no knowledge whether R.S. Chauhan and Sh. R.S. Kathait who
were then Sub-Divisional Engineers had re-engaged the claimant for work; he admitted that documents marked X
contains the signature of Divisional Engineer Sh. A.K. Sharma and document marked Y appears to be the report
submitted by Mr. Bisht alleging theft of cable.
9.
Per contra, respondent had argued that the documents relied by the claimant does not indicate that he was ever
employed by the respondent. He submits that the claimant has not produced any appointment letter, wages slip,
Identity Card in order to prove employee-employer relationship. His further argument is that respondent being
government organization cannot appoint any person without issuing any appointment letter and without following the
due procedure of Law; management has a separate procedure of recruitment. He has relied upon the decision of
Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in “workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd.Vs State of Tamilnadu [(2009) 13
SCC 374]” and“Indian Drugs and pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. workmen, India Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.”,
(2007) 1 SCC 408 and submitted that workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages; claim deserves to be
dismissed.
10.
Before parting with the decision, it is important to mention here that vide order dated 22.07.2019, Ld.
Predecessor of this tribunal had passed the award in favour of the workman and against the management because of
the fact that management had stopped coming after filing of written statement. On application by management, ex-
parte award was set aside subject to the cost of Rs. 5000/-.
11.
No doubt, appointment letter, identity card and the documents issued by the respondent are necessary to
establish the relationship of employer and employee. However, it is not the sole criteria for establishing the
relationship. In most of the cases when the workman was employed as casual labour or in muster roll labour, no
document has been issued by the employer. But still he can prove the relationship by brining the circumstances
indicating that he was the employee of the employer. In the case of Chintaman Rao reported in 1958 (II) LLJ the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the concept of employment involves three ingredients. (I) Employer (II)
Employee (III) The contract of employment. The employer is one who engages the service of the other person. The
employee is one who works for another hire or reward. The employment is the contract of service between the
employer and employee where under the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and
supervision. It is control of the management which is necessary element of the relationship of master and servant.
12.
In the present case the workman since beginning has maintained that he was working under the control and
supervision of the SDE BSNL and discharging the functions of a regular employee. He has also stated so while
testifying as WW1. On his behalf photocopies of document have been filed. Management in his evidence has not
contradicted. Even the management witness is unaware whether the claimant was engaged with D.O.T in the year
1997; he could not say whether in the year 1997 and 1998, one Sh. R.S Chauhan was the Sub-Divisional Engineer and
claimant was appointed by him. The witness is evasive in answer. From the documents produced by the claimant, it is
proved that the claimant was working with the management who was later on- incorporated with BSNL and the
evidence suggest that the tenure of work was from 1997 to August 2012 spreading over 14 years. Now, it is to be seen
if the service of the claimant was terminated illegally and he was made a victim of unfair labour practice.
13.
Naturally, the management has adopted unfair labour practice for taking the work from the workman without
issuing any appointment letter, and other documents for years. Now, it has to be seen whether the workman services
have been terminated illegally. Workman had alleged that his services have been terminated illegally when he had
come to join after recovering from the accidental injuries.
14.
Section 25F of the Act prescribe condition precedent to retrenchment of the workman. It is reproduced under:
section 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 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Definition of the retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination
of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of
superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract
being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of
continued ill health by condition doesn’t fall within the ambit of retrenchment.
3757
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
Admittedly, the respondent has not complied with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. These provision are
mandatory in nature therefore, it is held that service of the workman is illegally terminated.
RELIEF
Naturally once it is held that the service of the workman is illegally terminated then reinstatement with full back
wages would follow. But, keeping in view of the age of the workman i.e. around 50 years now, reinstatement is not an
appropriate solution/relief. In lieu of the illegal termination of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac) compensation is an
appropriate relief. Hence, management is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- within one month from
the date of passing this award. Award is passed accordingly.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1675.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
णनिेशक, खुदफया ब्यूरो, गृह मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली; जे.एस. फैणिकेशन, पणिम सागरपुर, नई दिल्ली;
जे.एम.डी. एंटरप्राइजेज, पणिम सागरपुर, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री रिजीत हसंह, कामगार, के
बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 282
of 2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-156-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024
S.O. 1675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 282 of 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi ;J.S.
Fabrication, West Sagarpur, New Delhi ;J.M.D. Enterprises, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, and, Shri Ranjeet
Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-156-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 282/2021
Sh. Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Sh. Iqbal Singh,
R/o 24-C, Deep Enclave, Vikas Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
Versus
1. The Director of Intelligence Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India,
35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021.
2. J.S. Fabrication,
RZ-456316, Gali No. 07, Gitanjali Park,
West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046.
3. J.M.D. Enterprises,
RZ-411-A/318, Gali No.- 07, Gitanjali Park,
3758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046.
Counsels:
For Claimant: None
For Respondent: None for M-1
Sh. Shrikant Lakhera, Ld. AR for M-2 & 3
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose of this application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in
after referred as an Act) filed by the claimant against the respondents, for his illegal termination. Claim of the
workman is that he has been serving the management-1 through management-2 & 3 since 01.05.2001 at the post of
Book Binder at the last drawn salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Management-2 & 3 are contractors as defined
U/s 2(c) of the contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the management-1 used to award contracts
for purpose of Book Bindings to the respondent- 2 & 3 from time to time. Being the family business, both the
management-2 & 3 are government contractors and engaged in the business of Book Bindings since long. He
submitted that sometime management-2 obtained contract for book bindings from the management-1 or in
alternatively the management-3 used to obtain contract from the management-1, whereas he used to perform duties for
both the management simultaneously. No appointment letter was issued to him by the managements. During the
period from 01.06.2019 to 07.05.2020, workman successfully bounded 10,926 books which costs to Rs. 3,82,410/- @
Rs. 35/- per book, but the management denied to release the same, however to persistent demands on the part of
workman, the management-2 had made part payment to the extent of Rs. 47,445/- in four installments whereas
remaining Rs. 3,34,965/- being withheld without any cogent reason. On 08.05.2020, when the workman reported for
duties, he was denied the entry by the management-1. On the same day he was terminated from his service. He had
worked from 08.05.2020 to 01.05.2021 continuously with the entire satisfaction of his superiors, as such he rendered
more than 240 days. The termination without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D Act. He felt
aggrieved by the wrongful termination, the workman sent a demand notice on 26.08.2020 under speed post which was
received by the management-2, but failed to respond the same. He had filed complaint against the management-2 & 3
before labour department, Hari Nagar, Delhi and also initiated conciliation proceedings, but, it has resulted into
failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer to direct the management-2 to reinstate him back on duty
along with full back wages and consequential benefits.
W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, 2 & 3. They had denied the averment made in the claims. They have
submitted that this claim is liable to be dismissed.
After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 04.07.2022 i.e.-
1.
Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2.
Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between respondent no. 1 and the claimant.
3.
Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by management no. 2 without following the
procedure of ID Act and without complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.
4.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief of reinstatement into service.
Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. None appeared on behalf of management-1. On behalf of
management-2 & 3 Sh. Shrikant Lakhera appered. Claimant has not brought any evidence i.e documents and oral to
substantiate his claim, inspite of providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it
appears that he is not interested to pursue 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 : 22/7/2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1676.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
मेससि पटेल इंजीणनयररंग िक्सि (णिजाग), णिशाखापत्तनम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री जे.ए. सत्यम, कामगार,
3759
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभि
संख्या L.C. 1/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-14012/22/2016-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024
S.O. 1676.—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. 1/2017) 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 M/s Patel Engineering Workers (Vizag),Vishakapatnam, and Shri J.A. Satyam, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024.
[No. L-14012/22/2016-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 5th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2017
Between:
Sri J.A. Satyam,
S/o Kurmayya,
D.No. 63-1-135/1,
Ashoknagar, Near
Coromande Gate,
Malkapuram,
Vishakapatnam-530011.
Petitioner
AND
M/s Patel Engineering Workers (Vizag),
207, Old Bake House, Nagindas Master Road,
Extension Fort,
Vishakapatnam-400001.
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Party in person
For the Respondent: Shri D.N. Murthy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-14012/22/2016 (IR(DU)) dated 19/12/2016
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Patel Engineering Works (Vizag) A Contractor Engaged in
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, In terminating the services of Shri J.A. Satyam, Ex-Gas Cutter, workman
w.e.f. 28.10.2015 without complying section 25 (F) of I.D. Act is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled ?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 1/2017 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him,
the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has
3760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1677.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
अध्यक्ष सह प्रबंि णनिेशक, भारत संचार णनगम णलणमटेड; नई दिल्ली; मुख्य महाप्रबंिक (बी.एस.एन.एल.), ए.पी.
िूरसंचार सर्किल, एणबड्स, हैिराबाि; प्रिान महाप्रबंिक, हैिराबाि िूरसंचार णजला, आिशिनगर, हैिराबाि; उप मंडल
अणिकारी (फोन) IV, भारत संचार णनगम णलणमटेड, बेगमपेट, णसकंिराबाि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्रीमती
एन. लणलता, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हैिराबाि
पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 11/2011) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-157-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024
S.O. 1677—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. 11/2011) 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 Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited; New Delhi; The Chief
General Manager (B.SNL),A.P. Telecom Circle, Abids, Hyderabad; The Principal General Manager,
Hyderabad Telecom District, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad; The Sub Divisional Officer (phones) IV,Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Begumpet, Secunderabad, and Smt. N. Lalitha, Worker, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-157-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 9th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.11/2011
Between:
Smt. N. Lalitha,
3761
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
W/o Late N. Iylaiah,
R/o H.No.17-138, New Venkateshwara Nagar,
Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad.
..
.Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.,
B.SNL Corporate Office, 2nd floor, B Wing,
Statesman House, B-148,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.
The Chief General Manager (B.SNL),
A.P. Telecom Circle, Door Sanchar Bhavan,
Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad.
3.
The Principal General Manager,
Hyderabad Telecom District, B.SNL Bhavan,
Adarshnagar, Hyderabad.
4.
The Sub Divisional Officer (phones) IV,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.,
Begumpet, Secunderabad.
…
.Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri B. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Smt. N. Lalitha who worked as casual labourer (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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited., seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of
service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and conversion into full time casual labourer and
regularization.
2. The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:-
Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Mala community. It is submitted that during March 1992, when the office of
S.D.O.(Phones), Secunderabad was shifted from P&T Colony to P.G. Road, Secunderabad, the Sub-Divisional
Officer-IV, Secunderabad has taken the note approval of the Deputy General Manager, Secunderabad for engaging
part time casual Mazdoor for sweeping and scavenging works etc., involving about 2000 Sq. ft., carpet area on
contract basis with a consolidated payment of Rs.500/- per month. Later on, the consolidated wages have been
decided at the rate of Rs.700/- instead of originally sanctioned at the rate of Rs.500 per month. The work of the
Petitioner initially involved 6 hours per day. It is submitted that the list of contingent employees working in
Hyderabad Telecom district was also later prepared by the authorities wherein the name of the Petitioner finds place
at Sl.No.34. It is further submitted that during 1998, Respondents required the Petitioner to file an affidavit on oath
indicating the date of birth of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner does not have date of birth certificate from school
authorities and accordingly applicant filed a self declaratory affidavit basing upon the version of the village Sarpanch
in her own statement on 20.5.1998. It is submitted that the Petitioner worked in the office of the SDOP,
Secunderabad from 26.10.1992 onwards without any break and has completed 240 days in the year 1993,1994, 1995,
1996,1997 and 1999 at the rate of 6 hours per day at a consolidated payment of Rs.700/- per month. It is submitted
that in view of Departmental orders No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 16.9.1999 and No.269-13/99-STN-II, dated
25.8.2000, Petitioner made a representation to the 3rd Respondent in the month of June 2001 for consideration of her
case for full time conversion. Petitioner submitted another representation dated nil during the year 2001. In the
meanwhile, the Government of India established a company by name Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., w.e.f.
1.10.2000 and transferred all the staff on as it is where it is basis to the newly established company. It is submitted
that her petition for conversion of part time casual mazdoor into full time casual mazdoor on 25.1.2002 which was
3762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
duly certified by the 4th Respondent and forwarded to the office of the 3rd Respondent. It is submitted that as per the
service particulars enclosed to the petition duly attested by the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner has worked for 47 days
in 1992, 307 days in 1993, 299 days in 1994, 310 days in 1995, 312 days in 1996, 296 days in 1997,308 days in
1998, 285 days in 1999, 297 days in 2000 and 295 days in 2001 as on 31/12/2001 and has completed a total of 2756
working days. It is further submitted that Petitioner continued to be engaged during 200 to 2009 up to 30.6.2009 and
has completed 240 days in each year upto December 2008. Petitioner also submitted a representation to the
3rd Respondent for implementation of revised wages on 20.8.2007. 4th Respondent in response to the letter of
3rd Respondent, vide his letter dated 30.9.2008 submitted a detailed report wherein he has specifically stated that the
Petitioner was engaged on 26.10.1992 as a part time casual labourer with a salary of Rs.700/- per month, by the then
SDOP.IV, Secunderabad. During 1992-1993 that later on three SDOs were changed, that the present incumbent was
posted as SDO in December 2000 and explaining other difficulties and on that ground stated that he has
recommended the case of the Petitioner way back on 31.1.2001, that he did not receive any communication for
revision of wages of the casual labour and that during the year 2002 to 2003 when contractors were appointed for
housekeeping services, he sought clarification from the GM North Office and that he was clarified that the
appointment of the contractors is not applicable in the case of the Petitioner. thus, he sought necessary instructions to
be issued on whether to continue or disengage the services of the Petitioner? Upon this report, 3rd Respondent
directed the GMTD North to take appropriate action vide letter dated 23.10.2008. It is submitted that Petitioner
submitted another representation dated 16.3.2009 for renewal of sanction of her engagement in an increase in the
wages and the same was rejected, as far as the revision of wages is concerned, without reference to her claim for
conversion into full time casual labourer and regularization. It is submitted that 4th Respondent directed the
Petitioner not to come to office with effect from 1.7.2009. This sudden action of the Respondents in preventing the
Petitioner from attending the duty amounts to oral termination of the services of the Petitioner amounts to
retrenchment without following provisions of Section 25 F. It is submitted that Petitioner having worked for more
than 17 years in the Respondent’s office, is eligible for conversion into full time casual labourers status and
subsequent regularization. In terms of the orders issued by the Department of Telecommunications, such inaction on
the part of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is
further submitted that a person by name Smt. Lakshmamma engaged in the 4th Respondent office only for 2 hours per
day, on 15.6.1990 has already been regularised. Except the Petitioner and two persons by name, Smt. J. Balamani
and Smt. M. Jangamma, the services of all other persons were regularised. Hence, prayed to declare the action of
Respondents in considering the case of the Petitioner for conversion into full time casual labourer and subsequent
regularization as bad in law and the termination of the Petitioner on oral orders with effect from 1.7.2009 as violative
of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act amounting to retrenchment and declare the applicant as eligible for
reinstatement with back wages and all attendant benefits.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-
It is submitted that the Petitioner has not filed any document with regard to letter of engagement and payment of for
the period from 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009 for the purpose of Section 25 F of I.D. Act as per the settle law. The retention
schedule stipulated 5 years relating to muster rolls and contingent payment, and as such, there is no record as
available except contract wages at the rate of Rs.700/- depending upon the exigencies. It is submitted that there is a
ban of casual labour vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated 12.2.1999 and the engagement restricted to a year
period of 60 days in contingencies and this was extended to 100 days vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated
15.6.1999 with continuance of absolute ban by withdrawing all powers and the engagement only be under
contingencies. The said contractual engagement does not entitle the Petitioner for reinstatement unless there is
engagement for a period of 240 days from 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009 while engaged as a casual labour due to shortage of
sanctioned strength. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged on contract and they said engagement is not due
to shortage of sanctioned Group B staff and as such the policy contained in letter No.269-13/99-STN-II dated
16.9.1999 and letter No.29-13/99-STN-II dated 25.8.2000 stipulating conversion of part time labour as full time has
no application. Thus, there was no scope to consider the representation of the Petitioner at a any time and also not
capable of being considered as a left out case. The Petitioner is also not eligible to be considered under the policy
contained in letter 269-94/98-STN-II dated 29.9.2000 wherein the regularization has been considered as one time
measure. It is submitted that the policy contained in letters dated 16.9.99 and 25.8.2020, 29.9.2000 is related to part
time casual labour engaged due to shortage of Group D strength and has no application to contract labour engaged in
contingencies as permitted inspite of absolute ban vide letter dated 12.2.99, 15.6.1999 by withdrawing all powers to
departmental officers. The Petitioner was paid through contingencies on ACG-17 as and when there is engagement
and no record is available after the expiry of retention schedule of 5 years. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues emerge for determination in this
matter:-
I.
Whether action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for regularization in the employment of Respondent as alleged in her claim
statement?
3763
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
III.
To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled?
Findings:-
5.
Petitioner claims that she had worked in the office of SDOP(Phones), Secunderabad from 26.10. 1992
onwards without any break and has completed 240 days in the year 1993,1994,1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 at the rate
of 6 hours per day at a consolidated payment of Rs.700/- per month. Further, Petitioner has taken the plea that during
the year 1999, Department of Telecommunications issued an order dated 16.9.1999 for conversion of part time casual
labourers working with 4 or more hours per day and who have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months, into
full time casual labourers as a one time measure. Again, Department of Telecom Services, issued order dated
25.8.2000, again giving one time relaxation for conversion of part time casual labourers with less than 4 hours of duty
per day and who have worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers.
Further, Petitioner claims that the Respondent has terminated her services through oral order with effect from
1.7.2009 amounting to retrenchment as per settled law and as such in violation of the provision of Section 25 F of ID
Act.
6.
In support of her claim, Petitioner has filed the affidavit of chief statement of the witness as a witness
wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the claim statement but despite the sufficient opportunity extended,
Petitioner WW1 she did not turn up for cross examination. As per Principle of Evidence Act , the chief statement of
witness can not be read in evidence unless witness has produced himself for cross examination. Therefore, the plea
of the Petitioner can not be said to be proved merely on the basis of chief statement of WW1 as witness did not turn
up for cross examination. However, the Petitioner has not filed documents i.e., attendance register, salary slip etc., to
establish her claim that she had worked in the service of the Respondent for 240 days continuously in a calendar year
just preceding from the date of her alleged termination that is 1.7.2009. The burden of proof to establish her claim
lies upon the Petitioner. But she failed to discharge onus of proof to establish her claim that she had worked for 240
days continuously in the service of Respondent in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination. In
the absence of afore said proof, Petitioner claimant failed that she has been terminated in contravention of provision
of Sec.25F and 25G of the I.D. Act, 1947.
7.
As regards other documents filed by the Petitioner in evidence, the contents of these documents are also not
proved by the oral testimony of the WW1, as this witness did not turn up for cross examination. Therefore, on the
basis of perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that Petitioner has utterly failed to discharge her onus to
prove her claim that she had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just proceeding from the date of her
termination. Thus, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is held legal and justified.
This Point No.I is answered accordingly.
8.
Point No.II:- Petitioner has taken the plea in her claim statement that, applicant has worked in the office of
the SDOP Secunderabad from 26.10.1992 onwards without any break and has completed 240 days in the year 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 at the rate of 6 hours per day consolidated payment of Rs.700/- per month. During
1999, the Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications issued an order No.269-13/99-STN-II
dated 16.9.1999 for conversion of part time casual labourers working with 4 or more hours per day and who have
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers as a one time measure. Again the
Department of Telecom Services issued another order vide No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 25.8.2000 again giving
another one time relaxation for conversion of part time casual labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per day and
who have worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers. On the basis of
the above orders, after waiting for reasonable time for the implementation of the orders by the Respondents, the
Petitioner made representation to the 3rd Respondent in the month of June, 2001 for consideration of her case for full
time conversion. The representation of the Petitioner has been forwarded to the 2nd Respondent by the 3rd Respondent.
Where upon, the 2nd Respondent sought clarification from the 3rd Respondent as to why the name of the Petitioner is
not included by the 3rd Respondent when the information was called for during the year 1999 by the 2nd Respondent
vide letter No.TA/STB/20-2/Corr/PTS/2001-02/5 dated 24.7.2001. The Petitioner is not aware of the subsequent
progress made in this regard.
9.
Although in support of her plea Petitioner has filed the Chief affidavit of herself as WW1 and therein she
has reiterated the plea taken in the claim statement. But the Petitioner as a witness WW1did not turn up for cross
examination despite sufficient opportunities granted to her. The chief evidence of the witness cannot be read in
evidence unless witness produce herself for cross examination. As regards the documentary evidence, Petitioner has
filed circular issued by Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunication,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi dated 16.9.1999, 25.8.2000 and 29.9.2000. The perusal of these documents reveal that
it was issued by Respondent for the conversion of part time casual labourers working with 4 hours or more hours per
day into full time casual labourers and the condition mentioned there in for conversion of part time casual labourers
into full time casual labourers is mentioned that the workmen should be engaged as a casual labour subject to
suitability and they should be engaged as casual labourers only where there is a shortage of Group D staff (i.e.,
existence of vacant Group D posts after accounting for all TSMs and existing full time casual labourers) and no posts
should be created for the purpose. Therefore, the onus to prove the fact that the Petitioner Workman was engaged. as
3764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
casual labourer subject to suitability and there was a shortage of Group D staff in the Respondent, lies upon the
Petitioner but Petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof by her evidence that she was eligible for the
conversion of part time casual labourers into full time casual labourer in the Respondent employment as per aforesaid
circular.
10.
On the other hand, Respondent in his counter has contended that the retention schedule stipulated 5 years
relating to muster rolls and contingent payment and as such there is no record as available except contract wages at
the rate of Rs.700/- depending upon the exigencies. In this connection, it is submitted that there is ban of casual
labour vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated 12.2.1999 and the engagement restricted to a period of 60 days in
contingencies and this was extended to 100 days vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated 15.6.1999 with
continuance of absolute ban by withdrawing all powers and the engagement only be under contingencies. It is further
contended that the said contractual engagement does not entitle the Petitioner for reinstatement unless there is
engagement for a period of 240 days from 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009 while engaged as a casual labour due to shortage of
sanctioned strength. The Petitioner was engaged on contract and the said engagement is not due to shortage of
sanctioned Group D staff and as such the policy contained in letter dated 16.9.1999 and letter dated 25.8.2000
stipulating conversion of part time labour as full time has no application. Further, it is contended that there was no
scope to consider the representation of the Petitioner at any time and also not capable of being considered as a left out
case. The Petitioner is also not eligible to be considered under the policy contained in letter No.269-94/98-STN-II
dated 29.9.2000 wherein the regularization has been considered as one time measure. Further, it is contended that the
Petitioner has admitted in her claim statement that she was engaged upto December, 2008 thereby leading to the
conclusion that there is no more disengagement from 1.7.2009 for the purpose of violation of Section 25 F of I.D.
Act, 1947 and the petition is to be dismissed on this ground. The comparison with other cases is not relevant.
11.
Further, Respondent has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BSNL
vs Man Singh, 2012 1 SCC 558, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, “there can be no reinstatement of the
Workman engaged on daily wages on the ground that they had worked for 240 days and Petitioner is not entitled for
any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.”
12.
Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I
am of the considered view that Petitioner has failed to prove her claim that she was entitled for regularization on the
basis of number of working days with working hours in the Respondent employment as per scheme.
This Point is decided against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.
13.
Point No. III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, it is held that Petitioner is not entitled to
any relief as prayed for and claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the result, the action of the Respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., in orally terminating the
services of the Petitioner Smt. N. Lalitha is hereby held legal and justified. Petitioner is not entitled for
reinstatement/regularization into service. Hence, the petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as such
the present petition stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 9th
day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
3765
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1678.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
णनिेशक, मेससि स्नाइपर एफएमएस इंणडया प्राइिेट णलणमटेड, णसकंिराबाि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री
एम.शंकर, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हैिराबाि
पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 68/2022) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-158-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024
S.O. 1678.—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. 68/2022) 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 Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, and Shri M. Shankar, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-158-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 21th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 68/2022
Between:
Shri M.Shankar,
H.No. 7-1-304/A/1,
Dasaram Basthi,
SR Nagar, Amberpet,
Hyderabad-500038.
..…. Petitioner
AND
The Director,
M/s Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd.
Flat No.301, 3rd Floor,
Srivari Residency, H.No.12-13-118,
Street No.3, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad-500017.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Koka Satyanarayana, Advocate
3766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/16/2022-B1 dated 13/07/2022 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 Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad in termination of
services of Shri M.Shankar, ex-workman is legal, proper and justified or not? If not to what relief Shri
M.Shankar, ex-workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 68/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals
that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and
non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 21th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1679.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार णजला, भारत संचार णनगम णलणमटेड, नलगोंडा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री हचंता
कृष्िैया, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हैिराबाि
पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 152/2013) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-159-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024
S.O. 1679.—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. 152/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Telecom Dist, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nalgonda, and Shri Chinta
Krishnaiah, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 27/08/2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-159-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
3767
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: -
Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 8th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.152/2013
Between:
Sri Chinta Krishnaiah,
S/o Late Kondaiah,
R/o H.No.1-38, Thoragallu Village,
Kanagallu Mandal, Post Chattlachannaram,
Nalgonda District – 508247.
..…. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Dist,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Nalgonda – 508 001.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri B.S.R. Murhty, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Ch. Krishnaiah who worked as Casual Mazdoor (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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of
service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:-
The Petitioner submitted that he was a casual mazdoor in the Respondent organization BSNL which is the
Government of India company and its functions are mainly laying the cables, line works, phone repairing, cable
digging, cable joints etc.. It is submitted that the Respondent was engaging the persons for the above works in the
telephone exchanges from time to time for their needs and the said persons on engagement will be either permanently
or temporarily or casually. Further, it is submitted that normally the persons who are recruited will be disengaged
after completing the above works for some days. But some persons engaged casually will be continued years together
according to the needs of the officers of BSNL. Out of those persons, the Petitioner is one of them and he was
engaged as casual mazdoor continuously for years together. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged in
January 1997 by the SDOT, Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda District for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints,
cable digging, line works, etc. before setting up of BSNL and taking into continuous service of the Petitioner into
consideration, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000. After setting up of BSNL as Government Company
from 1.10.2000 with transfer of telecommunication services by the Department of Telecommunications vide
resolutions dated 24.1.2001 effective from 1.10.2000 and published in the Gazette on 17.3.2001. It is submitted that
the Petitioner was continued as casual mazdoor from 1.10.2000 till 31.12.2012, on which day he was orally
terminated. It is submitted that he was engaged for about 15 years without break in the Prakasam Bazar telephone
exchange. Later, he was reengaged from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 orally. It is submitted that he was engaged in
January 1997 under the control of linemen till 2005. The S.D.O.T. was paying Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. It
is further submitted that he was continued in the same exchange from 2006 to 2009 and received Rs.1500/- in cash
from S.D.O.T.. It is submitted that from 2009 to 2012, he was engaged and continued in the same exchange and got
payment of Rs. 3500/- in Cash. Further, it is submitted that from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013, he was reengaged and
continued in the same exchange and was paid Rs.4000/- in cash. It is submitted that Petitioner was orally terminated
on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation, though he was engaged continuously from January
1997 to 31.12.2012. The J.T.O., have given certificates about working of the Petitioner under them. It is submitted
3768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that the action of the Respondent in not continuing, not regularising and terminating the Petitioner is illegal and
contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that he along with other mazdoors, had made
representations to the Respondent dated 26.4.2008 and 28.4.2008. It is submitted that to his representation dated
8.08.2011, the Respondent wrote a letter to Petitioner on 29.10.2011 directing to submit relevant documents like
appointment order, place of engagement, monthly payment details etc.. Petitioner submitted a letter on 22.1.2013 to
the Respondent in reply. Further, it is submitted that though he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C)
the matter was not settled in the conciliation. It is submitted that Petitioner is a poor Workman belonging to SC
‘Madiga’ community and is having wife and 2 children. He has no other alternative income except salary from the
BSNL. Therefore, prayed to set aside the oral termination order dated 31.12.2012 directing the Respondent to
reinstate the Petitioner into service with back wages.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-
It is submitted that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is a Government of India Enterprise formed in the year 2000. It is
further submitted that Department of Telecommunications have imposed total ban on engagement of casual labour in
the telecom circles/ districts vide D.O.T., New Delhi letter No.270/ 6/84- STN dated 30.3.1985. This ban was
extended to project circles vide DOT New Delhi letter dated 22.6.1988 thereby leaving no scope for engagement of
any casual labour thereafter in any form. It is submitted that Department of Telecommunications vide letter dated
12.2.1999 imposed total ban on the engagement of any casual labour by the Departmental Officers and withdrawn all
the powers through Departmental officers by amending the provisions in P&T Manual, Volume-X except permitting
engagement in contingencies for a period not exceeding 60 days. This policy was further affirmed in letter dated
15.6.1999 with permission to engage casual labour in exigencies for a period of not less than 100 days. It is submitted
that the assertion of the above casual labour to the effect that they have been engaged as such by the Junior Telecom
Officer for the periods as mentioned by them in the claim statement is against the existing policy in the Respondent
department are false and denied. It is submitted that Respondent is engaging the persons for the workshop of laying
the cables, Line works, phone repairing, cable digging, cable joints, etc., in the telephone exchanges from time to time
for their needs on project sites purely on temporary basis. It is further submitted that normally the workers who were
engaged will be disengaged after completing the project work. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that
he was orally terminated on 31/12/2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged
continuously from January, 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any breaks before and after setting up of BSNL and he has
worked for more than 15 years in the same exchange and he is entitled to continue in the service centre regularization
and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner never worked in the
Respondent department for 240 man days continuously in calendar year. It is submitted that the contention of the
Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any details and letters of appointment and payment of wages no
evidence is placed showing his continuous working with the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8
hours in a working day which is essential for the purpose of any industrial dispute. It is submitted that it is a fact that
there is a ban in the department and no casual worker is engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than
100 days depending on the requirement in the department for project sites. It is further submitted that the said ban is
applicable to project sites also. It is submitted that the Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily
wages for the worker endeared by him on project site. He never worked with the department continuously for more
than 240 days. Hence, there is no violation of statutory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. As such, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, that is reinstatement of like regularization with etcetera.
4.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues emerge for determination in this
case:-
I.
Whether the action of the Respondent management- BSNL vide oral Order dated 31st December, 2012, in
terminating the services of the Petitioner in contravention of provisions of Section 25 F of ID Act is legal
and justified?
II.
To what relief if any, the workman is entitled for?
5.
During the hearing, the Workman has testified himself as a WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited in his evidence as Ex.W1 to Ex.W8. On the other hand, Respondent has testified in oral
evidence as MW1 and the witness has also proved documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M4 in support of his contentions.
6.
Heard the Learned Counsels for both the parties. Perused the record.
Findings:-
7.
Point No.I:- WW1 in his chief affidavit has testified that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the SDOT
Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda district for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works,
etc., before setting up of BSNL and taking into consideration of his services, he was engaged continuously from
1.10.2000 onwards in the same exchange, even after setting up of BSNL which is a government company. Further,
WW1 states that he was continued as a casual mazdoor for said works in the same exchange upto 31.12.2012 without
any break and he was orally terminated vide order dated 31.12.2012. Further, witness testifies that he was engaged
by the department for about 15 years without any break and he was also reengaged from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 and
3769
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on which day he was again orally terminated. Further, WW1 states that he was orally terminated vide order dated
31.12.2012 without any notice or paid any retrenchment compensation. He was engaged continuously from 1997 to
31.12.2012 without any break for more than 15 years. Further witness states that JTO have given certificates on
15/10/2009,30/10/2009 and 20/10/2012 about his working in exchange and these certificates have been marked as
exhibits. Witness also states that he worked for more than 240 days in a year and he is entitled for regularization on
par with the permanent employees either in continuing him in employment or regularising his services or paying
retrenchment compensation. Hence, the action of the Respondent in not considering him for regularization and
terminating services is illegal.
8.
Further, in support of his plea, Petitioner Workman has also filed documents Ex.W1 to W8. Undisputedly,
Petitioner has not filed any appointment letter said to be issued by the Respondent in his name or any pay slip as a
proof of his appointment or payment of wages for the alleged period of his employment with the Respondent.
Petitioner has not filed any attendance register as a proof of his employment in Respondent office for alleged period.
Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 contains the provision of retrenchment extracted as below:-
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].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
9.
It is settled law that burden of proof to prove the fact that workman has worked for 240 days continuously
in the Respondent corporation in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination lies upon the
workman. In this context Hon’ble Apex Court have laid down the decisions which are mentioned as below:-
a.
In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court have held,
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the
claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for
any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof
of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was
produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
b.
In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court have held,
“the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year – In absence of proof of
receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.
c.
In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,
“ It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months’
3770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
period.”
d.
In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2005
SC 4065, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,
“It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his
termination.”
10.
In order to discharge onus of proof, of the fact that Petitioner Workman has worked for 240 days
continuously in a calendar year just preceding from his date of termination. Petitioner has not filed any document
i.e., attendance register, pay slip or any appointment letter. So far as documents that has been filed by the Petitioner
in support of his case are, Ex.W1 to W3, these documents are alleged service certificates stated to be issued by the
Respondent management. Ex.W1 bears the name of the Petitioner and it is also mentioned that he has worked in the
year 2000. Ex.W1 service certificate alleged to have been issued by the JTO, on 15.10.2009. Ex.W1 has been
disputed and a denied by the Respondent as a forged document. Further Ex.W2 is also a service certificate alleged to
be issued by the Respondent in the name of Petitioner and contents of Ex.W2 shows that the Petitioner has worked as
daily wager during the year from 9.6.2009 to 30.10.2009. Ex.W2 has also been disputed and denied by the
Respondent. Further, Ex.W3 is also service certificate which reveals that name of the Petitioner has been mentioned
as a daily labour during the year 1.11.2010 to 20.10.2012. Ex.W3 has also been disputed and denied by the
Respondent. The onus of proof lies upon the Petitioner to prove that Ex.W1 to W3 service certificates have been
issued by the competent authority of the Respondent. But Petitioner fails to discharge his onus regarding proof of
these documents. The rest of the documents Ex.W4, Ex.W5 and Ex.W6 does not pertain to the fact of the working
days of the Petitioner.
11.
WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent Counsel and in his cross examination witness stated that, he
joined BSNL in the year 2000 and he was given appointment letter in the year 2000 by the BSNL but the same is lost.
Further, WW1 states that Ex.W1 was given to him in the year 2009 issued by JTO Mr Saraiah. At the time of his
initial appointment, Mr. Saraiah issued appointment order to him. He studied up to 10th class and he is able to read
and understand the contents of Ex.W1. Further, witness states that in Ex.W1, the year of appointment is mentioned as
2000, but not subsequent years. Further witness states that Ex. W2 has been issued for the period mentioned in it i.e.,
9.6.2009 to 30.10.2009 only. The Ex. W1 and W2 were not issued in the same month. But the perusal of these
Ex.W1 and W2 goes to reveal that these documents has been issued on the date 15.10.2009 and 30.10.2009
respectively in the same month. On this aspect, the submission of witness is contradictory to his own statement.
Further witness states that, it is not true to suggest that Ex.W1 and W2 were created by him for the purpose of this
case, as the same have been issued in the same month. Further, witness states that whatever he has stated in the claim
statement regarding his date of joining is correct. But in his deposition, date of joining is incorrect. It is not true to
suggest that he has filed this case falsely in order to harass the Respondent management. Further witness states that
he has not been selected for the post being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he has not made any
application in response to any notification of the Respondent management for recruitment of the department. Thus,
from the aforesaid statement of WW1, the claim of the Petitioner that he has worked continuously for 240 days in
Respondent organization just preceding from the date of his oral termination, is not established.
12.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in support of the contention of the counter. MW1 has
stated in his chief affidavit that the claim of the Petitioner is denied by the Respondent and the plea of the Petitioner
that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the Respondent and have done continuous service from 1.10.2000 is false
and denied. Further MW1 states that Respondent denied statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged in January
1997 and was paid amount of Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. Further, MW1 states that the averment of the claim
statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged from 2006 to 2009 continuously with the same exchange is also
denied. Further, MW1 states that the averment of the claim statement is denied by the Respondent that the Petitioner
was orally terminated on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged from
January 1997 to 31.12.2012. Further, MW1 states that it is false and denied that the Petitioner has worked for more
than 15 years and he is entitled to continue in the service and for regularization. MW1 states the Petitioner never
worked in the Respondent department for 240 days continuously in any calendar year. Further, MW1 states that
Respondent denies the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has not given any opportunity for continuing
him in the employment or regularising his services or paying retrenchment compensation. As MW1 states that
Petitioner has never worked continuously nor fulfilled any mandatory provisions laid down under the Industrial
Disputes Act. Further, MW1 states that contention of the Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any
details and letters of appointment and payment of wages and no evidence placed, showing continuous working with
the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8 hours per working day which is essential for the purpose
of any industrial dispute. Further, MW1 states that on enquiry, it was found that these certificates were fabricated with
the office seals and obtained them by making physical threats by the Petitioner. MW1 also stated that there is a Ban in
the department and no casual worker can be engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than 100 days
depending on the requirement in the department or project sites. Further, the said ban is applicable to project sites
also. The Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily wages for the works rendered by him on
project site. Petitioner never worked with the department continuously for more than 240 days. Respondent did not
3771
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
violated any of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
MW1 has also exhibited documents, Ex. M1 which is the circular dated 30.3.1985 wherein the engagement of casual
labour has been prohibited in the Respondent office. Similarly, Ex.M2, M3 and M4 are also office memorandums
pertaining to for ban on engagement of casual labour in the Respondent management. This witness MW1 was also
cross examined by the Counsel for Petitioner but nothing has been elicited to contradict the testimony of the MW1
which could make the statement of MW1 unbelievable. Petitioner failed to produce any iota of reliable evidence to
prove his claim that he has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his
alleged termination i.e., 31.12.2012.
13.
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the
considered view that the Petitioner has failed to prove his averment of claim statement that he has been terminated
from service by the Respondent vide order dated 31.12.2012 in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F.
This point is answered accordingly.
14 .
Point No.II:- In view of the fore gone discussion, law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and findings
arrived at Point No.I, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claim petition of the petitioner is unfounded
hence liable to be dismissed.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the finding given in the determination of Points No. I and II as above, the action of the
Respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri Ch. Krishnaiah vide oral order dated
31.12.2012 is held just and legal. The claim petition of the petitioner is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the
8th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Ch. Krishnaiah
MW1: Sri N.V. Sree Rama Murthy
Documents marked for the Petitioner
EX.W1: Service certificate dt.15.10.2009
Ex.W2:
Service certificate dt.30.10.2009
Ex.W3:
Service Certificate dt.20.10.2012
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt. 26.4.2008
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt.28.4.2008
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of representation dt. 22.1.2013 of Petitioner to Respondent.
Ex.W7: Office copy of lr. from D.E., (Admn, BSNL, Nalgonda to G.M.,, BSNL dt. 26.7.2013 /17.7.2013reg.
disengagement of Petitioner & ors.
Ex.W8: Certificate issued by ALC(C) dt.26.7.2013 to the Petitioner.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.30.3.1985
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.22.6.1988
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of order, reg. disengaging mazdoors those who have entered after cut-off date dt.12.2.1999
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of ban orders on the engagement of casual labourers dt.15.6.1999
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024
का.आ. 1680.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार णजला, भारत संचार णनगम णलणमटेड, नलगोंडा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री कोठा
3772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
हलंगैया, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हैिराबाि
पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 153/2013) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-160-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024
S.O. 1680.—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. 153/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Telecom Dist, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nalgonda, and Shri Kotha
Lingaiah, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-160-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 9th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.153/2013
Between:
Sri Kotha Lingaiah,
S/o Muttaiah,
R/o Khudhavanpur village,
Pagidimarri Post,
Nalgonda Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
.. ….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager, Telecom Dist,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Nalgonda – 508 001.
… .Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri B.S.R. Murhty, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Kotha Lingaiah who worked as Casual Mazdoor (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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of
service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:-
The Petitioner submitted that he was a casual mazdoor in the Respondent organization BSNL which is the
Government of India company and its functions are mainly laying the cables, line works, phone repairing, cable
digging, cable joints etc.. It is submitted that the Respondent was engaging the persons for the above works in the
telephone exchanges from time to time for their needs and the said persons on engagement will be either permanently
3773
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
or temporarily or casually. Further, it is submitted that normally the persons who are recruited will be disengaged
after completing the above works for some days. But some persons engaged casually will be continued years together
according to the needs of the officers of BSNL. Out of those persons, the Petitioner is one of them and he was
engaged as casual mazdoor continuously for years together. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged in
January 1997 by the SDOT, Ramagiri Telephone Exchange and Vivekananda Telephone Exchange, Nalgonda District
for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works, etc. before setting up of BSNL and
taking into continuous service of the Petitioner into consideration, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000.
After setting up of BSNL as Government Company from 1.10.2000 with transfer of telecommunication services by
the Department of Telecommunications vide resolutions dated 24.1.2001 effective from 1.10.2000 and published in
the Gazette on 17.3.2001. It is submitted that the Petitioner was continued as casual mazdoor from 1.10.2000 till
31.12.2012, on which day he was orally terminated. It is submitted that he was engaged for about 15 years without
break in the Prakasam Bazar telephone exchange. Later, he was reengaged from 17.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 orally. It is
submitted that he was engaged in January 1997 under the control of linemen till 2005. The S.D.O.T. was paying
Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that from 2006 to 2012, he was engaged and continued in
the same exchange and got payment of Rs. 4000/- in Cash. Further, it is submitted that from 17 .4.2013 to
20.6.2013, he was reengaged and continued in the same exchange. It is submitted that Petitioner was orally terminated
on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation, though he was engaged continuously from January
1997 to 31.12.2012. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent in not continuing, not regularising and
terminating the Petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that he along with
other mazdoors, had made representations to the Respondent dated 26.4.2008 and 28.4.2008. It is submitted that to
his representation dated 8.08.2011, the Respondent wrote a letter to Petitioner on 29.10.2011 directing to submit
relevant documents like appointment order, place of engagement, monthly payment details etc.. Petitioner submitted a
letter on 22.1.2013 to the Respondent in reply. Further, it is submitted that though he approached the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C) the matter was not settled in the conciliation. It is submitted that Petitioner is a poor
Workman belonging to BC ‘D’ community and is having wife and three children. He has no other alternative income
except salary from the BSNL. Therefore, prayed to set aside the oral termination order dated 31.12.2012 directing the
Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with back wages.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-
It is submitted that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is a Government of India Enterprise formed in the year 2000. It
is further submitted that Department of Telecommunications have imposed total ban on engagement of casual labour
in the telecom circles/ districts vide D.O.T., New Delhi letter No.270/ 6/84- STN dated 30.3.1985. This ban was
extended to project circles vide DOT New Delhi letter dated 22.6.1988 thereby leaving no scope for engagement of
any casual labour thereafter in any form. It is submitted that Department of Telecommunications vide letter dated
12.2.1999 imposed total ban on the engagement of any casual labour by the Departmental Officers and withdrawn all
the powers through Departmental officers by amending the provisions in P&T Manual, Volume-X except permitting
engagement in contingencies for a period not exceeding 60 days. This policy was further affirmed in letter dated
15.6.1999 with permission to engage casual labour in exigencies for a period of not less than 100 days. It is submitted
that the assertion of the above casual labour to the effect that they have been engaged as such by the Junior Telecom
Officer for the periods as mentioned by them in the claim statement is against the existing policy in the Respondent
department are false and denied. It is submitted that Respondent is engaging the persons for the workshop of laying
the cables, Line works, phone repairing, cable digging, cable joints, etc., in the telephone exchanges from time to time
for their needs on project sites purely on temporary basis. It is further submitted that normally the workers who were
engaged will be disengaged after completing the project work. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that
he was orally terminated on 31/12/2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged
continuously from January, 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any breaks before and after setting up of BSNL and he has
worked for more than 15 years in the same exchange and he is entitled to continue in the service centre regularization
and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner never worked in the
Respondent department for 240 man days continuously in calendar year. It is submitted that the contention of the
Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any details and letters of appointment and payment of wages no
evidence is placed showing his continuous working with the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8
hours in a working day which is essential for the purpose of any industrial dispute. It is submitted that it is a fact that
there is a ban in the department and no casual worker is engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than
100 days depending on the requirement in the department for project sites. It is further submitted that the said ban is
applicable to project sites also. It is submitted that the Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily
wages for the worker endeared by him on project site. He never worked with the department continuously for more
than 240 days. Hence, there is no violation of statutory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. As such, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, that is reinstatement of like regularization with etcetera.
4.
On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues emerge for determination in this
case:-
I.
Whether the action of the Respondent management- BSNL vide oral Order dated 31st December, 2012, in
3774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminating the services of the Petitioner in contravention of provisions of Section 25 F of ID Act is legal
and justified?
II.
To what relief if any, the workman is entitled for?
5.
During the hearing, the Workman has testified himself as a WW1 and also filed documents in evidence
which has been exhibited in his evidence as Ex.W1 to Ex.W5. On the other hand, Respondent has testified in oral
evidence as MW1 and the witness has also proved documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M4 in support of his contentions.
6.
Heard the Learned Counsels for both the parties. Perused the record.
Findings:-
7.
Point No.I:- WW1 in his chief affidavit has testified that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the SDOT
Ramagiri Telephone Exchange and Vivekananda Telephone Exchange, Nalgonda district for cable laying work,
telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works, etc., before setting up of BSNL and taking into
consideration of his services, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000 onwards in the same exchange, even
after setting up of BSNL which is a government company. Further, WW1 states that he was continued as a casual
mazdoor for said works in the same exchange upto 31.12.2012 without any break and he was orally terminated vide
order dated 31.12.2012. Further, witness testifies that he was engaged by the department for about 15 years without
any break and he was also reengaged from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 and on which day he was again orally terminated.
Further, WW1 states that he was orally terminated vide order dated 31.12.2012 without any notice or paid any
retrenchment compensation. He was engaged continuously from 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any break for more
than 15 years. Witness also states that he worked for more than 240 days in a year and he is entitled for
regularization on par with the permanent employees either in continuing him in employment or regularising his
services or paying retrenchment compensation. Hence, the action of the Respondent in not considering him for
regularization and terminating services is illegal.
8.
Further, in support of his plea, Petitioner Workman has also filed documents Ex.W1 to W5. Undisputedly,
Petitioner has not filed any appointment letter said to be issued by the Respondent in his name or any pay slip as a
proof of his appointment or payment of wages for the alleged period of his employment with the Respondent.
Petitioner has not filed any attendance register as a proof of his employment in Respondent office for alleged period.
Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 contains the provision of retrenchment extracted as below:-
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].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident
or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of
the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
9. It is settled law that burden of proof to prove the fact that workman has worked for 240 days continuously
in the Respondent corporation in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination lies upon the
3775
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman. In this context Hon’ble Apex Court have laid down the decisions which are mentioned as below:-
a.
In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court have held,
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for
the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for
240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or
engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set
aside.”
b. In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court have held,
“the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year – In absence of proof of
receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.
c. In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,
“ It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12
months’ period.”
d. In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2005
SC 4065, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,
“It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his
termination.”
10.
In order to discharge onus of proof, of the fact that Petitioner Workman has worked for 240 days
continuously in a calendar year just preceding from his date of termination. Petitioner has not filed any document
i.e., attendance register, pay slip or any appointment letter. So far as documents that has been filed by the Petitioner
in support of his case are, Ex.W1 to W5. But Petitioner fails to discharge his onus regarding proof of these
documents. The documents Ex.W1 to Ex.W3 are his representations, Ex.W4 and Ex.W5 does not pertain to the
fact of the working days of the Petitioner.
11.
WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent Counsel and in his cross examination witness stated that, he
joined BSNL in the year 1997. At the time of his initial appointment, no appointment order was issued to him by
Mr. Saraiah. He studied up to 10th class and but he do not remember when he was passed, but in the year 2013 he
cleared all his papers. He stated that he has worked under different JTOs. He has not filed any document to show
that he has worked for 240 days continuously in a year. Thus, from the aforesaid statement of WW1, the claim of
the Petitioner that he has worked continuously for 240 days in Respondent organization just preceding from the date
of his oral termination, is not established.
12.
On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in support of the contention of the counter. MW1 has
stated in his chief affidavit that the claim of the Petitioner is denied by the Respondent and the plea of the Petitioner
that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the Respondent and have done continuous service from 1.10.2000 is false
and denied. Further MW1 states that Respondent denied statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged in January
1997 and was paid amount of Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. Further, MW1 states that the averment of claim
statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged from 2006 to 2009 continuously with the same exchange is also
denied. Further, MW1 states that the averment of the claim statement is denied by the Respondent that the Petitioner
was orally terminated on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged from
January 1997 to 31.12.2012. Further, MW1 states that it is false and denied that the Petitioner has worked for more
than 15 years and he is entitled to continue in the service and for regularization. MW1 states the Petitioner never
worked in the Respondent department for 240 days continuously in any calendar year. Further, MW1 states that
Respondent denies the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has not given any opportunity for continuing
him in the employment or regularising his services or paying retrenchment compensation. As MW1 states that
Petitioner has never worked continuously nor fulfilled any mandatory provisions laid down under the Industrial
Disputes Act. Further, MW1 states that contention of the Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any
details and letters of appointment and payment of wages and no evidence placed, showing continuous working with
the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8 hours per working day which is essential for the purpose
of any industrial dispute. Further, MW1 states that on enquiry, it was found that these certificates were fabricated
with the office seals and obtained them by making physical threats by the Petitioner. MW1 also stated that there is a
Ban in the department and no casual worker can be engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than 100
days depending on the requirement in the department or project sites. Further, the said ban is applicable to project
sites also. The Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily wages for the works rendered by him on
3776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
project site. Petitioner never worked with the department continuously for more than 240 days. Respondent did not
violated any of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
MW1 has also exhibited documents, Ex. M1 which is the circular dated 30.3.1985 wherein the engagement of casual
labour has been prohibited in the Respondent office. Similarly, Ex.M2, M3 and M4 are also office memorandums
pertaining to for ban on engagement of casual labour in the Respondent management. This witness MW1 was also
cross examined by the Counsel for Petitioner but nothing has been elicited to contradict the testimony of the MW1
which could make the statement of MW1 unbelievable. Petitioner failed to produce any iota of reliable evidence to
prove his claim that he has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his
alleged termination i.e., 31.12.2012.
13.
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the
considered view that the Petitioner has failed to prove his averment of claim statement that he has been terminated
from service by the Respondent vide order dated 31.12.2012 in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F.
This point is answered accordingly.
14 .
Point No.II:- In view of the fore gone discussion, law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and findings
arrived at Point No.I, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claim petition of the petitioner is unfounded
hence liable to be dismissed.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the finding given in the determination of Points No. I and II as above, the action of the
Respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri Kotha Lingaiah vide oral order dated
31.12.2012 is held just and legal. The claim petition of the petitioner is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the
9th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Kotha Lingaiah
MW1: Sri N.V. Sree Rama Murthy
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt. 26.4.2008
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt.28.4.2008
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of representation dt. 22.1.2013 of Petitioner to Respondent.
Ex.W4:
Office copy of lr. from D.E., (Admn, BSNL, Nalgonda to G.M.,, BSNL dt. 26.7.2013 /17.7.2013reg.
disengagement of Petitioner & ors.
Ex.W5:
Certificate issued by ALC(C) dt.26.7.2013 to the Petitioner.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.30.3.1985
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.22.6.1988
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of order, reg. disengaging mazdoors those who have entered after cut-off date
dt.12.2.1999
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of ban orders on the engagement of casual labourers dt.15.6.1999
नई दिल्ली, 28.अगस् त 2024
का.आ. 1681.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्द्द्रीय सरकार
मेससि गोकुल इंजीणनयररंग एसोणसएट्स, णिशाखापत्तनम; महाप्रबंिक, मेससि हहंिुस्तान णशपयाडि णलणमटेड, गांिीग्राम
(पीओ),णिशाखापत्तनम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री जे.ए. सत्यम, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्ििष्ट
3777
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 12/2017) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाणशत करती है जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. एल-14011/130/2016-आईआर(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि
New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024
S.O. 1681.—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. 12/2017) 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 M/s Gokul Engineering Associates, Vishakapatnam ;The General Manager, M/s Hindustan Shipyard
Ltd., Gandhigram (PO), Vishakapatnam, and The General Secretary, Shipyard Contract Labour Union
(CITU), Venkannapalem, Malkapuram, Vishakapatnam, which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 27/08/2024.
[No. L-14011/130/2016-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 5th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 12/2017
Between:
The General Secretary,
Shipyard Contract Labour Union (CITU)
CITU Office, Door No. 61-4-19/A,
Venkannapalem, Malkapuram,
Vishakapatnam-530011.
.. ….Petitioner
AND
1. M/s Gokul Engineering Associates,
HSL Commercial Complex,
Scindia New Colony,
Gandhigram (PO)
Vishakapatnam-530005.
2. The General Manager,
M/s Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.
Gandhigram (PO)
Vishakapatnam-530005.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri C.H Ravi, Advocate of R1
Shri Saibaba & Srinivas, Advocate of R2
3778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-14011/30/2016 (IR(DU)) dated 06/04/2017
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 workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Gokul Engineering Associates, Contractor of Hindustan
Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri B. Prabhakar Rao & Sri G. Sanjeeva Rao
without complying section 25 (F) of ID Act, 1947 is legal and or justified ? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to ?’
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 12/2017 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any
claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his
case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘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 5th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA
NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA
NATH YADAVA
Date: 2024.09.07 10:50:27 +05'30'