5929 GI/2024

(4001)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 38]

नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 22—जसतम् बर 28, 2024, िजनवार/ भाद्र 31—आजिन 6, 1946

No. 38]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 22— SEPTEMBER 28, 2024, SATURDAY/BHADRA 31– ASVINA 6, 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

(सी. ृी. वी.)

नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1814.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा,सरकार भारत के िूतावास,अदिस अबाबा मे^ेँ श्री जवकास िमाा, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी, को

जसतम्बर 19, 2024 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2024(31]

एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-l)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-07102024-257728

CG-DL-W-07102024-257728

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-07102024-257728

CG-DL-W-07102024-257728

4002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2024

S.O. 1814.—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 Vikas Sharma,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Addis Ababa, to perform the

consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from September 19, 2024.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2024(31)]

S. R. H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 6 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1815.—केन्द्र सरकार, रािीव गांिी ृेरोजल म प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान (आरिीआईृीटी) अजिजन म

2007 की िारा 5(1) के तित प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, प्रो. ए.बी. ृंजडत, उृकुलृजत, रसा जनक प्रौद्यौजगकी

संस्ट् ान, मुम्बई को आरिीआईृीटी के बोडा ऑफ गवानसा के अध् क्ष के प ृ में ृि का का ाभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से

तीन वर्ा की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, एतिारा जन ुि करती िज।

[फा. सं. एफृी- 22015/31/2023-ृीएनिी (ई-48013)]

कला, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2024

S.O. 1815.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum

Energy (RGIPT) Act 2007, the Central Government hereby appoints Prof. A.B. Pandit, Vice Chancellor, Institute of

Chemical Technology, Mumbai as President of Board of Governors of RGIPT for a period of three years with effect

from the date of assumption of charge of the post or until further orders whichever is earlier.

[F. No. FP-22015/31/2023-PNG (E-48013)]

KALA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1816.—केन्द्र सरकार, भारती ृेरोजल म और ऊिाा संस्ट् ान अजिजन म 2017 के जन म 15(1) के

तित प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री अजनल चलामालासेटषी, ग्रुृ के मु्‍ का ाकारी अजिकारी और प्रबंि जनिेिक,

ग्रीनको ग्रुृ और डॉ. मोंटी डॉबसन, मु्‍ का ाकारी अजिकारी और िेि के प्रमु प्रबंिक, मजससा एक्सॉनमोजबल

आईआईृीई को तीन वर्ा की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, मिाृररर्ि के सिस्ट् के प ृ में

तत्काल प्रभाव से एतिारा नामांदकत करती िज।

[फा. सं. एफृी- 22015/42/2023-ृीएनिी (ई-48507)]

कला, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2024

S.O. 1816.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 15(1) of the Indian Institute of Petroleum and

Energy Act 2017, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Anil Chalamalasetty, the Group CEO & MD,

Greenko Group and Dr. Monte Dobson, CEO & Lead Country Manager, M/s. ExxonMobil as Members of General

Council of IIPE with immediate effect for a period of three years or until further orders whichever is earlier.

[F. No. FP-22015/42/2023-PNG (E-48507)]

KALA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4003

मत्स्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल

(ृिुृालन और डे री जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1817.—केंद्र सरकार,ृिुओं के प्रजत क्रूरता जनवारण अजिजन म,1960 (1960 का 59) की िारा 4 की

उृ-िारा (1) और िारा 5क द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मत् स्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल ,

ृिुृालन और डे री जवभाग द्वारा भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण, भाग II, ंड-3 उृ- ंड(ii) में प्रकाजित दिनांक

15.05.2023 की अजिसूचना का.आ. 2222 (अ) को प्रकािन की जतज से तत् काल प्रभाव से संिोजित करती िज, अ ाात्: -

(1) उि अजिसूचना में, क्रम सं्‍ ा 18 ृर दिए गए नाम को ‘जवलोजृत’ माना िाए।

(2) इसके अलावा, केन्द्री सरकार, डा. अजभिीत जमत्रा, ृिुृालन आ ुि, ृिुृालन और डे री जवभाग, मत्स्ट् ृालन,

ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल को भारती िीव-िंतु कल् ाण बोडा का अध् क्ष नाजमत करती िज।

(3) इसके अलावा, केंद्री सरकार द्वारा दिनांक 15 मई, 2023 को िारी का.आ. 2222 (अ) के द्वारा िारी अजिसूचना

इसके िारी िोने की जतज से तीन वर्ा तक वजि रिेगी ।

[फा.सं. वी-11/18/2019-प्रिा.-6]

अनाजमका जनगम, अवर सजचव

नोट: भारती िीव-िंतु कल् ाण बोडा के ृुनगा न से संबंजित ृूवा अजिसूचना का.आ. 2222 (अ) भारत के रािृत्र में

दिनांक 15 मई, 2023 को प्रकाजित हुई ी और जिसे का.आ.2353(अ) दिनांक 22 मई, 2023 और का.आ.

3911(अ) दिनांक 01 जसतंबर, 2023 के द्वारा आगे और संिोजित दक ा ग ा ा।

MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING

(Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying)

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2024

S.O. 1817.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 and Section 5A of the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 (59 of 1960), the Central Government hereby amends the notification S.O.

2222(E) dated 15.05.2023 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 sub-section(ii) by the

Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying with

immediate effect from the date of publication, namely:-

(1) In the said notification, name at Serial No. 18 may be treated as “deleted”.

(2) Further, the Central Government nominates Dr. Abhijit Mitra, Animal Husbandry Commissioner, Department of

Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying as Chairman of the Animal

Welfare Board of India.

(3) Further, the notification is issued by the Central Government S.O. 2222(E) dated 15^th May, 2023 shall be valid for

three years from the date of notification.

[F. No. V-11/18/2019-Admin_6]

ANAMIKA NIGAM, Under Secy.

Note: The earlier notification regarding reconstitution of the Animal Welfare Board of India were published in the

Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2222(E) dated 15^th May, 2023 and further amended vide S.O. 2353(E)

dated 22^nd May, 2023 and S.O. 3911(E) dated 01^st September,2023.

4004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1818.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी बी. एम. बी. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-सि-

नंबर II] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-23012/6/2004-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2024

S.O. 1818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.129/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/08/2024.

[No. L-23012/6/2004 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 129 /2005

Registered on:- 20.07.2005

Chunni Lal S/o Sh. Dhani Ram workman being represented thorugh his LRs as under:

i. Veena Devi wife of Late Sh. Chunni Lal

ii. Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal.

All Residnets of Village Mohin P.O. Gopalan Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi.

….……....Workman

Versus

Bhakra Beas management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project Sundernagar Township, Distt. Mandi, (HP).

…..Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:- 19.07.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/6 /2004-IR(CM-II), dated 07.07.2005, under clause (d) of

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

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the demand of Shri Chunni Lal for reinstatement in the services of BBMB, Sunder Nagar is

legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

At the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that Chunni Lal expired 20.09.2023, during the pendency of

reference and his LRs were impleaded as party in his place on 25.10.2023.

The brief facts, related to the case are that the construction of Beas Sutluj Link Project{hereinafter called as

BSL(P)} started in the year 1962 under Beas Control Board, which was constituted on 10.02.1961 with its

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4005

headquarter at Sundernagar and this project was under the control of Centre Government, who had been constructing,

maintaining, operating and administrating it through various Boards in different phases. After passing of Pb. Re-

Organisation Act, 1966(hereinafter called “Re-Organisation Act”) Beas Control Board was replaced by Beas

Construction Board(hereinafter called as BCB). The workman was employed by BCB on 22.01.1966. The workman

who was employed in Beas Project(Unit-1) become the employee of Bhakra Beas Management Board(hereinafter

called as BBMB) in pursuance of proviso (1) of Section 80(3) and Section 80(5) of Re-organisation Act and the

workman become the employee of the Centre Government under the management of B.B.M.B. from 15.05.1976. The

workman has completed 240 days in every calendar year and was not interrupted till his retrenchment. The employer

made a bulk retrenchment of project employees in the year 1977 and 1978 and also in stages thereafter till 1984. The

workman was also retrenched by the employer on 09.03.1979 on account of reduction in strength due to part

completion of the BSL(P) and re-employment certificate was issued by the office of re-settlement B.S.L/B.B.M.B.

Sundernagar for the re-employment of the retrenched workmen of B.S.L.(P)(BBMB) in accordance with provision of

the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, thousands of other persons were appointed secretly by employer,

violating Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The employer is also doing unfair labour practices as

defined in Section 2(R)A of the ID Act. Management has also violated the provisions of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial

Dispute(Central) Rule, 1957(hereinafter called “The Industrial Rules”). By filling vacant posts, the employer declared

some posts as surplus and retrenched the employees working on those posts.

It is also maintained that the present workman and other workmen have filed a Civil Writ Petition

No.403/1996, titled as Sant Ram and 87 others Vs. BBMB in the Hon’ble High Court of Shimla for their re-

employment and in the said writ petition management filed reply dated 16.04.1996 by way of affidavit and admitted

that retrenched workmen are employee of BBMB. The workmen have then withdrew the writ petition and filed civil

suits for declaring them as a retrenched workmen of BBMB before the Sub-Judge, 1^st Class, Sunder Nagar, Distt.

Mandi(HP), on 21.01.1997 and later on those suits were decided on 05.07.2002 and all plaints were returned to the

workmen to be filed before the competent authority on the basis of which the present proceedings were initiated after

referring of the dispute of workman from the Ministry of Labour on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, management filed writ

petition before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the order of Ministry on 07.07.2005 and the same

was dismissed on 07.05.2007 and Special Leave Petition filed bearing nos.16939-17007 of 2007 in Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India by the management was also dismissed on 08.07.2014. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of

the workman may kindly be allowed and workman be continued in the service of the management and be regularized

and further be given all the consequential benefits.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that workman is Ex-work charged employee of Beas

Construction Board, which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was

retrenched after completion of the work of BCB in the year 1979. The workman was paid terminal benefits i.e.

retrenchment compensation, gratuity, ex-gratia amount on account of his retrenchment from BCB as per provisions of

ID Act. It is further maintained that BCB and present management are two distinct and separate entities. It is also

maintained that construction of Beas Project was undertaken by the Punjab Govt. Irrigation Department prior to the

re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab on 01.01.1966. After re-organisation the work of BSL(P) was taken

over by the Central Govt. on behalf of partner states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. The Central Govt. constituted

BCB under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act and further stipulated that any component of Beas Project in

relation to which the construction has been completed be transferred by the Central Govt. to Bhakra Management

Board(hereinafter called as BMB) constituted under Section 79(1) of the Re-organisation Act. It is further stated

under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act that BMB would be re-named as BBMB when any component of Beas

Project was transferred under Section 80(6) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was employed by the BCB.

Thus, the workman never remained the employee of management. However, it is stated that 1093 work-charged and

12 contingent paid employees of Beas Project were sent on job order basis to Ranjit Sagar Dam, Punjab. They were

taken over by the management under the benevolent policy of the Central Govt. as Central Govt. had given directions

to BBMB to absorb these employees. The remaining work-charged employees were not entitled for the said benefit.

Even work-charged employees of the BCB had filed a petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as

Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC 440, in which their claim for absorbing them in

BBMB is not granted instead their retrenchment from BCB was upheld. Remaining averments have been denied and

it is stated that the claim of the workman is hopelessly time barred and the workman has no legal enforceable right to

claim employment in BBMB. It is prayed that claim be dismiss.

A replication was also filed by workman contravening the facts taken in written statement as reiterating the

facts as stated in claim petition.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman Chunni Lal has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A

and has been cross-examined by the learned law officer of management. He also tendered document Ex. W-1

Discharge Certificate, Ex.W-2 Identity Card.

4006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The management has filed affidavit of N.M. Jain, Sub-Divisional Offic11er, Sub- Division BBMB Sunder

Nagar, who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of

workman.

While arguing the case, learned Law Officer for the management contended that initially Beas Control Board

was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from

Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, BMB

was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself.

Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be

re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the

BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project have been so transferred. All the projects under

BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in 1984. Present workman was employed as work

charged employee 22.01.1966 and was retrenched on 09.03.1979. All similar work charged employees including the

present workman was engaged by the BCB which ceased to exist in the year 1984 therefore, the workmen cannot be

termed as the employees of the BBMB because there does not exist BCB which was his parent department. Moreover,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC

440 has held that work charged employees were bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected by the

management and also by the award 2-C of the year 1971 before Sh. H.R. Sodhi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh

between workman and employees of the Beas Construction Board, Sunder Nagar and published in the gazette on

15.06.1974 of the Govt. of India.

10.

So far as the claim of the workman regarding re-employment after retrenchment on 09.03.1979 is concerned,

workman was not entitled for re-instatement as in a case under reference no.2-C of 1971 decided by Sh. H.R. Sodhi,

the then Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh, it was held that management in order to establish an industrial pleas

and to secure the work charge employees after completing the work can engage after completion of project at any

time within 6 months for the maintenance of staff for project of any work if it is required to those work charged

employees in order to seniority who have put 10 years of service. The relevant portion of para is reproduced as below:

“It is accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six

months thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or

transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first

be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous

service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical

fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected.“

11.

Because the present workman had not completed 10 years of service so he is not entitled for re-employment.

Learned representative for the management further contended that in this case workman was retrenched on

09.03.1979 after receiving due retrenchment compensation etc. and now he is claiming re-employment under Section

25-H of the Act and his claim is hopelessly time barred as he has filed the present claim petition on 20.07.2005. To

support this view he has placed reliance in the case titled as Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal,

AIR 2006, Supreme Court 2682, wherein in identical matters Court has not entertained writ petition due to inordinate

delay. In the present case there is a delay of about 27 years. He also relied upon the case titled as Ram Chand Vs. The

BBMB and another, CWP no.2787 of 2018, decided on 03.12.2018(Annexure R-4) where the Hon’ble Himachal

Pradesh High Court has held that dispute if any ought to be raised within a reasonable period as the ID Act does not

prescribed time limit for referring such dispute. In the present case workman was engaged as Beldar in the year 1966

and was discharged on 09.03.1979 and he has sought re-employment after 39 years which was held to be highly time

barred. Thus, he contended that claim of workman is time barred. Workman was discharged on 09.03.1979 and

thereafter he filed present claim before the Labour Conciliation Officer on 30.11.2005.

12.

While arguing the case, learned AR for the workman contended that in this case workman was discharged on

09.03.1979 due to reduction in strength and he was issued discharge certificate by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar. He referred to Section 25-H of the ID Act which provides re-employment of retrenched workman. He

further has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of the workman. He was required to be adjust in

view of under Section 25-G of the Act by the management Discharge Certificate was issued by the Management. He

was not given any employment. While arguing further, learned AR for the workman referred to Rule 77 and 78 of the

Industrial Dispute Central Rule 1957(hereinafter called Industrial Rule). Rule 77 provides maintenance of seniority

list of workman and it states that before any worker is retrenched the appellant-establishment is required to place on

the notice board the seniority list of all the workmen who were to be retrenched but nothing has been done in this

regard before retrenchment of the present worker. She also referred to Rule 78 which provides that as and when any

vacancy incurred then retrenched workmen were required to be given registered notice but nothing was done by the

management. Moreover, question of limitation does not arise as no limitation period has been prescribed under the

Act for seeking relief under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act. Learned AR for the workman

further contended that even reference made by the Government dated 07.07.2005 was challenged by the management

in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Writ Petition No.3100 of 2006 and their writ petition was

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4007

dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 07.05.2007. Even SLP filed against the order dated 07.05.2007 was upheld

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.16979/2007 dated 08.07.2014.

13.

I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman and also for

the management.

14.

The management relied upon mainly in this case on the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another(supra),

which is very material for decision of this case. The said judgment deals with two types of petitioners. First type of

petitioners were employed by the BCB on purely temporary basis and they had also given written undertaking

confirming the term of their appointment. The BCB appointed the first type of petitioners on ad hoc basis with a clear

understanding that they will have no right to be retained in service after the completion of the Beas Project. They are

Engineers, Section Officer, Accounts Clerk, Teacher etc. and they have claimed their parity with other employees

who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Governments and who were serving on deputation

in connection with the works of the BhakraNangal Scheme.

15.

In respect of these employees, it was held as follow:-

“To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their

conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to the

benefit of any of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make

representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to grant

to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid rules,

including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service under

rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the services of the

Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the proposed

retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and distinct

classes.”

16.

As regards, second type of employees i.e. work charged employees the judgment deals in Para 41, 42, 43, 44,

45, 46 and 47 which read as follow:-

“41. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the

wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who are

borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of

the work.

42. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The

work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the

execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come

to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get

any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits

under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.

43. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are

entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from

that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment9 and modification.

The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other

petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory benefits.

44. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made to

the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of 'last come, first go'

has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged

employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect notwithstanding

anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders made under the

Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.

45. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them, about

26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the workmen

and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the work-

charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of section

18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is

binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they

were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v.

4008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

JatinChakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in order to bind the work

men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show that they belonged to the union which took

part in the conciliation proceedings, since the policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended

operation to such settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the

work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement will therefore bind

all the work-charged employees.

46. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial

Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-

charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the

management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the

workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid

award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees, involving a

burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.

47. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between

them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have

accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974 they are not entitled to any rights apart from

those flowing from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. SLP No.1246 of 1979 which is filed to challenge

the Award and C.M.P. No.2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of over four and half

years caused in filing the SLP shall have to be dismissed.”

17.

Thus, from the above observation of Supreme Court it is clear that work charged employees are engaged on a

temporary basis and their appointments are made for the specified work and their service comes to an end on the

completion of work for the sole purpose of which they are employed.

18.

Para 43 provides that work charged employees are industrial worker and entitled to the benefit of the

provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which

even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. Para 45 as reproduced above further provides

that in the conciliation proceeding it has been held that there were about 36000 work charged employees working on

Beas Project out of them 26000 has already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived

between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour

Commissioner(Central), New Delhi under Section 12 of the ID Act. The said settlement is binding on all the work

charge employees who are working in the establishment to which the dispute relates. In para 46 it is further stated that

apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceeding an award was made by the CGIT Chandigarh in reference

no.2-C in an industrial dispute between the work charged employee of the Beas Sutlej Project, Sundernagar with

which we are concerned and the management. A consent formula was evolved to which the workmen virtually agreed.

In the last para 47 itself specifically stated that work charged employees are bound by the settlement and award May

15, 1974 and they were entitled to rights those flowing from the settlement and award.

19.

So far as the settlement executed between the work charged employees and management through unions, the

same has not been produced by the management despite opportunity was given to file the same. Thus, adverse

interference can be drawn against them. To support this view, reliance can be placed to the judgment of Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court in case held as2001(3) RSJ 382 Ambika Parashad Versus Punjab Urban Planning

and Development Authority Chandigarh and Another wherein it has been held “that respondent has not

produced record in the Labour Court to prove that Workman has not completed 240 days of service though

application was submitted by the Workman for production of record held that a person in possession of the

best evidence has to produce the same, otherwise adverse inference can be drawn against the said party”. In

this case also as per order dated 01.05.2024 of this Tribunal. Respondent were asked to produce the settlement arrived

between the 12 union of the work charged employee and management under Section 12 of ID Act before the Regional

Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and all the work charged employee were bound by the said settlement. However,

despite of availing 2-3 opportunities i.e. 20.05.2024, 20.06.2024 and 09.07.2024 the said policy was not produced and

as such adverse inference can be drawn against the management in view of the above law.

20.

As regards award passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, the relevant claim of the work

charged employees was regarding their regularization services and the finding given by the Tribunal is as follow:-

“Regulation of Services of the workcharged employees.

It is an un-disputed fact that the entire strength of labour as employed in the Project is workcharged. The

institution of workcharged establishment is not only necessary but sometime unavoidable. These workmen

are engaged on temporary basis and their services are utilized for the execution of a specified work for which

they may be suited. From the very nature of employment the services of such workman automatically come to

an end on the completion of the work. A workcharged employee does not get any relief under the Payment of

Gratuity Act nor is he benefitted by the employees state Insurance Scheme. He does not indeed enjoy any

retiral benefits. Before partition of the country in 1947 it was not usual to have project, construction of

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4009

which required a number of years to complete but after constituting ourselves into a democratic Republic

and the Government having taken in hand five year plans for development of the country there are various

schemes involving the construction of works for a period extending over several years as is the case of the

instant Project. It commenced in 1962 and more than 12 years having passed the completion might take

another few years. In such situation it seems reasonable and fair that a workman who has, like a regular

employee, spent the part of his life ranging from 5-10 years upto 20 year, should not be thrown on the road

and must be assured some benefits as are available to regular staff. The other aspect of the matter is that the

employer could not compelled to retain workcharged employees after the work for which the latter had been

engaged is completed, as after all, he was employed before a particular job and the employer, be it the

Government or any of its public undertakings, cannot taken upon itself the responsibility of that workman

for all time to come. It can be well argued that such a workmen should feel happy and content that instead of

remaining un-employed be got employment for a long time.

To assure Industrial peace and economic justice to such class of workmen some balance has in my opinion

to be stuck between the two extremes. It is the duty of the State under the Directive Principles enunciated in

part 4 of the constitution to secure and protect that social order in which justice, social and economic could

be had by all institutions of national life. I fell that it is equally the duty of an adjudicator of industrial

disputes charged with the duty of administering social justice to be guided by the fundamentals contained in

this chapter though he has to bear In mind the limits of the economic capacity of the employer and

Endeavour must have ever be made to secure work for every citizen do in our present economy. It is not

possible to immediately achieve that object. The workman employed by the respondent management are

drawn from different states out of which I am informed about 8/10 thousands are from Punjab about 22000

from Himachal Pradesh and the remaining from the states of Rajasthan and Haryana. Some of the workmen

are from U.P and Bihar and a handful from Kerala. The board hasby and large been consistently following

the Punjab pattern in the matter of wage structure, revision thereof from time to time and grant of dearness

allowance. It is only with regard to categories not appearing in the common Schedule of Rates prepared by

the erstwhile United State of Punjab that the board took its independence decisions on the recommendations

of its own standing committee.Even Himachal Pradesh Government generally followed the Punjab

policy.The state government of Punjab in its wisdom, and I should say rightly has declared that the services

of work charged employees in building and roads branch who had worked for 10 years or more would stand

regularized in the sense that the workmen would be treated at par with those in the regular service of the

state government.The benefit of this announcement was afterwards extended to the employees of its

irrigation branch as well at the workman who held from Punjab continue to stay in their parents state the

services of those who had put in 10 years or more would have been regularized the respondent management

too in pursuance of its policy to follow the Punjab pattern might have regularized the services of at least of

those workmen who had come from Punjab but any such course would have created awkward situation as

the workmen from other States could not be discriminated in this respect.Moreover financial implications

and other complications are involved.

In such circumstances stated aboveI would have directed that the services of those of the workman who have

been continuously employed for more than 10 years should be regularized. But the other problems arising

from such a direction including financial impact on the employer cannot be lost sight of The Central

Government through the board is only managing on behalf of the state of Punjab, Rajasthan Haryana and

Himachal Pradesh who are partners in the venture.Several aspects of the question were discussed with the

workmen and the management in the course of arguments and a formula evolved to which the workman

virtually agreed and I feel that such a solution as stated hereunder is quite just to all the parties provided it is

work out, honestly stated. No doubt,what is referred to me is the matter of regularization of the services of

work charge employees, but the directions that I am issuing in my opinion, amount to only granting lesser

relief than claimed by the workmen. The management can also have no grievance if it wants industrial peace

and is anxious to secure employment to the work-charged employees after the completion of the work. It is

accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six months

thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or

transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first

be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous

service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical

fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected. The workmen have expressed an apprehension that

near the completion of the Project trades of some of them might be changed so that it could be said that a

suitable workman needed for a particular job was not available and an outsider was therefore necessary to be

employed. To protect the workmen against this possible denial of their rights it is further directed that

category or trade of no workman shall be changed within one year preceding the completion of the Project

without his consent in writing and that if any such change without consent is made it will have no

consequence inasmuch as such a workman will be entitled to the job of his earlier trade provided the vacancy

4010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relates to that trade. As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance

staff. I have no reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also

the Central Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or

work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where there is a need for

workmen of those trades.”

21.

A perusal of aforesaid findings made it ample clear that the order has been passed by the then learned

Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chandigarh to maintain industrial peace and to secure employment to the work charged

employees after the completion of the work and it was also held by the learned CGIT thatState Govt. who are

beneficiary under the project and the Central Govt. will make every reasonable effort to get those workmen re-

employed at any other project or work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where

there is a need of workmen of those trades.

22.

Admittedly, in this case, no effort was made by the respondent to give any employment after the

retrenchment of the workmen and even there is non-compliance of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules. The same are

reproduced below:

77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen. -The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular

category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to the seniority of their service in that

category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the

industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.

78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. - (1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to be

filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the

industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies by registered post

to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address given by him at the time

of retrenchment or at any time thereafter:

Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be

sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in the list referred

to in rule 77 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the number of such vacancies:

Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no obligation on the

employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen:

Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer, does not

offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the employer under this

sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any subsequent occasion.]

(2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also inform the trade unions

connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled and names of the retrenched

workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule:

Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where an

intimation is sent to every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.

23.

However, the present work charged employee and other work-charged employees have been retrenched long

back and even at the stage it is impossible to re-employe them. However, certainly in respect of workcharged

employees present Respondent was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Judgment of Jaswant Singh (Supra) to

give benefits in terms of settlement and award dated 15.05.1974. The main purpose of Hon’ble Supreme Court and

Ld. CGIT Chandigarh was to rehabilitate to some extent the work charged employees and restore peace and congenial

atmosphere that is why Ld. CGIT Chandigarh had given directions to all state to re-employe them. Thus, it does not

lie in the mouth of present Respondent that no relief can be granted against present Respondent as petitioners are not

their employees.

So far as this argument of Ld. AR of the management that those work charged employees only who have

completed 10 years of service were required to be adjusted within 6 months from their retrenchment is concerned, the

same is devoid of merit as no effort was made by the management to adjust the work charged employees. Moreover,

no documentary evidence has been produced that any effort was made to adjust the workman after his retrenchment.

Further, Ld. CGIT Chandigarh in its last lines concluded as under:-

“As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance staff. I have no reason to

doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also the Central Government will

make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or work whether in any one of these

states or in any other part of the country where there is a need of workmen of those trades”

Nothing has come on record that above directions were complied with.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4011

24.

Moreover, in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees and management, it

cannot be interfered what were the terms and conditions in the said settlement. Further, CGIT Chandigarh has fixed

ten years time and accrual of vacancy within six months keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and

has evolved his own formula to bring peace and harmony between work charged employees and management but it

cannot be said to be a universal policy in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees

and management. However, no effort was made to adjust the petitioners in view of order of CGIT.

25.

As regard, this contention of learned AR of management that petitioners were not the employees of the

BBMB but were the employees of BCB, the same is devoid of merit as Discharge certificate was issued by the

BBMB. Moreover, as per respondent Beas Control Board was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in

the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per

Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, BMB was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of

various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB

constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project

has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project

have been so transferred. All the projects under BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in

1984. When all work of BCB stands transferred to BBMB so it cannot be said that BBMB is separate identity than

BCB. Rather BCB has merged in BBMB. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh case(supra) in respect

of work charged employees has no where stated that relief can be sought by work charged employees only against the

BCB. So contention of Ld. AR of the management that BCB and BBMB are two separate entities is devoid of merit.

26.

So far this argument of Law Officer for the respondent that the case is hopelessly time barred is concerned,

the same is again devoid of merits as there was non-compliance of Rule 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules which has been

reproduced above. Moreover, there is no limitation period prescribed for filing a reference. Moreover, reference was

received in the year 2005 and thereafter, several rounds of litigations have taken place. So far as case laws on the

point of limitation the same are not attracted in the present case as there was no compliance of Judgment of Jaswant

Singh case (Supra).

27.

As regard this fact that workman has stated in his cross-examination that he was not been paid compensation

under Section 25-F of the Act. It is not his case that there was breach of Section 25-F of the Act by the management

and further management has specifically stated that he was paid all terminal benefits. There is no suggestion given to

the MW1 N.M. Jain that workman was not paid retrenchment compensation etc. Hence, it is held that workman was

paid retrenchment compensation.

28.

Further, there was non-compliance of Jaswant Singh Case (Supra), Reference No.2C of 1971 and Rule 77 &

78 of Industrial Rules and in this case it would be highly difficult to re-employe the workman. The only remedy left is

to compensate the workman in term of money.

29.

Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and other connected case of similar nature the

following scheme of compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:

Work charged employee who has completed 5 years of service shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/- along with

interest @9% per annum as compensation from the date of moving of application till the realization of

amount.

ii.

Work charged employee who has completed less than 5 years but more than 1 year would be entitled

Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving of application till the realization

of amount.

iii.

Those employees who have not completed 1 year will not be entitled for any compensation in the present

case.

The present work charged workman (being represented by his Legal Heirs) was employed on 22.01.1966 and was

retrenched on 09.03.1979 as mentioned in Discharge Certificate (Ex.W-1) issued by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar, and has worked for 13 years and about 2 months (more than 5 years) so his legal heirs are entitled of

Rs.50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving the application till its realization.

30.

The reference is answered accordingly and stands disposed off.

31.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

4012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1819.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी बी. एम. बी. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-सि-

नंबर II] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-23012/33/2004-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2024

S.O. 1819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.223/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/08/2024.

[No. L-23012/33/2004 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 223 /2005

Registered on:- 03.08.2005

Hem Raj S/o Sh. Jagdish, C/o Shri Hem Prabh S/o Sh. Bali Ram, R/o Village Bhayarta, P.O. Chanahan, Teh. &

Distt. Mandi (HP).

….……....Workman

Versus

Bhakra Beas management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project Sundernagar Township, Distt. Mandi, (HP).

…..Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:- 18.07.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/33/2004-IR(CM-II), dated 07.07.2005, under clause (d) of

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

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the demand of Shri Hem Raj for reinstatement in the services of BBMB, Sunder Nagar is

legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

The brief facts, related to the case are that the construction of Beas Sutluj Link Project{hereinafter called as

BSL(P)} started in the year 1962 under Beas Control Board, which was constituted on 10.02.1961 with its

headquarter at Sundernagar and this project was under the control of Centre Government, who had been

constructing, maintaining, operating and administrating it through various Boards in different phases. After passing

of Pb. Re-Organisation Act, 1966(hereinafter called “Re-Organisation Act”) Beas Control Board was replaced by

Beas Construction Board(hereinafter called as BCB). The workman was employed by Beas Construction Board in

1973. The workman who was employed in Beas Project(Unit-1) become the employee of Bhakra Beas Management

Board(hereinafter called as BBMB) in pursuance of proviso (1) of Section 80(3) and Section 80(5) of Re-

organisation Act and the workman become the employee of the Centre Government under the management of

B.B.M.B. from 15.05.1976. The workman has completed 240 days in every calendar year and was not interrupted

till his retrenchment. The employer made a bulk retrenchment of project employees in the year 1977 and 1978 and

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4013

also in stages thereafter till 1984. The workman was also retrenched by the employer on 23.12.1977 on account of

reduction in strength due to part completion of the BSL(P) and re-employment certificate was issued by the office of

re-settlement B.S.L/B.B.M.B. Sundernagar for the re-employment of the retrenched workmen of B.S.L.(P)(BBMB)

in accordance with provision of the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, thousands of other persons were

appointed secretly by employer, violating Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The employer is

also doing unfair labour practices as defined in Section 2(R)A of the ID Act. Management has also violated the

provisions of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Dispute(Central) Rule, 1957(hereinafter called “The Industrial Rules”).

By filling vacant posts, the employer declared some posts as surplus and retrenched the employees working on those

posts.

It is also maintained that the present workman and other workmen have filed a Civil Writ Petition

No.403/1996, titled as Sant Ram and 87 others Vs. BBMB in the Hon’ble High Court of Shimla for their re-

employment and in the said writ petition management filed reply dated 16.04.1996 by way of affidavit and admitted

that retrenched workmen are employee of BBMB. The workmen have then withdrew the writ petition and filed civil

suits for declaring them as a retrenched workmen of BBMB before the Sub-Judge, 1^st Class, Sunder Nagar, Distt.

Mandi(HP), on 21.01.1997 and later on those suits were decided on 05.07.2002 and all plaints were returned to the

workmen to be filed before the competent authority on the basis of which the present proceedings were initiated

after referring of the dispute of workman from the Ministry of Labour on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, management filed

writ petition before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the order of Ministry on 07.05.2007 and the

same was dismissed on 07.05.2007 and Special Leave Petition filed bearing nos.16939-17007 of 2007 in Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India by the management was also dismissed on 08.07.2014. It is therefore, prayed that the claim

petition of the workman may kindly be allowed and workman be continued in the service of the management and be

regularized and further be given all the consequential benefits.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that workman is Ex-work charged employee of Beas

Construction Board, which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was

retrenched after completion of the work of BCB in the year 1977. The workman was paid terminal benefits i.e.

retrenchment compensation, gratuity, ex-gratia amount on account of his retrenchment from BCB as per provisions

of ID Act. It is further maintained that BCB and present management are two distinct and separate entities. It is also

maintained that construction of Beas Project was undertaken by the Punjab Govt. Irrigation Department prior to the

re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab on 01.01.1966. After re-organisation the work of BSL(P) was taken

over by the Central Govt. on behalf of partner states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. The Central Govt.

constituted BCB under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act and further stipulated that any component of Beas

Project in relation to which the construction has been completed be transferred by the Central Govt. to Bhakra

Management Board(hereinafter called as BMB) constituted under Section 79(1) of the Re-organisation Act. It is

further stated under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act that BMB would be re-named as BBMB when any

component of Beas Project was transferred under Section 80(6) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was

employed by the BCB. Thus, the workman never remained the employee of management. However, it is stated that

1093 work-charged and 12 contingent paid employees of Beas Project were sent on job order basis to Ranjit Sagar

Dam, Punjab. They were taken over by the management under the benevolent policy of the Central Govt. as Central

Govt. had given directions to BBMB to absorb these employees. The remaining work-charged employees were not

entitled for the said benefit. Even work-charged employees of the BCB had filed a petition in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC 440, in which their

claim for absorbing them in BBMB is not granted instead their retrenchment from BCB was upheld. Remaining

averments have been denied and it is stated that the claim of the workman is hopelessly time barred and the

workman has no legal enforceable right to claim employment in BBMB. It is prayed that claim be dismiss.

A replication was also filed by workman contravening the facts taken in written statement as reiterating the

facts as stated in claim petition.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A and has

been cross-examined by the learned law officer of management.

Moreover, no evidence has been given by the management in this case. Vide order dated 03.03.2021 the

then Presiding Officer, A.K. Singh fixed the case for filing written arguments and the case remained pending for

arguments. Even no evidence has been led by the management in this case.

While arguing the case, learned Law Officer for the management contended that initially Beas Control

Board was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred

from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act,

BMB was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in Section 79

itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB constituted under Section 79 of the Act

shall be re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project has been transferred under sub-section

4014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5 and the BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project have been so transferred. All the

projects under BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in 1984. Present workman was

employed as work charged employee in 1973 and was retrenched on 23.12.1977. All similar work charged

employees including the present workman was engaged by the Beas Construction Board which ceased to exist in the

year 1984 therefore, the workmen cannot be termed as the employees of the BBMB because there does not exist

Beas Construction Board which was his parent department. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled

as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC 440 has held that work charged employees

were bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected by the management and also by the award 2-C of the

year 1971 before Sh. H.R. Sodhi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh between workman and employees of the

Beas Construction Board, Sunder Nagar and published in the gazette on 15.06.1974 of the Govt. of India.

So far as the claim of the workman regarding re-employment after retrenchment on 23.12.1977 is

concerned, workman was not entitled for re-instatement as in a case under reference no.2-C of 1971 decided by Sh.

H.R. Sodhi, the then Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh, it was held that management in order to establish an

industrial peace and to secure the work charge employees after completing the work can engage after completion of

project at any time within 6 months for the maintenance of staff for project of any work if it is required to those

work charged employees in order to seniority who have put 10 years of service. The relevant portion of para is

reproduced as below:

“It is accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six

months thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited

or transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall

first be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’

continuous service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to

the medical fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be

disturbed to their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected.“

10.

Because the present workman had not completed 10 years of service so he is not entitled for re-

employment. Learned representative for the management further contended that in this case workman was

retrenched on 23.12.1977 after receiving due retrenchment compensation etc. and now he is claiming re-

employment under Section 25-H of the Act and his claim is hopelessly time barred as he has filed the present claim

petition on 20.07.2005. To support this view he has placed reliance in the case titled as Chief Engineer Ranjit

Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal, AIR 2006, Supreme Court 2682, wherein in identical matters Court has not

entertained writ petition due to inordinate delay. In the present case there is a delay of about 27 years. He also relied

upon the case titled as Ram Chand Vs. The BBMB and another, CWP no.2787 of 2018, decided on

03.12.2018(Annexure R-4) where the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that dispute if any ought to be

raised within a reasonable period as the ID Act does not prescribed time limit for referring such dispute. In the

present case workman was engaged as Beldar in the year 1973 and was discharged on 23.12.1977 and he has sought

re-employment after 33 years which was held to be highly time barred. Thus, he contended that claim of workman is

time barred. Workman was discharged on 23.12.1977 and thereafter he filed present claim before the Labour

Conciliation Officer on 30.11.2005.

11.

While arguing the case, learned AR for the workman contended that in this case workman was discharged

on 23.11.1977 due to reduction in strength and he was issued discharge certificate by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar. He referred to Section 25-H of the ID Act which provides re-employment of retrenched workman. He

further has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of the workman. He was required to be adjust in

view of under Section 25-G of the Act by the management Discharge Certificate was issued by the Management. He

was not given any employment. While arguing further, learned AR for the workman referred to Rule 77 and 78 of

the Industrial Dispute Central Rule 1957(hereinafter called Industrial Rule). Rule 77 provides maintenance of

seniority list of workman and it states that before any worker is retrenched the appellant-establishment is required to

place on the notice board the seniority list of all the workmen who were to be retrenched but nothing has been done

in this regard before retrenchment of the present worker. She also referred to Rule 78 which provides that as and

when any vacancy incurred then retrenched workmen were required to be given registered notice but nothing was

done by the management. Moreover, question of limitation does not arise as no limitation period has been prescribed

under the Act for seeking relief under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act. Learned AR for the

workman further contended that even reference made by the Government dated 07.07.2005 was challenged by the

management in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Writ Petition No.3100 of 2006 and their writ

petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 07.05.2007. Even SLP filed against the order dated 07.05.2007

was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.16979/2007 dated 08.07.2014.

12.

I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman and also for

the management.

13.

The management relied upon mainly in this case on the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another(supra),

which is very material for decision of this case. The said judgment deals with two types of petitioners. First type of

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4015

petitioners were employed by the BCB on purely temporary basis and they had also given written undertaking

confirming the term of their appointment. The BCB appointed the first type of petitioners on ad hoc basis with a

clear understanding that they will have no right to be retained in service after the completion of the Beas Project.

They are Engineers, Section Officer, Accounts Clerk, Teacher etc. and they have claimed their parity with other

employees who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Governments and who were serving

on deputation in connection with the works of the BhakraNangal Scheme.

14.

In respect of these employees, it was held as follow:-

“To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their

conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to

the benefit of any of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make

representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to

grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid

rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent

service under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the

services of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly,

the proposed retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in

articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different

and distinct classes.”

15.

As regards, second type of employees i.e. work charged employees the judgment deals in Para 41, 42, 43,

44, 45, 46 and 47 which read as follow:-

“41. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the

wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who

are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated

cost of the work.

42. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The

work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the

execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come

to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get

any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits

under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.

43. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are

entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from

that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment9 and

modification. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like

the other petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory

benefits.

44. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made

to the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of 'last come, first

go' has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-

charged employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders

made under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.

45. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them,

about 26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the

workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the

work-charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of

section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation

proceeding is binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates,

whether they were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co.

Ltd. v. JatinChakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in order to bind the

work men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show that they belonged to the union which

took part in the conciliation proceedings, since the policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an

extended operation to such settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the

workmen on the work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement

will therefore bind all the work-charged employees.

4016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 28, 2024/ASIVNA 6, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

46. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial

Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-

charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the

management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the

workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid

award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees, involving a

burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.

47. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between

them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have

accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974 they are not entitled to any rights apart from

those flowing from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. SLP No.1246 of 1979 which is filed to

challenge the Award and C.M.P. No.2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of over four

and half years caused in filing the SLP shall have to be dismissed.”

16.

Thus, from the above observation of Supreme Court it is clear that work charged employees are engaged on

a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the specified work and their service comes to an end on the

completion of work for the sole purpose of which they are employed.

17.

Para 43 provides that work charged employees are industrial worker and entitled to the benefit of the

provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which

even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. Para 45 as reproduced above further

provides that in the conciliation proceeding it has been held that there were about 36000 work charged employees

working on Beas Project out of them 26000 has already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement

arrived between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour

Commissioner(Central), New Delhi under Section 12 of the ID Act. The said settlement is binding on all the work

charge employees who are working in the establishment to which the dispute relates. In para 46 it is further stated

that apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceeding an award was made by the CGIT Chandigarh in

reference no.2-C in an industrial dispute between the work charged employee of the Beas Sutlej Project,

Sundernagar with which we are concerned and the management. A consent formula was evolved to which the

workmen virtually agreed. In the last para 47 itself specifically stated that work charged employees are bound by the

settlement and award May 15, 1974 and they were entitled to rights those flowing from the settlement and award.

18.

So far as the settlement executed between the work charged employees and management through unions,

the same has not been produced by the management despite opportunity was given to file the same. Thus, adverse

interference can be drawn against them. To support this view, reliance can be placed to the judgment of Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court in case held as2001(3) RSJ 382 Ambika Parashad Versus Punjab Urban Planning

and Development Authority Chandigarh and Another wherein it has been held “that respondent has not

produced record in the Labour Court to prove that Workman has not completed 240 days of service though

application was submitted by the Workman for production of record held that a person in possession of the

best evidence has to produce the same, otherwise adverse inference can be drawn against the said party”. In

this case also as per order dated 01.05.2024 of this Tribunal. Respondent were asked to produce the settlement

arrived between the 12 union of the work charged employee and management under Section 12 of ID Act before the

Regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and all the work charged employee were bound by the said settlement.

However, despite of availing 2-3 opportunities i.e. 20.05.2024, 20.06.2024 and 09.07.2024 the said policy was not

produced and as such adverse inference can be drawn against the management in view of the above law.

19.

As regards award passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, the relevant claim of the work

charged employees was regarding their regularization services and the finding given by the Tribunal is as follow:-

“Regulation of Services of the workcharged employees.

It is an un-disputed fact that the entire strength of labour as employed in the Project is workcharged. The

institution of workcharged establishment is not only necessary but sometime unavoidable. These workmen

are engaged on temporary basis and their services are utilized for the execution of a specified work for

which they may be suited. From the very nature of employment the services of such workman automatically

come to an end on the completion of the work. A workcharged employee does not get any relief under the

Payment of Gratuity Act nor is he benefitted by the employees state Insurance Scheme. He does not indeed

enjoy any retiral benefits. Before partition of the country in 1947 it was not usual to have project,

construction of which required a number of years to complete but after constituting ourselves into a

democratic Republic and the Government having taken in hand five year plans for development of the

country there are various schemes involving the construction of works for a period extending over several

years as is the case of the instant Project. It commenced in 1962 and more than 12 years having passed the

completion might take another few years. In such situation it seems reasonable and fair that a workman

who has, like a regular employee, spent the part of his life ranging from 5-10 years upto 20 year, should not

be thrown on the road and must be assured some benefits as are available to regular staff. The other aspect

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 28, 2024/आजिन 6, 1946

4017

of the matter is that the employer could not compelled to retain workcharged employees after the work for

which the latter had been engaged is completed, as after all, he was employed before a particular job and

the employer, be it the Government or any of its public undertakings, cannot taken upon itself the

responsibility of that workman for all time to come. It can be well argued that such a workmen should feel

happy and content that instead of remaining un-employed be got employment for a long time.