This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28112024-258979

CG-DL-W-28112024-258979

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 46] नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 17—नवम्बर 23, 2024, शनिवार/र्कार्तक 26—अग्रहायण 2, 1946

No. 46] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 17—NOVEMBER 23, 2024, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 26–AGRAHAYANA 2, 1946

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2112.—सार्वजनिक परिसर (अनधिकृ त कब्जाधारियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्राधिकृ त शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा त्रालय भारत सरकार

भारत सरकार की दिनांक 13 सितम्बर 2017 की अधिसूचना संख्या 25015/1/2007-ओ आर I का तितस्थापन करते हुये भारत सरकार नीचे दी गई सारणी के (कलाम 2) मे अधिकारियों को भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों के समकछ होने के नाते सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुकत करती है। ये अधिकारी उक्त अधिनियम में सम्पदा अधिकारी के लिए निर्धारित शक्तियों का प्रयोग उक्त सारणी के कालम 3 में र्वर्णत सार्वजनिक परिसरों के लिए सीमित स्थानीय छेत्राधिकार के अंतगर्त अपने कार्यपालन के लिए करेंगे ।

7253 GI/2024

(4965)4966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] सारणी

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/1/2017-ओआर-I/ई-8875]

शशी शेखर सिंह, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2024

S.O. 2112.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas F.No.R-25015/1/2007-OR dated 13th September 2017, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the table below, being officer of equivalent rank of Gazetted Officers of the Government, to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table .

TABLE

[F. No. R-11025(15)/1/2017-OR-I/E-8875]

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 अक्तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2113.—रा.भा.नी: कें र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथा संशोधित, 1987) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:

1. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय एवं अस्पताल, फरीदाबाद (हरियाणा)

2. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, तिरुपति

[सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.]

नागेश कु मार सिंह, उप महानिदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2024

S.O. 2113.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—

1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, Faridabad (Haryana)

2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Sub Regional Office, Tirupati

[No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN]

NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General

नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2114.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स जेएएस टोल रोड कं पनी लिमिटेड, नेलमंगला, बैंगलोर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एच. टी. देवराज नाइक,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह-श्रम न्यायालय,बैंगलोर, पंचाट(संदर्भ संख्या 32/2018)को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.10.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-187-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2024

S.O. 2114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. JAS Toll Road Compnay Limited, Nelamangala, Bangalore, and Shri H.T.Devaraja Naik, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.10.2024

[No. L-42025-07-2024-187-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED     :   3RD OCTOBER 2024
PRESENT    :  Shri IRFAN QAMAR
             Presiding Officer

I D No. 32/2018

I Party

II Party

Sri H T Devaraja Naik, S/o Hanumantha Naik, Muddapura, Holalkere Taluk, Hosadurga Road and Post, CHITRADURGA POST.

The Management of M/s. JAS Toll Road Compnay Limited, Kulemepalya, NH-4, Opp. KBDL, Nelamangala, Bangalore – 562 123.

Appearances

I Party    :    Sh. N Prathap Simha
                President
II Party   :    Sh. Vaidyanathan R

Advocate

1. The petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes

(Amendment) Act, 2010 challenging the Termination order dated 10.10.2017 from service by the 2nd Party.

2. After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties and both appeared. Though several

opportunities were given to the 2nd Party but they did not file their counter statement and the matter came to

be posted for Evidence of 1st Party. Petitioner was accorded sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in

support of his claim but he failed to do so. The opportunity of Petitioner to adduce Evidence closed. Perused

the record. The claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence.

3. Therefore, in view of the above, "No Claim" Award is passed and the Petition stands dismissed.

Transmit.

AWARD

No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2115.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में – सह – , जबलपुर केपंचाट (एलसी-आर/ / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/88/2018-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/66/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 4971 between the Management of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.

[No. L-22012/88/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/66/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Vice President / J.C.C.

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (H.M.S.)

Raj Nagar OCP, SECL, Sector-C Colony

Qtr. No. M/92, PO: Dola,

Distt.- Anuppur (M.P.) - 484224

Workman

Versus

Sub-Regional Manager

Raj Nagar OCM, Hasdeo Area

SECL, PO: Raj Nagar,

Distt.- Anuppur (M.P.) - 484224

Management

(J U D G M E N T)

(Passed on this 11th day of October-2024)

As per letter dated 13/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/88/2018/IR(CM-II) dt. 13/11/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

" "

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties appeared. The workman union filed their Statement of Claims. Management preferred not to file any written statement of defense.

According to the workman union, the workman Jay Govind Mall was posted alongwith 13 other co- workers as EP Fitter, Grade-B in Raj Nagar Open Coast Mines. They had worked overtime between July 2012 to February 2017 under the direction of management, details furnished in the documents filed with statement of claim. It is the case of workman union that, they are entitled to be paid overtime wages, but management has not paid them overtime wages, they raised dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shahdol, hence this reference. The union has demanded that, holding the workman who worked overtime, entitled to overtime wages, the management be directed to pay them overtime accordingly.

As stated above, no written statement of defense has been filed by management.

Since, the dispute is only law point, whether the workman is entitled to overtime wage, when he worked overtime under direction of management, hence no evidence on facts is required, though workman side has filed affidavit of workman Jay Govind Mall, who is the union representative, this affidavit is uncontroverted.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel from both the side and have gone through the record. It is not disputed that when a person works overtime under direction of management as per Rule 60 (1) of Mines Rules, 1995 and Clause 17 of the Standing Order applicable to the establishment, naturally the workmen are entitled to overtime wages, if they have worked overtime under the direction of management. Their overtime wages may be computed on the basis of records undoubtedly available with the management, photocopies filed in the case in hand.

In the light of above discussion, the reference stands answered accordingly.

DATE:- 11/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2116.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

– सह – , जबलपुर केपंचाट (एलसी- सरकार कृ ष्णापिंग अलॉयज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में आर/ / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/-R/36/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Krishnaping Alloys Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/36/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Keshav Pawar,

Palaspani, Kachidhana,

Rampeth, Tehsil : Sausar,

Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Krishnaping Alloyes Limited,

Palaspani Manganese Mine,

Rampeth, Tehsil: Sausar,

Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.) Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)

Vide communication reference number J-1(5-6)/2022-IR dated 29/06/2022; by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section- 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') The dispute under reference related to :-

" Is the Applicant Shri Keshav Pawar is workman or not; If yes, then his termination by the employer

M/s. Krishnapping Alloys Limited, Palaspani Manganese Mine, Rampeth, Tah- Sausar, Dist. Chhindwara

( Madhya Pradesh) is legal or not and what relief Shri Keshav Pawar is entitled for? "

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

DATE: 22/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2117.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल..के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में – सह – , जबलपुर के पंचाट (एलसी-आर/ / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/01/2015-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/43/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of W.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.

[No. L-22012/01/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director DATE: 22/10/2024

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/43/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Joint Mahamantri

Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)

Shramik Shakti Bhawan, PO: Chandametta

Chhindwara (M.P.) Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager

Western Coalfields Limited

Kanhan Area, PO: Dungaria

Tehsil – Junardev, Chhindwara (M.P.) Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)

As per letter dated 11/05/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/01/2015/IR(CM-II) dt. 11/05/2015. The dispute under reference related to :-

After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

In short, the undisputed facts between the parties are that, the workman Yusuf Qureshi who was working in the Umrer Area of management as EP Auto Electrician, was transferred on his request to Kanhan Area vide order of management dated 20.04.2002 in the same cadre/post/scale, he was working before his transfer. He was placed in Ghodawadi Colliery in underground duty by management vide order dated 27.05.2002 after joining in Kanhan Area. According to the workman his salary was Rs. 216.78/- basic, which was reduced to Rs. 192/- basic, which is arbitrary according to the workman union. Management has defended its this action on the ground, that a settlement between management on one hand and representative of the workman union with the workman on the other hand on 18.07.2002. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement that the workman Auto Electric (Excavation) Category- C would be posted in underground as Electric Fitter in Category-IV in mid point fixation i.e., Rs. 164.72/- per day of NCWA-VI and the workman himself or through any union will not raise any dispute regarding his basic pay and change of designation as stated above. The case of the workman is that, this agreement was got signed by him, keeping him in dark about the contents and the nature of the agreement, whereas the case of the management is that, the workman signed this agreement according to his freewill and there was no misrepresentation.

The workman union filed photocopy documents, which are transfer order and the settlement mentioned above, which are admitted by management. Affidavit of the workman was also filed by union, but the workman never appeared for cross examination. Management did not file any evidence.

I have heard argument of Shri Praveen Yadav learned Counsel for workman union and Shri Neeraj Kewat learned Counsel for management. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the issue for determination is as follows :-

"Whether, the settlement dated 18.07.2002 between the management and workman union is binding

between the parties and whether it has been signed by the workman under misrepresentation by management with

respect to nature and contents of the agreement?"

The burden to prove that, the agreement was got signed by the management by not disclosing its nature and content is on the workman union/workman. His affidavit as examination in chief cannot be read in his support, because no opportunity of cross examination was available to management. There is no other evidence to corroborate the case of the workman on this issue. Hence, in the light of above discussion holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference as answered as follows :-

AWARD

Holding the action of management in placing the workman Yusuf Qureshi as Electric Fitter,

Category-IV and fixing his basic pay Rs. 164.72/- per day on the basis of settlement between the parties dated

18.07.2002, just and legal, the workman is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost.

DATE: 22/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 4975

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2118.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

– सह – , जबलपुर केपंचाट (एलसी-आर/ / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/16/2023-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/26/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of N.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024

[No. L-22012/16/2023–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The Zonal Secretary,

Janata Mazdoor Sangh,

231, Ambedkar Nagar, Shakti Nagar,

Dist. Sonbhada (M.P.) – 231222

Workman

Versus

M/s Dilip Buildcon Limited,

Jayant Project, NCL, Post – Jayant

Dist. Singrauli (M.P.) – 486890

The General Manager,

Jayant Project, NCL,

Post – Jayant,

Dist. Singrauli, (M.P.) - 486890

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 24th day of October-2024.)

As per letter dated 21/02/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L- 22012/16/2023 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 21/02/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-

" क् या जोनल सचिव, जनता मजदूर संघ द्वारा ठेका श्रमिकों की सेवा में दी जाने वाली सुविधाओं से संबंधित मांग का मैसर्स दिलीप बिल् डकॉन लिमिटेड, जयंत परियोजना, सिंगरौली एवं 01 अन्य से दावा न् यायोचित है? यदि हॉं, तो ठेका

श्रमिकों के सम् बन् ध में उक् त यूनियन किस अनुतोष की पात्र है ? "

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer DATE: 24/10/2024

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2119.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कें रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय II के पंचाट (ं49/2023) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-आई.आर. (बी.-I) 233]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2119—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.49/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1) -233]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 49/2023

Smt. Raj Kumari & 02 others, Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand, CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

Versus

1. The Director General, Central Public Work Department (CPWD) Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Executive Engineer, CPWD Civil U Division, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003.

3. R.R. Realtors Engineer, 191, Goshmi Marg Nigam, M.C.D. School, Khichdipur East, Delhi-110096.

AWARD

The appropriate government, Sh. D.K. Himanshu, under Secretary had sent reference referred dated 08.02.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words.

"Whether CPWD Karamchari Union, Haryana vide letter dated NIL i.r.o. Smt. Rajkumari and 02 others

against the management of CPWD, New Dlehi CPWD Civil U Division, New Delhi (principal employer)

and/or M/s R.R. Realtors, New Delhi (Contractor) has locus standi to raise industrial dispute under ID

Act, 1947?

If yes, whether demands raised by CPWD Karamchari Union, Haryana vide letter dated NIL i.r.o. Smt

Rajkumari and 02 others to the management of CPWD, New Delhi, CPWD Civil U Division, New Delhi

(principal employer) and/or M/s R.R. Realtors, New Delhi (contractor) for their regularization and to

terminate their services during the pendency of the matter are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what

reliefs are the disputant entitled and what directions(s), if any, is 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. Claimant AR submits that claimants want to withdraw the case.

In view of the above submission made by AR of the claimant, claim stands dismissed as withdrawn. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date 06th, August, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2120.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में – सह – , हैदराबाद के पंचाट (पहचान / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 11/2023) 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 4/11/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024–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 05th day of July, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2023

Between:

The President, Singareni Coal Mines karmika Sangh, H.O. 10-1-208, Opp. IOB, Near Singareni Head Office, Kothagudem, Telngana-507101.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem Area-507101.

…Respondents4978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.1/4/2023-B1 dated 19/04/2023 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem Area denying the dependent employment to Shri Maloth Veerulal, elder son of deceased ex-employee on account of non- submission of application by his mother Smt. Maloth Goji within six months from the date he attains 18 years of age is justified or not? If not, to what relief the dependent Shri Maloth Veerulal is entitled to?" The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2023 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, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2121.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

– सह – , हैदराबाद के पंचाट (पहचान / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 2/2017) 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 4/11/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 4979

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of August, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.2/2017

Between:

Sri Shaik Yacoob Imran, S/o Mohimuddin, R/o Q.No.56, Power House Colony, Godavarikhani. ..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RG-I, Godavarikhani, Post: Godavarikhani, Dist. Peddapalli. 2. The Director, Personnel & Administrative Wing, SC Company Ltd., Kothagudem Post: Kothagudem Dist: Khammam 3. Chairman & Managing Director, SC Company Ltds Red Hills Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. … .Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri S. Bhagwanth Rao, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Shaik Yacoob Imran who worked as Deputy Manager (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 1.3.2013 of Respondent No.1 together with order of abandonment dated 24.2.2014 by Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service, in any suitable employment in any office other than dust infected areas, duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and also ordering the Respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,31,954/- with interest.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner/Employee is appointed as an employee in Respondent company as Junior Mining Engineer Trainee in Respondent company under Apprenticeship Act. After successful completion of Training, the Petitioner was provided as an under Manager" in RG -1 Godavarikhani on 2.7.2008 by the Chairman and Managing Director, SC company Ltd., Red Hills, Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad through Reference No CRP/PER/C15/1508. It is submitted that service conditions of Petitioner are governed by various standing orders of Company. It is submitted that, the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Engineer (Trainee) in the Respondent company on 3.10.2005 and later on posted as under Manager at RG-1 Godavarikhani Area on 1.7.2008 and the Petitioner discharged his duties to the fullest satisfaction of superiors till illegal struck of the name of Petitioner from the rolls of the company on 1.3.2013 without issuing any notice, any charge either absenteeism to duties without permission or sanction of leave. It is submitted that Petitioner has put in 9 years of qualified service in Respondent company. It is submitted that the Petitioner was foisted charge u/s 25:25 of standing orders of company. There is no termination order as the case of Petitioner is nothing but "Termination simplicitor" without any enquiry as violation of provisions of section 25-F of4980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] I.D. Act. It is submitted that Petitioner was not paid salary in lieu of notice or compensation in lieu of termination. It is submitted that the Petitioner used to get Rs.25,647/-pm as a basic salary from Respondent company. That the Petitioner was examined in various Hospitals after completion of his Medical Examinations it was detected that the Petitioner is suffering from "Monteux ie. Tuber Closes". The Doctor advised the Petitioner not to go into 'Dust Infected' areas. It is submitted that the Petitioner used to absent for his duties as it is beyond control of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner taking treatment in various Hospitals, which includes even in Company hospital as out patient. It is submitted that the Petitioner went to attend duty on 16.10.2013 in first Respondent central at OCP RG -1 after recovering from ill health, the first Respondent did not allow him to join into service and directed the Petitioner by 2nd Respondent to report duty on or before 31.10.2013 through letter No.CRP/PER/C/014/2347 dated 16.10.2013 and the 2nd Respondent came to the conclusion, that, the Petitioner has abandoned from "service" which is far from truth. That, there is no removal order of Respondent No. 1. The removal is totally illegal, arbitrary and against to the principals of natural Justice. Subsequently Petitioner was given final opportunity to join into service, by issuing letter dated 24.2.2014, which itself is self contrary to their own stand and on the other hand they initiated recovery of amount of Rs 1,31,954/- from the possession of Petitioner is to harass and the delinquent paid the amount by disposing ornaments of his wife which is indiscriminate to make as " welfare state" by the company. That, the Petitioner was not paid salary in lieu of notice and also three months salary. The Petitioner prays the Hon'ble court to decide the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. The Petitioner belongs to an executive cadre should be given a reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the matter. It is submitted that no enquiry was conducted except termination that too termination simplicitor. The Petitioner is a Mining Engineer, he comes under the definition of "Workmen" under ID Act. The Petitioner has no power to remove any person for any kind of misconduct, no power of administrative control over his employee. Hence the Petitioner is a workman in-terms of Sec.2(s) of ID Act. It is submitted that the Petitioner sent demand letter to consider him for employment, by revoking oral removal order which was not served and subsequently issued a notice of abandonment by second Respondent. Hence, prayed to set aside the oral removal order dated 1.3.2013 of Respondent No.1 together with order of abandonment dated 24.2.2014 duly granting all attendant benefits etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

At the outset it is submitted that the Petitioner is not a workman within the definition of Section2(s) of I.D.Act. Section 2(S) of ID Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

Sec.2(s)"workman" means

any person (including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be

express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does

not include any such person (s) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950

(46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an

officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative

capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six

hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by

reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a managerial nature.

It is submitted that the Petitioner was an ex-Deputy Manager, an executive cadre employee of the Respondent Company, and not a workman as defined in 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence he is not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, this Petition is not maintainable and may be dismissed. It is submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Engineer Trainee (UMET) vide Office Order No.CRP/PER/R/POA/57/57/183, dated 14.09.2005 of General Manager (Personnel) and office Order No.CRP/HRD/JMET/3226, dated 04.10.2008 of General Manager (HRD). It is submitted that subsequently he was selected and appointed as Mining Graduate Trainee (MGT) in Executive Grade (E-1) on 12.06.2006 vide Office Order No.CRP/PER/R/DOA/01/127, dated 03.04.2006 of Chief General Manager (Personnel) and Letter No.CRP/PER/R/01/01/428, dated 28.04.2006. The Petitioner was drafted as Under Manager in E-2 Grade on 01.07.2008 and as Deputy Manager in E-3 Grade on 01.04.2011. The Petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty without prior permission or intimation with effect from 01.03.2013. It is submitted that rhe Project Officer of Medipalli Open Cast Project of the Respondent Company sent two letters to the Petitioner on 03.03.2013 and 22.05.2013 by post to the address available on the Office records with an advice to report for duty immediately but the Petitioner neither reported for duty nor communicated anything about his absence. Since the Petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 01.03.2013 to 24.02.2014, his name was removed from the rolls of the Respondent Company with effect from 01.03.2013 vide Letter No.CRP/PER/C/0 14/434, dated 24.02.2014 as per the terms and conditions of his appointment and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Respondent Company. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that he was foisted with charge U/s 25.25 of Company's Standing Orders is incorrect and not true. The Petitioner was an executive of the Respondent Company and not by the Standing[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 4981 Orders of the Company and also Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that since the Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty without intimation or permission, as such his name was removed from the rolls from the date of his absence i.e. 01.03.2013 vide order No.CRP/PER/C/014/434, dated 24.02.2014. As per the terms and conditions of his appointment and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA) rules of the executives of the Respondent Company, if an employee/executive abandoned the employment on his own accord without 3 months notice, he is liable to pay 3 months notice wages/pay. As such a notice was served on him to the known address to pay the notice wages/pay by Register Post with Acknowledgement due. However, the said notice was returned by the Postal authorities with an endorsement of "No such person" at the address sent vide Letter No. CRP/PER/C/014/2347, dated 16.10.2013 and CRP/PER/C/014/434, dated 24.02.2014. It is further submitted that there upon, the Respondent Company filed O.S.No.58 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem. On the above, the Hon'ble Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem served notices. However, the Petitioner has not responded to the Court Notices also. Hence, the Hon'ble Court passed Decree dated 31.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,31,954/- with costs and interest @12% on Rs.1,31,954/- per annum from the date of filing of Suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum on Rs.1,31,954/- from the date of decree till finalization. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Heard counsels of both parties and perused written arguments filed by both parties.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge for

determination:-

I. Whether Petitioner is workman as defined under section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947? II. Whether the action of Respondent management in terminating the services of the Petitioner vide oral order dated 1.3.2013 and order of abandonment No.CRP/PER/C/014/434 dated 24.2.2014 is legal and justified?

III. To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?

6. As regards oral evidence, Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 in evidence and also filed documentary evidence which has been exhibited, Ex. W1 to W17. Whereas on the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in support of his contentions and has also filed the documents Ex.M1 to M8. Petitioner has also filed written arguments.

Findings:-

7. Point No.I: Respondent Counsel submits that Petitioner was an Ex.Deputy Manager, an executive cadre employee of the Respondent company and not a Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. Hence, he is not governed under the provision of I.D. Act, 1947. In view of the above, the present petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Engineer Trainee vide office order dated 14.9.2005 of General Manager (Personnel) and office order dated 4.10.2008 of General Manager (HRD). Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Mining Graduate Trainee in Executive Grade (E- 1) on 12.6.2006 vide office order dated 3.4.2006 of Chief General Manager (Personnel) and letter No.CRP/PER/R/01/01/428 dated 28th April 2006. The Petitioner was drafted as Under Manager in E-2 grade on 1.7.2008 and as Deputy Manager in E-3 grade on 1.4.2011. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty without prior permission or intimation with effect from 1.3.2013. Further, it is submitted that the Project Officer of Medipalli Open Cast Project of the Respondent Company sent two letters to the Petitioner on 3.3.2013 and 22.5.2013 by post to the address available on the office records with an advise to report for duty immediately, but the Petitioner neither reported for duty nor communicated anything about his absence. Since the Petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, from 1.3.2013 to 24.2.2014, hence his name was removed from the rolls of the Respondent company with effect from 1.3.2013 vide letter dated 24.2.2014 as per the terms and conditions of his appointment and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules of the Respondent Company. Further, it is submitted the contention of the Petitioner that his termination is in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act is incorrect and not true. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner was an executive of the Respondent company and not a Workman and hence he is not governed by the Standing orders of the Respondent company and also Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent in support of his contention has examined witness MW1 who has reiterated the contentions made in the counter in his testimony. Further, MW1was also cross examined by the Petitioner counsel. In his cross examination, MW1 states, " Petitioner was appointed as JMET on 14.9.2005 in Respondent organization. Approximately he used to get Rs.50,000/- at the time of his termination from service. It is true that the Respondent has not conducted any enquiry before his termination. It is true that Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- and subsequently it was decreed." Further, witness states, "Approximately 500 personnel used to work under control of Petitioner before his removal. The Petitioner has got full control over the persons who were working under him. The services of Petitioner are not covered under National Coal Wage agreements. It is not true to suggest that Petitioner is a Workman.

Thus, Witness MW1 in his cross examination has corroborated and supported the stand taken by the Respondent in the chief statement affidavit. The Respondent has also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited by the witness Ex.M1 to M8. Ex.M1M1is provisional offer of appointment dated 3.4.2006, which reflects offer to appointment, was issued to the Petitioner Sri. Sheikh Yakub Imran for the post of Mining Graduate Trainee in E1 cadre. Ex.M2 is the office order dated 1.4.2011 which reveal that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager in the pay scale of Rs.24,900 – 50,500/- (E-3) with effect from 1.4.2011. Ex. M3 is the office order dated 31.3.2012 whereby the Petitioner was posted as Deputy Manager in the Respondent Management. Ex.M4 is the notice dated 16.10.2013, pertaining to unauthorized absence of Petitioner from duty and abandonment of the employment by the Petitioner from 1.3.2013. Ex. M7 is the copy of judgement passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, in O.S.No. 58 of 2015 which was filed by the Respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited against Petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.1,31,954/- which has been decreed against the Defendant Petitioner vide order dated 31.7.2015. Again Ex.M8 is the copy of decree in O.S.No. 58 of 2015 which was passed against the Petitioner in that case. Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Respondent as discussed above, it is established that Petitioner was initially appointed as Mining Grade-1 Trainee in the Respondent company and later on he was promoted on the post of Deputy Manager vide order dated 1.4.2011 in the pay scale of Rs.24,900 – 50,550/- and at the time of his removal from service vide order dated 1.3.2013, he was serving in the Respondent company as Deputy Manager. Thus, his salary was in excess of Rs.1600/-. It is also established that while he was posted in the employment of Respondent he was supervising about 500 Workmen working in the mines of Respondent company.

9. On the other hand, Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that he is a Workman under ID Act and Mining Engineer is also Workman. Further Petitioner submitted that he has no power of administrative or supervisory control over his employees. He has no right to grant any salary or leaves to the persons who are working under his control and when he is not having supervisory or administrative control over his subordinates, then he is considered to be a Workman in terms of Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act, 1947. Petitioner in support of his plea has also examined himself as WW1 and in his chief statement he reiterated his statement that he belongs to Executive Cadre, should be given a reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the matter. Further, WW1 states in his chief statement that, he was Mining Engineer and he comes under the definition of Workman under I.D. Act, 1947. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court wherein Hon'ble High Court have held that an apprentice is also a Workman in terms of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947. WW1 was cross examined by the Learned Counsel for Respondent and in cross examination WW1 states, " I do not remember what are the conditions to be followed in my appointment order. My academic qualification is BTech (Mining). I have possessed a technical qualification. I have got first class and second class Mining Engineer certificate. I have submitted both the certificates in this case. I do not remember what is the Regulation 16 of coal mines regulations. Basing on the first class mining manager certificate to manage the mining I got the employment. The witness adds, that I was appointed as JMET to work as a Workman. It is not correct to suggest that I am not a Workman under the Standing Orders. I am covered under coal mines officers(Conduct and Discipline) Rules. I have been removed from service, not retrenched from the service". Further witness WW1 states, "It is fact that I remained absent on duty. ......I have filed documentary proof to show the reason of my absence." Further WW1 states, "The job of mining engineer, to my knowledge, is to carry out the mining works and safety of the Workmen. I have filed this case to provide me job in the Respondent's management. I am supposed to work on the open cast mining and underground mining. There is also vocational training centres for my engagement. I am ready to work in the mining where there will be no dust because I have been affected by dust. It is not correct to suggest to that I am not a Workman as per the standing rules and as per the I.D. Act, 1947 my job is an administrative job."

10. WW1 was further cross examined by Respondent. In cross examination WW1 states, "Initially I was appointed as an apprentice. Witness adds that I was appointed as junior mining engineer trainee. I have not submitted my appointment order in this case. I am not an apprentice and I was a trainee". Thus, from the above statement of WW1, he has admitted that he is covered under the Coal Mines Officers(Conduct and Discipline) Rules and his job is a mining engineer to carry out the mining works and safety of the Workmen.

It would be apposite to make reference of the definition of workman, as defined under Sec.2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947:- "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(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 [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.

Thus, it is clear from the statement of WW1 that Petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Manager at the time of removal from service and was doing the job in supervisory capacity and was getting salary of Rs. 25,647/- p.m. which is exceeding Rs.10,000/- p.m. and he is not covered under the definition of workman under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Since, he is not covered under Sec.2(s), definition of workman the provision of I.D. Act is not applicable to his case and this petition is not maintainable.

Further, Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Vs.

A.M. Sekhar ( died)and others, 2014 IV LLJ 333 (Mad), have held,

"26. From a perusal of the findings rendered by the Labour Court in each case with regard to the status of

the 'employee' as workman', it is evident that the Labour Court has been carried over only by the contention

of the respective employees that they have no power to appoint, dismiss or commence disciplinary action or

to recommend sanction leave or enter into the contract on behalf of the Company and the evidence of W.W.2.

In our considered view, these general observations made uniformly in respect of all the employees, without

discussing individually in respect of each and every duty and responsibility assigned to the respective

employees, will not satisfy the required exercise to be made by the Labour Court for arriving at a conclusion

with regard to the status of an employee, more particularly when such a claim made by the employee is

denied and disputed by the Management at all stages. The Labour Court has to necessarily go into each

and every duty and responsibility of the employee and to give a finding as to which of such duties and

responsibilities are predominant in character.

28. Only by considering the claim made by the employees in the claim petitions and without analysing the

nature of each and every duty and responsibility of the employees and without giving a finding as to whether

such nature of duties and responsibilities are duties of a workman or of a person with managerial capacity,

the Labour Court came to such a conclusion that these employees were workmen. When a jurisdictional

issue is raised before the Labour Court by specifically contending that these employees are not the workmen

within the meaning and definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, such issue has to be

considered and decided by considering all the evidence available before the Labour Court, If the

documentary evidence marked on the side of the Management were not at all considered or discussed by the

Labour Court and however, a decision is arrived at to the effect that they are 'workmen', such decision can

not be sustainable in the eye of law as the finding given are perverse."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court for determining the question whether the employee is covered under the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The analysis of the nature of each and every duty and responsibility of the employee are to be taken into consideration. Further, it is to be seen whether such nature of duties and responsibilities are duties of workman or of a person with managerial capacity.

11. From the analysis of oral and documentary evidence on record it is clearly established that at the time of his removal from the service, Petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in the Respondent company and was having supervision and control of over 500 Workmen. Further, Petitioner has got control of the Workers in respect of discharge of their duties and has power to sanction leave etc., to the workers under him. Further, WW1 has also admitted in cross examination that he is covered under the Coal Mines Officer (Conduct and Discipline) Rules and his job was as a Mine Engineer to carry the mining work and safety of the Workmen. Through the above statement of the WW1 has already established that he was doing the job of supervisory nature was getting salary exceeding Rs.10,000/-p.m. has not covered under the definition of workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of I.D. Act. Therefore, in view of fore gone discussion irresistible conclusion arrived at that the Petitioner was not a Workman in the Respondent company at the time of his removal order dated 24.2.2014, and hence his Petitioner against removal order passed by Respondent not maintainable under I.D. Act in this Industrial Tribunal. As the Petitioner is not covered under the definition of Workman defined under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, his claim statement is not maintainable under ID Act, 1947.

This Point is answered against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.

12. Point No.II:- In view of the fore gone discussion and finding arrived at Point No.I, Petitioner is not covered under the definition of Workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Therefore, claim statement of the Petitioner against his removal order dated 24.2.2014 issued by the Respondent is not maintainable in this Tribunal.

This point is answered against the Petitioner.

13. Point No.III:- In view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as his petition is not maintainable in this Tribunal, under I.D. Act, 1947.

This Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points No. I & II, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner is not covered under the definition of 'workman' under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, hence, petition not maintainable in this Tribunal under I.D. Act. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 20th day of August, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri Shaik Yacoob Imran MW1: Sri B.R. Deekshitulu

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photostat copy of demand letter addressed to CGM SCCL, Godavarikhani, dt.2.9.2016 Ex.W2 Photostat copy of conciliation proceedings Ex.W3: Photostat copy of certificate of competency issued by Ministry of Labour & Employment Ex.W4: Photostat copy of office order dt.2.7.2008 Ex.W5: Photostat copy of certificate of competency to manage coal mine dt.7.7.2007 Ex.W6: Photostat copy of identity certificate dt.31.7.2009 Ex.W7: Photostat copy of provisional certificate dt.15.12.2006 Ex.W8: Photostat copy of certificate as 2nd class Manager dt.2.11.2007 Ex.W9: Photostat copy of certificate of 1st class Manager of competency dt.30.10.2010 Ex.W10: Photostat copy of office order dt.24.2.2014 Ex.W11: Photostat copy of letter issued by Colliery Manager dt.25.9.2008 Ex.W12: Photostat copy of certificate of practical experience issued by Colliery Manager dt.26.9.2008 Ex.W13: Photostat copy of office order dt.8.10.2009 Ex.W14: Photostat copy of office memo dt.12.4.2011 Ex.W15: Photostat copy of medical report dt.15.10.2011 Ex.W16: Photostat copy of DD of Rs.1,31,954/- dt.3.2.2015 Ex.W17: Photostat copy of notice for payment of dues dt.25.7.2016.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Photostat copy of provisional offer of appointment dt.3.4.2006 Ex.M2: Photostat copy of office order dt.1.4.2011 Ex.M3: Photostat copy of Office order dt.31.3.2012 Ex.M4: Photostat copy of notice dt.16.10.2013 Ex.M5: Photostat copy of endorsement of postal authorities on the notice cover Ex.M6: Photostat copy of office order dt.24.2.2014 Ex.M7: Photostat copy of copy of judgement in OS No.58/2015 dt.31.7.2015 Ex.M8: Photostat copy of decree in OS No.58/2015

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2122.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में – सह – , जबलपुर के पंचाट (एलसी-आर/ / ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/16/2023-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकं दन.एन, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 4985

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/45/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.

[No. L-22012/16/2023–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2010

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh (HMS),

House No. EWS-62, Shanti Nagar,

Housing Board Colony,

Katni (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

Seepat Road, Bilaspur,

(C.G.) - 495006

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 24th day of October-2024.)

As per letter dated 21/02/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/16/2023 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 21/02/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-

" Demand No. 2

Whether the action of the Management for deducting subscription @ Rs. 484/- towards Group

Insurance Scheme from the wages of workman is legal and justified? To what relief are the claimant entitled

for?

Demand No. 3

Whether the demand of the Union for deduction subscription towards fee for union without

authorization letter or for deduction of subscription made for more than one union form the wages of the

workmen by the Management is legal and justified? To what relief are the claimants entitled for? "

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Both the parties submitted their respected statement of claim/ defence.

During pendency of the case, today the management filed an application to dismiss the reference in view of a settlement reached at between the parties. The joint application by the parties stating the out of Court settlement filed with authority letter by management Ld. Counsel Shri Neeraj Kewat along with the application. Ld. Counsel for workman union Shri Subodh Agarwal has no objection since the dispute has been settled between the parties hence the reference became infructuous, hence is answered accordingly.

DATE: 24/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer4986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2123.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कें रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय II के पंचाट (ं37/2020,38/2020) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल -12025/01/2024- आई आर (बी-I)-234]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.37/2020,38/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-234]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 37/2020

Sh. Anil Kumar,

Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,

CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,

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

Gurgaon, Haryana.

I.D. No. 38/2020

Smt. Manisha,

Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,

CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,

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

Gurgaon, Haryana.

Versus

1. The Director General C.P.W.D.

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Chief Engineer (Electrical Co-ordination) CPWD,

East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.

3. The Executive Engineer, CPWD,

Noida Division, Room No. 319, B-Wing,

3rd Floor, I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these two applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. Claims of the workmen are that they have joined into the employment in the year 2013 and 2014 in the post of computer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 4987 operators respectively. They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records were clean and they had not given any complaint so far. From the initial date of joining, they were being treated as a daily rated/casual/ must roll worker and was being wages as fixed and never revised from time to time to under the Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate government while their counter parts to the identical work and the work of the same value but who was being treated as regular employees were paid their salary in proper pay scale and allowances. They also enjoy other facilities like uniform, P.F., Medical leave, CL, Gazette/Festival/Restricted Holidays which are completely denied to the workmen. Workmen supposed to be regularized since their respective initial date of joining but, the management has never regularized them till now. Workmen had raised the dispute on the management for regularize their services from the initial date of joining but, the management adamant from his demand and terminated their services. The action of the management is wholly illegal, bad and unjust. Workmen have been met about with hostile discrimination as juniors to have been retained in services and they have been thrown out of job. Many fresh new persons have been taken into the employment after removing the aforesaid workman. At the time of termination of services no seniority list was displayed, no notice was given, no notice pay was either offered or paid no services compensation was either offered or paid to the workmen. The impugned termination of services is violative of section 25 (f), (g) & (h) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The demand notice was served upon to the managements, but no reply was received and it was presumed that the demand has been rejected. Hence, they have filed the present claim with the prayer to reinstate them with full back wages.

W.S has been filed by the respondent. Management had denied the averment made in their claims. He had submitted that workmen concerned are totally baseless and meritless having no locus stand. In fact they are not the employee of the management. Their claims are liable to be dismissed.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 08.12.2021 i.e.-

1. Whether the Claims are maintainable.

2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimants.

3. Whether the services of the workmen were terminated illegally?

4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to from which date?

Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. On behalf of management, Sh. M.D Maheshwari 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. Files are consigned to record room.

Date 31st, July, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2124.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं II दिल्ली के पंचाट (ं11/2021) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल -12025/01/2024- आई आर (बी-I)-235]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024

S.O. 2124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-235]

SALONI, Dy. Director4988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 11/2021

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma,

S/o Late Sh. Charan Singh Sharma

R/o- D-01/536, Gali No.-04, Ashok Nagar,

Shahdara, Delhi-110093.

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Head Office-Chander Mukhi,

Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

2. The Regional Manager,

Central Bank Of India,

Regional Office: B-1398, 01st Floor,

Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.

Counsels:

For Claimant: None

For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Ojha, Ld. AR.

AWARD

By this 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 respondent for his illegal termination. Claim of the workman is that he was appointed as peon in the year 1993 in Central Bank of India at Ghonda Branch, Delhi. He had been doing his work with diligently and honestly. His service record is clean and he has not given any chance to any complaint to any concerned officer, but, fraudulently management had initiated a departmental enquiry against him and suspended him in March, 2000 from his job. Management also got a false and fabricated FIR registered in which workman had to remain in jail for two months and also been terminated from his said post. Despite the innocency, the workman contested the said case for 19 years and was facing many difficulties and problems and leading a shameful life and he feel shameful and insulted in the eyes of society. At that time, the daughter of the workman was preparing the studies for government job and due to the above said reasons the image and goodwill of the daughters of the workman was fell down in the society and they did not get any job. After acquittal of the workman, the workman is unemployed till date and he did not succeed to get any work. On 25.09.2019 a demand notice was served upon the management but despite the service of the legal/demand notice the management neither complied nor gave reply of the same. Workman has sent a request letter/industrial dispute to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Central, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 before Assistant Labour Commissioner cum conciliation officer-III, Delhi, but it was resulted into failure. Hence, he has filed the present claim.

W.S has been filed by the respondent. He had denied the averment made in the claim. He stated that on 02.03.2000 workman was suspended from service vide letter dated Ro (North)/Dad/227/99-2000/521 issued by the management bank on 02.03.2000 for committing acts of omission and commission while working at peon at Patparganj office, Delhi during his service period from 21.09.1999 to 17.12.1999 inter-alia stating that he has not discharged his duties with utmost care with honesty, devotion and diligence which is on becoming of a Bank Employee. Workman has committed gross irregularities in while depositing and withdraw of the alleged amount of Rs. 30,000/- in total from account no. 19684 which is maintained in the name of Sh. Nitender. Workman on 21.09.1999 change a figure or Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 15,500/- by inserting "1" and on 01.12.1999 again inserted "2" to make a figure of Rs. 21,000/- instant of Rs. 1,000/- by repeating again and again workman had done fraud of Rs. 30,000/- on different dates and for withdrawl of the above said amount. Workman doing all with malafide intention to cheat the bank. He had submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 19.01.2023 i.e.- 1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether the domestic enquiry against the claimant was conducted fairly.

3. Whether the punishment imposed on the claimant commensurate the charge.

4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.

Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. On behalf of management, Sh. Vivek Ojha appeared. 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: 23rd, July, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2125.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार

के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट (ं36/2023) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल -39025/01/2024- आई आर (बी-II)-43]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.36/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR (B-II)-43]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ghasiram Mewada,

S/o Mohan Singh Mewada,

Vill. Pborkhedao Teh Ashta,

Sehore, (M.P.) - 466114

Workman

Versus

The Canara Bank,

Ashta, Sehore

Madhya Pradesh - 466114

Management4990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)

Vide communication reference number RLC-7(31)2022 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') The dispute under reference related to :-

"क्या आवेदक कर्मकार श्री घीसार्रा र्ेवाड़ को कैनरा बैंक प्रबंधन द्वारा ददनांक 15.01.2022 से नौकरी से बबना ककसी

सूचना के ननकाला जाना उचचत है? यदद नहीं तो ककन लाभों के साथ पुनः नौकरी पाने का हक़दार है ? "

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. Though management was present several time. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 22/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2126.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार फे रो स्क्रै प निगम लिमिटेड, भिलाई यूनिट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री संजय बांगड़े एंड 10 अन्य के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न. 45/2016) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26012/3/2016-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Bhilai Unit and Shri Sanjay Bangade & 10 others which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. L-26012/3/2016-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/45/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Sanjay Bangade & 10 Others

Helper-cum-Greaser(Trainee).

Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai,

District Durg

Workman

Versus

The Unit Head.

Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., Bhilai Unit,

Inside Bhilari Steel Plant, Mockdump Area,

P.B.No.54, Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai Durg(CG-490001)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18th day of October-2024.)

As per letter dated 12/04/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of LD.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 26012/3/2016-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:-

"1. Whether the action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status

of permanency to 11 workmen, namely, S/Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal,

Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra

Kumar & Ram Singh and regularizing their services is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen

are entitled to?

2. Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., a Central Public Sector undertaking Company, the Government of

Indian is appropriate Government."

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.

The case of the workmen, as stated in their statement of claim, is that they were offered temporary appointment on the post of Helper/Greaser for an initial period of one year from the date of joining with the management Company. Their selections were made on the basis of interview/trade test conducted by the Management. The different dates of appointment letter are as follows:

It is their case that they were appointed temporarily for a period of one year which could be extended for another period of 2 years, subject to vacancy requirement prevailing at that time and job performance. Their period of appointment was extended for 2 years and they were allowed to continue with the service of company for further extended period of 2 years, after completion of initial period of one year. Thereafter, instead of regularizing these workmen the Management adopted the practice of extension of their services for 03 months from time to time and kept this extension in continuation till 2016. According to the workmen, this was an unfair labour practice adopted by the Management with a view to deprive all these workmen of their legally admissible claims and dues regarding their absorption and regularization with the company inspite of the fact that job and vacancy existed for which their appointment was extended from time to time. It is further the case of the workmen that they are still in employment of the management but have been deprived of benefits of regularization and absorption in the cadre. Accordingly, they claimed that the reference be answered in their favour, holding the action of the management in not giving the status of permanency and not regularizing their services, is against law and not justified in law and also they be held entitled to be given permanent as well regular status.

According to the written statement of defense filed by Management, it is admitted that after adopting recruitment procedure, these workmen were temporarily appointed for the post of Helper for initial period of one year from the date of joining in the year July-August 2012 and their services were extended for 02 years after they completed one year in service as per their condition stated in their appointment letter. According to the Management, their appointment letter are covered by Certified Standing Orders, which contain provision for confirmation of permanent status to the workmen who complete twelve months of continuous service within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on one or more posts, in connection with temporarily increase in permanent work. According to the Management, as per their offer of appointment, the engagement was of purely temporary in nature, for a period of one year and upon exigency and utilization of their services, could be extended for another 02 years. It was also mentioned in the offer of appointment that in the event of long term requirement and availability of permanent vacancy, their case could be considered for permanent employment, as per rules subject to their satisfactory work performance, during their temporary employment. Also, it has been pleaded that it was specifically stated in the offer of appointment that at no point of time, these appointees could claim permanent absorption, hence according to the management, their claim for regularization and permanent absorption is not sustainable in law. It is further the case of Management that the work is of temporary nature, taking these workmen in permanent capacity would cause severe financial implication and Management is not in a position to absorb these workmen on permanent post due to unpredictable job availability with the Management. Accordingly, it had been prayed, that the reference be answered against the workmen.

The workmen mainly filed and proved their initial officer of appointment and letters of extension of service issued by the Management from time to time. All these documents had been admitted by Management and have been marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-29.

The workman side examined on oath the workman Sanjay Bagade who has been cross-examined by Management. The Management also examined its witness Sourabh Radheshyam Tharewal, Manager Law, who was been cross-examined by workman. The Management did not file any documents.

Thereafter, following Award was passed by this Tribunal on 16.07.2021, holding that firstly, the job against which these workmen were appointed is of permanent nature. Secondly, the action of management in continuing these workmen by way of granting extensions and pretending the jobs of temporary nature was unfair labour practice as defined u/s. 2(ra) of the Act as mentioned in Section 6 & 10 of Schedule-IV to the Act. It was also held proved that the workmen were qualified for permanent appointments because the criteria with respect to the qualification and selection process regarding permanent appointment was same as it was with respect to temporary appointments.

A. "The action of management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Bhilai in not giving status of permanency

to the 11 workmen namely, Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal, Umesh,

Jaydeep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra Kumar

& Ramsingh and regularizing their services is not justified in law.

B. These 11 workmen are entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis after expiry of initial one year and

extended two years terms and are entitled to be regularized accordingly.

C. No order as to cost."

The management challenged this Award before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattis Garh in W.P. (L) No.- 74/2021, which was decided on 11.12.2023 with following observations and directions :-

"19. In the light of above stated legal position and also considering the Standing Orders applicable to the

workmen, also considering the evidence and materials on record, I am of the view that the learned Central

Government Industrial Tribunal has not recorded its finding that permanent vacancy is available or what is the

sanctioned strength, has passed the award, directing the petitioner to regularize the workmen, which is nothing but

amounting to creation of posts, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned CGIT, as such, the award dated

16.07.2021 is contrary to law on perverse finding, therefore, it deserves to be interfered by this Court.

20. Accordingly, the award dated 16.07.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned

Central Government Industrial Tribunal for deciding the case afresh after ascertaining what is the sanctioned

strength, whether posts of Helper cum Greaser are available with the petitioner, whether the performance of the

respondents is satisfactory or not ? Then only, the reference could be answered by the learned Tribunal. The

petitioner and the respondents are free to amend their pleadings and are also free to bring on record fresh

evidence, materials to substantiate their respective contentions.

21. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is partly allowed."

Thereafter, the case was again taken by this Tribunal.

Vide order dated 25.06.2024, the workman side was directed to file an affidavit, whether their post is in executive or non-executive cadre. Management was also directed to file an affidavit on the point as to how many posts of Helper cum Greaser were available within the period 27.07.2012 (date of first appointment of the workmen) to 14.08.2012 (the date on which last appointment letter was issued) and also to file authenticated copy of confidential report of these workmen from the date of their first appointment, till 2023-24 i.e. from 2012-13 to 2023-24.

The workman side filed its affidavit in the light of the said order on 12.07.2024 , wherein it was stated that their post is of non-executive cadre. They also stated the year wise vacancies in the executive and non-executive cadre since August 2012 to July 2024. This affidavit is uncontroverted.

They also filed RTI information obtained by them on 31.01.2024, wherein it has been stated that the sanctioned posts of executives and non-executives under the management is 180 and 1200 respectively.

The management did not care to file any affidavit as required by the said order nor did they file any authenticated copy of annual confidential reports of the workmen within the period 2012-13 to 2023-24 as directed.

From the aforesaid material on record, it is established to the hilt hence, held proved that, there have been vacancies in the non-executive cadre to which these workmen belong right from 2012-13 to 2023-24. Further, the act of management in not filing the annual confidential reports of these workmen as directed vide order mentioned above, leads to an adverse inference against the management that, had these documents been filed by management, they would have gone against them. Hence, it can be safely held proved that these workmen have nothing against them in their annual confidential reports as claimed by them in affidavit from their side.

It is to be kept in mind that, the findings of this Tribunal holding that firstly, the job against which these workmen were appointed is of permanent nature. Secondly, the action of management in continuing these workmen by way of granting extensions and pretending the jobs of temporary nature was unfair labour practice as defined u/s. 2(ra) of the Act and Section 6 & 10 of Schedule-IV to the Act and thirdly, that the workmen were qualified for permanent appointments because the criteria with respect to the qualification and selection process regarding permanent appointment was same as it was with respect to temporary appointments has not been set aside by Hon'ble High Court.

Learned Counsel for workmen has referred to a common Judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.-1059/2005, Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Bhupendar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal No. 6315/2013 decided on 07.08.2013. In this case Special Police Officers were appointed u/s. 17 of Police Act 1861 on temporary basis and worked continuously for 20 years and more, Hon'ble the Apex Court, holding that they were entitled to be absorbed in the services of state and the State was directed to regularize their services by creating necessary posts and has submitted that in suitable circumstances, Court can direct creation of posts also.

There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the case referred, but facts of the case in hand are different in the sense that there have been vacancies all over the time with respect to the posts to which the workmen in the case in hand are claiming. The action of management in advertising the vacancy, adopting recruitment process and continuing the workmen in employment since so many years supports this proposition regarding existence of vacancies. Even the management witness has stated in his statement on oath in his cross examination that the nature of work on which these workmen are employed is of permanent nature and that they have been working continuously since the date of their first appointment till date also establishes the vacancy relating to permanent posts of Helper cum Greaser/Non-executives. In another case of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Brijraj Nagar Coal Mines Workers Union, Civil Appeal (S) No.- 4092-4093/2024, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that when the fact that nature of the work, the continuity of the work and continuous working of the workman was proved, it would be a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization for no fault of workmen and direction given in this respect regarding regularization and granting permanent status by High Court was affirmed.

This extract is taken from Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC

(L&S) 408 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 132 at page 207

Re: Relief of regularisation

23. Before we advert to this question, it would be necessary to examine as to whether the Constitution Bench

judgment in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has

applicability in the matters concerning industrial adjudication. We have already pointed out above, the contention of

the counsel for the appellants in this behalf, relying upon Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe

Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] that the decision in Umadevi

(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] would be binding on the Industrial or

Labour Courts. On the other hand, the counsel for FCI has referred to the judgment in U.P. Power Corpn. [U.P.

Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] for the submission that law

laid down in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] equally

applies to Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts. It, thus, becomes imperative to examine the aforesaid two judgments at

this juncture.

24. A perusal of the judgment in U.P. Power Corpn. [U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] would demonstrate that quite a few disputes were raised and referred to the Industrial Tribunal qua the alleged termination of Respondents 2 and 3 in that case. Without giving the details of those cases, it would be sufficient to mention that in one of the cases the Tribunal held that after three years of their joining in service both Respondents 2 and 3 were deemed to have been regularised. The appellants filed the writ petition which was also dismissed. Challenging the order of the High Court, the appellants had approached this Court. It was argued that there could not have been any regularisation order passed by the Industrial Court in view of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The counsel for the workmen had taken a specific plea that the powers of the industrial adjudicator were not under consideration in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and that there was a difference between a claim raised in a civil suit or a writ petition on the one hand and one adjudicated by the industrial adjudicator. It was also argued that the Labour Court can create terms existing in the contract to maintain industrial peace and therefore it had the power to vary the terms of the contract.

29. It was further noticed in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan

Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] that Section 32 of the Act provides that the

court shall have the power to decide all connected matters arising out of any application or a complaint referred to it

for decision under any of the provisions of this Act. The Court then extensively quoted from the judgment in Umadevi

(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] in order to demonstrate the exact

ratio laid down in the said judgment and thereafter proceeded to formulate the following question and answer

thereto: (Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009)

8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , SCC p. 573, para 30)

"30. The question that arises for consideration is: have the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act been

denuded of the statutory status by the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi (3) [State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ? In our judgment, it is not."

31. The Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] also accepted the legal proposition that courts cannot direct creation of posts, as held in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union [(2001) 7 SCC 346 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1180] . Referring to this judgment, the Court made it clear that inaction on the part of the State Government to create posts would not mean an unfair labour practice had been committed by the employer (University in that case) and as there were no posts, the direction of the High Court to accord the status of permanency was set aside. The Court also noticed that this legal position had been affirmed in State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde [State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde, (2005) 6 SCC 751 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 907] . The Court also reiterated that creation and abolition of post and regularisation are purely executive functions, as held in a number of judgments and it was not for the court to arrogate the power of the executive or the legislature by directing creation of post and absorbing the workers or continue them in service or pay salary of regular employees. This legal position is summed up in para 41 which reads as under: (Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , SCC p. 576)

"41. Thus, there is no doubt that creation of posts is not within the domain of judicial functions which

obviously pertains to the executive. It is also true that the status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court

where no such posts exist and that executive functions and powers with regard to the creation of posts cannot be

arrogated by the courts."

39. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when

there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction

for regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number

of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularisation would be impermissible. In the

aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in

by such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to

Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not

meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is found

that similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the

workmen in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of

regularisation in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself

would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution. Thus, the industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than

violating this constitutional provision.

40. The aforesaid examples are only illustrative. It would depend on the facts of each case as to whether the

order of regularisation is necessitated to advance justice or it has to be denied if giving of such a direction infringes

upon the employer's rights.

Following observation of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chand Pandey, (2008) 1 SCC 1992

This extract is taken from U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736 :

2007 SCC OnLine SC 1223 at page 98

16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that

often Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is being applied by courts mechanically as if it were

a Euclid's formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar

University [(2003) 2 SCC 111] and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2004) 8 SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778] a little

difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.

Hence, in our opinion, Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be applied mechanically

without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC

1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] inapplicable to the facts of that case.

Hence, in the light of the facts proved and discussed as mentioned above, holding The action of the

management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status of permanency to 11 workmen, namely,

Sarvshri Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal, Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar

Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra Kumar & Ram Singh and not regularizing their

services not justified in law,the 11 workmen are entitled to be given permanent status, after expiry of initial

one year and extended two years term and are entitled to be regularized accordingly within 30 days from the

date of notification of Award. They are also held entitled to the consequential benefits regarding arrears etc.

payable to them within 60 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a.

from the date of Award, till payment. The workmen are held entitled to litigation cost Rs. 50,000/- payable by

management within 60 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from

the date of Award, till payment, the reference is answered as follows.

AWARD

A. The action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status of

permanency to 11 workmen, namely, Sarvshri Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar

Lal, Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu,

Jitendra Kumar & Ram Singh and not regularizing their services is not justified in law,

B. These 11 workmen are entitled to be given permanent status, after expiry of initial one year

and extended two years term and are entitled to be regularized accordingly within 30 days from the

date of notification of Award. They are also held entitled to the consequential benefits regarding

arrears etc. payable to them within 60 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which

interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date of Award, till payment.

C. The workmen are entitled to litigation cost Rs. 50,000/- payable by management within 60

days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date of

Award, till payment.

DATE: 18/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2127.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स भिलाई स्टील प्लांट, (सेल); माइन हॉस्पिटल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और मेटल माइंस वर्क र्स यूनियन (इंटक) के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स4996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] न. 15/2018) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26011/30/2017-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 15/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL; Mine Hospital and Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. L-26011/30/2017-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/15/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The President,

Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC),

Branch- Nandini Mines of BSP, Qtr. No. 6/A,

Street No. 37/B, Sector – 7, Bhilai,

District – Durg (Chattisgarh) – 490006.

Workman

Vs

1. The Chief Executive Director (Mines),

M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL,

PO – Bhilai, Distt. - Durg (CG),

Pin Code – 490001.

2. The Dy. Director,

Mine Hospital, PO- Dalli-Rajhara,

District – Durg (Chattisgarh)

Management

(JUDGEMENT)

(Passed on this 24th day of October-2024)

As per letter dated 22/03/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') as per Notification No. L- 26011/30/2017-IR (M) dt. 22/03/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of the Mines Hospital, Dalli Rajhara, Durg and M/s Bhilai Steel

Plant, Bhilai in framing the charge sheet dated 21.06.2007 against Smt. Anita Mishra, Nursing Sister is

correct and the punishment inflicted by the management on the employee is just, proper and legal? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

After registering case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to parties. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

Case of the Workman, in brief, is mainly that she was appointed as Nurse Sister with the management. In the year 2005, she was diagnosed suffering from C.L.D. e PH Te decompensation decease. She informed the management about her illness and proceeded for treatment. On 23.03.2006. When she came back after recovery and submitted her joining request to the Management, she was informed that her medical reports had been forwarded to the Disabled Permanent Unfit Medical Board and was advised to join after Medical Board takes a decision in this respect on the basis of her medical papers. On 01.04.2006, when she went to the Hospital, she was referred to Bhilai for observation subsequently Medical Board directed for her medical examination vide order dated 21.08.2006 and 26.08.2006. After her examination, the Medical Board directed her to appear before them. According to the workman, she appeared before the Medical Board as directed by them. The Medical Board directed her to join her duties but with a instruction that she would not work in the ward but somewhere else and take treatment simultaneously. She joined her duties on 16.03.2007 as advised and directed by Medical Board. Further, according to the workman, the management issued a charge sheet dated 21.06.2007 without issuing prior notice alleging charge of misconduct by habitual absenting herself wilfully and un authorisedly without leave or without sufficient cause for a period of 366 days from November 2005 to February 2007. She submitted reply to the charge sheet wherein she stated about illness and narrated about incidents as mentioned above but a Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him by the Disciplinary Authority without considering her reply to the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his enquiry report holding that though the workman did not absent herself wilfully or without sufficient cause, but since during that period she did not apply for leave therefore the charges levelled against her were partially established, which is perverse and in ignorance of evidence on record, as narrated above, produced by her during the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly concluding with the finding of Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report and issued a show cause notice to her with a copy of the Enquiry Report. In her reply, the workman again stated about her medical condition and treatment as well examination by Medical Board, stating that her absence was not wilful but the Disciplinary Authority awarded the impugned punishment without considering her representation vide its order dated 05.10.2007 in which she was reduced to a lower rank for period of 2 years with accumulative effect from 04.01.2007. Her departmental appeal against the punishment was heard and partially modified to reduction of basic pay by one stage for a period of 2 years with accumulative effect vide order of Appellant Authority dated 28.04.2008.

According to the workman, the charges were wrongly held proved against her. Hence, order of Disciplinary Authority as well Appellant Authority regarding punishment is bad in law. The workman has therefore requested that holding the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 04.01.2007 and Appellant Authority dated 28.04.2008 unjust in law, she be held entitled to her original status/ position with respect to her salary with all consequential benefits and back wages.

Case of management is mainly that after the workman was transferred and joined at RMH, the Senior Deputy Director I/C Rajhara Mines Hospital preferred for ascertaining her medical fitness for the reason of her permanent absence from duty without intimation. She was directed to appear before Disciplinary Medical Board. The Board Meeting on 07.08.2006 and recorded her case as pending investigation to be reviewed in the next board. The board conducted its second meeting on 12.02.2007 and considered her case to be fit for duty. The Disciplinary Authority instituted Disciplinary proceeding against the workman for her intermittent absence without prior intimation for the period 7th November, 2005 to 19th February 2007 which was for 366 days. The reply of the workman on the charge sheet submitted as report dated 17.08.2007 holding her guilty of charges and thereafter, having heard reply on the Enquiry Report, the impugned punishment award was passed which was further reduced by Appellant Authority. According to management, the finding of the Enquiry Officer not perverse and punishment is not disproportionate to the charges.

Following issues were framed vide order dated 27.02.2024 on the basis of pleadings.

1. Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is just proper and legal.

2. Whether the charges are proved or not in the departmental enquiry.

3. Whether the punishment imposed on workman is just and proper or not.

Issue No. 1 was taken as preliminary issued.

In evidence on issue No. 1 workman filed photocopy documents regarding her termination charge sheet enquiry and punishment, admitted by management which are marked exhibit W-1 to W-15. The management also filed Photocopy Documents mainly relating to the enquiry, admitted by workman side, marked Exhibit M-1 to M-45 the workman also filed her Medical Card, order of Deputy Director of the Hospital directing a workman to appear for medical examination with all relevant papers, her reply to the charge sheet punishment order by Disciplinary Authority and Appellant Authority application of the workman for reviewed and order of management which are Exhibit W-16 to W-14. The workman filed her affidavit as her examination-in-chief. She was cross examined by management.

The management also filed affidavit of its witness Dr. Ashok as his examination-in-chief who never appeared for cross-examination.

On the basis of evidence on record issue No. 1 was decided on preliminary issued vide order dated 05.04.2024 holding the departmental enquiry conducted legal and proper. This order is part of this award.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence on framing issues. No evidence on framing issues was adjusted by any of the parties.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Shri K.B. Singh for workman and Shri R.C. Srivastava for management. I have gone through the record as well.

Issue No. 2-

The charge against the workman is that she committed misconduct by way of willfully and habitually absenting herself from un authorizedly from duty without leave or without sufficient cause which is misconduct as defined in Rule 5(1) of the Hindustan Steel Limited Disciplinary and Appeal Rules ( in short 'Rules') the period of absence in the charge was total 366 days in different periods from November 17, 2005 to February 19, 2007. As it comes out from the enquiry papers that the workman took the ground of her illness and treatment and also the fact are of sending her by management to the Medical Board as well examination of her case by Medical Board two times and finally declaring her fit to join duty .

As it comes out from the Enquiry Report which is Exhibit W-10 on record and is admitted document, the Enquiry Officer observed that on examination of defense documents as well statement of the workman in the enquiry, it was evident that she was ill during the period but it was not clear as to why she did not apply for leave during the period of her absence. The Enquiry Officer further observed that since she was a senior employee and had put considerable time in service she must be presumed to be known the Rules and Regulations regarding furnishing information to Management and seeking leave or permission which she did not take. Hence, the charges are partially established. The punishment order shows that the punishment was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority holding the charge of willful and unauthorized absence from duty fully proved. Thus there is a difference between the charge which was found proved by the Enquiry Officer and charge for which the workman was punished by the Disciplinary Authority as well Appellant Authority. This fact gains significance coupled with the fact that the management could not produce any disagreement note by the Disciplinary Authority as to on which grounds he found the charges fully proved and disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

Rule 5(1) of the standing order under which the workman has been charge reads as under :-

"Habitual late attendance, wilful or habitual absence from duty without leave or without sufficient

cause."

The Enquiry Officer hold the charge partially proved on the ground that the absence was not willful. The only fault was that the workman did not apply for leave. As the Rule 5(1) reads, since it is established that she was being treated under the knowledge of management and had to go through examination by Medical Board for two times. Only thereafter she was declared fit for resuming her duties. Hence, her absence cannot be said without valid reasons. To apply for leave or not apply his discrimination of the employee if he does not apply for leave he will have treated absent from duty if he applies for leave, the management or may or may not grant leave subject to the availability of leave and Rules in this respect. Since, it is established that reason of absence of the workman was well within the knowledge of the management, it not material that the workman herself did not inform management about the reason. Hence, since the absence of the workman was for certain reasons, it is not wilful.

On the basis of this discussion the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding the charge of misconduct by way of wilfully and habitually absenting from duty without information and without getting leave sanctioned, partially proved only on the basis that the workman did not apply for leave is nothing but perverse. Hence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is held perverse. Consequently, finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the charge is fully proved is also held perverse.

Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 3-

In the light of finding recorded on issue No. 2, the punishment awarded is held against law and unjustified.

Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.

AWARD

Holding the action of management of Mines Hospital, Dalli-Rajhara, Durg and M/s Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai in awarding punishment imposing on the workman unjust, improper and against law, the Workman is

held entitled to all back wages and in service benefits payable to her by management within 30 days from the

date of notification treating her exonerated from charges.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 24/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2128.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स कृ ष्णपिंग अलोएस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री मनोहर सहारे के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 19/2022) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-148]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Krishanping Alloys Limited and Shri Manohar Sahare which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-148]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Manohar Sahare,

Palaspani, Kachidhana, Rampeth

Post- Rampeth, Tehsil : Sausar,

Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Krishnaping Alloyes Limited,

Palaspani Manganese Mine,

Rampeth, Tehsil: Sausar,

Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.) Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)

Vide communication reference number J-1(5-3)/2022-IR dated 25/04/2022;by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section- 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') The dispute under reference related to :-

" Is the Applicant Shri Manohar Sahare is workman or not; If yes, then his termination by the

employer M/s. Krishnapping Alloys Limited, Palaspani Manganese Mine, Rampeth, Tah- Sausar, Dist.

Chhindwara ( Madhya Pradesh) is legal or not and what relief Shri Manohar Sahare is entitled for? "

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 22/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2129.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार

मेसर्स कृ ष्णपिंग अलोएस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री ललितमोहन गोलैत के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट

के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न. 21/2022) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक

में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-149]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Krishanping Alloys Limited and Shri Lalitmohan Golait which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-149]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/21/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Lalitmohan Golait,

19, Gyarah Kholi, Jawahar Ward,

Pandhurna, Tahsil: Pandhurna,

Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Krishnaping Alloyes Limited,

Palaspani Manganese Mine,

Rampeth, Tehsil: Sausar,

Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)

Vide communication reference number J-1(5-5)/2022-IR dated 25/05/2022; by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section- 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') The dispute under reference related to :-

" Whether the termination of services of Shri Lalitmohan Golait, Clerk by the employer M/s.

Krishnaping Alloys Limited, Palaspani Manganese Mine, Rampeth, Tah-Sausar, Dist. Chhindwara (Madhya

Pradesh) is legal or not and what relief Shri Lalitmohan is entitled for ?"

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 22/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2130.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड; राजस्थान राज्य टंगस्टन डेवलपमेंट कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और हिन्द जिंक टंगस्टन मज़दूर संघ के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 10/1995 एंड सीआईएस न. 39/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/59/1994-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/1995 & CIS No 39/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the5002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] employers in relation to Hindustan Zinc Limited; Rajasthan State Tungsten Development Corporation Limited and Hindustan Zinc Tungsten Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. L-29012/59/1994-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

Presiding Officer       :        Ashwani vij, RJS (DJ Cadre)
Central IT Case No.     :        10/1995
CIS No.                 :        39/2014

केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक

एल-29012/59/94- आई.आर.(विविध) दिनांक 2.3.1995

संयुक्त सचिव, हिन्द जिंक टंगस्टन मजदूर संघ, डेगाना, जिला नागौर, कार्यालय टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट, डेगाना,

जिला नागौर।

--- प्रार्थी यूनियन

1. हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड, टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट, डेगाना, जिला नागौर, जरिये प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर।

2. राजस्थान राज्य टंगस्टन डवलपमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड जरिये डायरेक्टर इन्चार्ज, मार्फत राजस्थान

स्टेट मिनरल डवलपमेंट कारपोटरेशन लिमिटेड, खनिज भवन, तिलक मार्ग, सी-स्कीम, जयपुर।

--- अप्रार्थीगण

प्रार्थीगण की ओर से : श्री जुगलकिशोर अग्रवाल

अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 की ओर से

श्री पी0के0 पांडे

अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 की ओर से

कोई उपस्थित नहीं।

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की उपरोक्त आज्ञा क्रमांक से निम्न अनुसूची का विवाद अधिनिर्णय

हेतु इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त हुआ है -

"Whether the action of the management of Rajasthan State Tungston Development Corporation, Jaipur in retrenching smt. Gitudi and smt. Sita w.e.f. 3-6-91 and thereafter not taking them in service by the management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., in their Degana Tungston project, Degana (Nagaur) is Justified? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 23, 2024/अग्रहायण 2, 1946 5003

प्रकरण दर्ज किया जाकर उभय पक्षों को नोटिस जारी किये गये। प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से दिनांक 08.05.1995 को स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश कर अभिकथन किया कि प्रार्थी यूनियन एक रजिस्टर्ड ट्रेड यूनियन है और प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण इसके सक्रिय सदस्य हैं। प्रार्थी श्रमिक श्रीमति गीतूडी एवं श्रीमति गीता वर्ष 1974 में बतौर दैनिक वेतन भोगी सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में राज0 स्टेट इण्डस्ट्रियल मिनरल डवलपमेंट कारपारेशन (आरआईएमडीसी) जयपुर के डेगाना प्रोजेक्ट में नियुक्त हुये थे। वर्ष 1979 में आरआईएमडीसी के तमाम मिनरल प्रोजेक्ट को अलग करते हुये राजस्थान स्टेट मिनरल डवलपमेंट कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (आरएसएमडीसी) गठित की गई और उसका डेगाना प्रोजेक्ट नवगठित कंपनी में हस्तांतरित हो गया तथा इसके सभी कर्मचारीगण की सेवा अवधि को निरन्तर मानते हुये उनका समायोजन नवगठित कंपनी में हो गया। वर्ष 1984 में आरएसएमडीसी की एक सब्सीडिटी कंपनी राजस्थान स्टेट टंगस्टन डवलपमेंट (आरएसटीडीसी) बनाई गई, जिसे टंगस्टन माइंस का राजस्थान भर का तमाम खनन आदि का कार्य दिया गया जिसमें डेगाना प्रोजेक्ट भी शामिल था, स्थानांतरित कर दिया गया। साथ ही टंगस्टन माइंस से संबंधित तमाम कर्मचारियों की पूर्व सेवाओं को निरन्तर मानते हुये उन्हें आरएसटीडीसी में समाजिन (अन्तलियन) कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की 10 वर्ष की संतोषजनक सेवाओं को दृष्टिगत रखते हुये उन्हें वर्ष 1989 में आएसटीडीसी द्वारा नियमित कर्मचारियों में शुमार करते हुये नियमित वेतन श्रृंखला 750-930 दी गई और तब से सेवा समाप्ति तक सफाई कर्मचारी के पद की वेतन प्राप्त किया गया। दिनांक 13 जनवरी 1991 को विपक्षीगण

एवं के बीच टंगस्टन माईन्स एवं प्रोजेक्ट आदि को हस्तांतरण करने संबंधी एक समझौता (एग्रीमेंट) हुआ, जिसमें व्यवस्था दी गई कि ट्रासफर्र कम्पनी (आर.एस.टी.डी.सी.) अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 के तमाम कर्मचारियों /स्टाफ (पेंनिंग वक्र्स के अलावा) को ट्रांसफरी कम्पनी अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 अपने यहां पूर्व की सेवा शर्तो के अधीन समायोजित करेगी और उनकी पूर्व की सेवाओं को निरन्तर माना जावेगा। पेंनिंग कर्मचारियों को हटाने एवं मुआवजा आदि देने की जिम्मेदारी अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 ने अपने ऊपर ले ली। उक्त समझौता की अनुपालना में दिनांक 4.6.1991 को राजस्थान के तमाम टंगस्टन खनन आदि से संबंधित तमाम काम मय कर्मचारीगण विपक्षी अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 के अधीन आ गये। प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य श्रीमती गीतूडी एवं श्रीमती सीता जो कि सफाई कर्मचारियों के रुप में कार्यरत थी, को अनावश्यक एवं आरबीट्रेरी रुप से महज उनकी सेवायें समाप्त करने की गरज से उन्हें पेनिंग कर्मचारी मानकर अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 ने एक नोटिस दिनांक 1.6.91 को जारी किया और कार्य न होने का बहाना बनाते हुए दिनांक 4.6.91 से उनकी सेवाऐं समाप्त कर दी। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रार्थीगण को हटाने से पूर्व कोई छंटनी मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया, जो धारा 25 एफ का उल्लंघन है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 द्वारा टेकओवर करने के बाद नये प्लांटेशन एवं नये आवासीय परिसर बनने के कारण सफाई का कार्य बढा ही है, इसके बावजूद कार्य की आवश्यकता नहीं होने का बहाना बनाने की बात पूर्णतया आर्बीटे्ररी एवं मेलाफाईड है जो अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस का द्योतक है। प्रार्थीगण द्वारा कभी भी पेनिंग कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य नहीं किया गया बल्कि सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य किया गया है। प्रार्थीगण को सेवापृथक करने से पूर्व कोई नोटिस एवं नोटिस पे नहीं दिया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25एफएफ की उल्लंघना की गई है। प्रार्थीगण को सेवाासमाप्ति पर तमाम लाभ ग्रेज्युटी, पीएफ, बोनस, मुआवजा आदि की गणना भी नियमानुसार नहीं की जाकर कम भुगतान किया गया है। जिसके विरुद्ध उक्त दोनों श्रमिकों ने प्रार्थी यूनियन की मार्फत एक विवाद भी समझौता वार्ता आयोजित करने हेतु ए.एल.सी. जयपुर के यहां उठाया, लेकिन विपक्षीगण की हठधर्मिता के कारण कोई समझौता नहीं हो सका जिससे असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार को औद्योगिक विवाद कायम करने हेतु प्रेषित कर दिया। अंत में कथन किया है कि उपरोक्त दोनों श्रमिकों का सेवासमाप्ति आदेश निरस्त किया जाकर पुनः सेवा में बहाल करते हुये नियमित वेतन एवं भत्ते एवं पिछला फुल बैक वेजेज दिलाया जावे।

अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 की ओर से जवाब प्र्रस्तुत कर प्रारम्भिक आपत्ति की है कि दिनांक 4.6.1991 से

अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 का अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 में विधिवत्‌ हस्तांतरण हो चुका है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 प्रार्थीगण का

नियोजक नहीं रहा है अतः आवश्यक पक्षकार के अभाव में विवाद चलने योग्य नहीं है। गुणावगुण पर वर्ष

1979 में टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट के डेगाना में नियोजित श्रमिकों की सेवाएं आरएमडीसी में स्थानांतरित होने पर

प्रार्थीगण की सेवाएं भी स्थानांतरित किया जाना तथा वर्ष 1984 में टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट डेगाना में नियोजित श्रमिकों/कर्मचारियों की सेवाएं आरएसएमडीसी से अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 में स्थानांतरित किया जाना स्वीकार करते हुये कथन किया है कि प्रार्थीगण अकुशल कर्मचारी थे, जिन्हें वर्ष 1989 में अकुशल श्रमिक के लिये निर्धारित वेतन श्रृंखला 750-930 दी गई। दिनांक 4.6.1991 को अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 का हस्तांतरण अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 में हो जाने के फलस्वरूप जिन श्रमिकों की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 में हस्तांतरित नहीं की गई उन्हें औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 एफएफ के अन्तर्गत देय राशि का भुगतान करते हुये उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी गई। दिनांक 3.6.91 के पश्चात्‌ अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 के अधीन न तो कोई औद्योगिक संस्थान (खनिज या अन्य) है और न ही नियोजन में कोई श्रमिक ही है। प्रार्थीगण को मुआवजा राशि का भुगतान करते हुये सेवासमाप्ति पर देय ग्रेज्युटी व पीएफ का भुगतान भी किया जा चुका है, जिसे प्रार्थीगण द्वारा स्वीकार भी किया जा चुका है, इस संबंध में उनके द्वारा कोई आपत्ति नहीं की गई। प्रार्थीगण की सेवामुक्ति धारा 25एफ के तहत छंटनी नहीं है। श्रमिको को सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व एक माह का नोटिस एवं नोटिस पे का भुगतान किया जा चुका है। श्रमिकगण अपना समस्त देय लाभ प्राप्त कर चुके हैं। अतः प्रस्तुत क्लेम खारिज किया जावे।

अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 की ओर से दिनांक 24.9.2005 को प्रारम्भिक आपत्ति पेश करते हुये अभिकथन किया है कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित अधिसूचना में अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 पक्षकार नहीं है। प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में केवल नाम लिख देने से पक्षकार नहीं बन जाता है। प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 को कभी हस्तांतरित नहीं की गई और न ही अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 उनका कभी नियोजक ही रहा है। डेगाना टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट भारत सरकार की अनुमति से दिनांक 6.9.97 से बंद हो चुका है और एक बंद संस्थान के विरूद्ध औद्योगिक विवाद चलने योग्य नहीं है। प्रार्थीगण का विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 2के के अन्तर्गत औद्योगिक विवाद की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 जो राजस्थान स्टेट मिनरल डवलपमेंट कॉ0 लि0 की ईकाई थी जो भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाषित अधिसिूचना द्वारा राजस्थान स्टेट माईंस एण्ड मिनरल्स लिमिटेड में अमलगमेट हो गई। अतः प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण का विवाद राजस्थान स्टेट माईंस एण्ड मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के विरूद्ध ही चलने योग्य है क्योंकि आरएसटीडीसी लि0 को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेष दिनांक 4.7.2003 एस.बी. कंपनी पिटीसन नंबर 2001 में बाईडिंग अप (डिजोल्यूशन) किया जा चुका है। अतः प्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम में से अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 को पक्षकार नहीं मानकर विलोपित करने तथा अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त नहीं करने का अवार्ड पारित किये जाने की प्रार्थना की है। गुणावगुण पर 18.12.2012 को जवाब प्रस्तुत कर कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण व उसके मध्य कभी भी नियोजित व नियोक्ता के संबंध नहीं रहे है तो अप्रार्थी के विरूद्ध औद्योगिक विवाद पैदा होने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता है। अतः प्रार्थीगण अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है।

प्रार्थीगण की ओर से साक्ष्य प्रार्थी में सीता पत्नी शंकर, गितुड़ी पुत्री सुवा, उदयशंकर, राम सिंह के

शपथ पत्र पेश हुये जिनसे अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 की ओर से श्री करणीदास

सिंह राजावत का शपथ पत्र पेेष हुआ और अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 की ओर से सत्यवान कौशिक का शपथ पत्र पेष

हुआ लेकिन अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 व 2 के गवाहान करणीदास सिंह राजावत एवं सत्यवान कौशिक प्रतिपरीक्षा हेतु

न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष पेश नहीं हुये, जिससे आदेष दिनांक 6.6.2017 द्वारा विपक्षीगण की साक्ष्य बंद की

गई। अतः अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत गवाहन प्रतिपरीक्षा हेतु न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष उपस्थित नहीं होने के

कारण प्रस्तुत शपथ पत्र पठनीय नहीं है।

प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि एवं अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 की बहस सुनी गई। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 की ओर से कोई उपस्थित

नहीं हुआ।

प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा लिखित बहस पेश कर कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण श्रीमति गितुडी एवं

श्रीमति सीता की प्रथम नियुक्ति वर्ष 1974 में दैनिक वेतन भोगी सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में राजस्थान

आरएसएमडीसी में हुई थी, जो कालांतर में अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 आरएसटीडीसी लि0 हो गई। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2

द्वारा वर्ष 1989 में दोनों सफाई कर्मचारियों को नियमित करते हुये वेतन श्रृंखला 750-930 दी गई। दोनों

श्रमिकगण द्वारा कभी भी पीनिंग वर्क नहीं किया गया। दोनों श्रमिकगण का कार्य अप्रार्थी संस्थान की

कॉलोनी में मकानों एवं सड़कों की सफाई का कार्य था जबकि पीनिंग वर्क पहाडी (खान) पर जो मैटेरियल

निकलता है उसकी छालने से छटाई का कार्य होता है। दिनांक 13.1.91 को अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 व 2 के मध्य एक इकरारनामा हुआ था जिसमें यह तय हुआ था कि पीनिंग वर्क करने वाले श्रमिकों के अतिरिक्त अन्य सभी कर्मचारी अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 के कर्मचारी हो जावेंगे लेकिन अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 द्वारा दुर्भावनापूर्वक प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को अनुचित श्रम नीति अपनाते हुये कोई नोटिस, नोटिस वेतन, मआवजा राशि दिये बिना अधिनियम की धारा 25एफ, 25जी, 25एच की पालना किये बिना उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी गई। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 द्वारा नोटिस दिनांक 1.6.91 के जरिये दिनांक 4.6.91 से श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी गई, जिससे स्पष्ट है कि श्रमिकगण को एक माह का नोटिस नहीं दिया गया और केवल इसी आधार पर ही सेवामुक्ति अवैध हो जाती है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 व 2 के मध्य हुयेे इकरारनामा के अनुसार अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 की समस्त संपत्तियां एवं दायित्व अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 के ऊपर हैं। श्रमिकगण ने अपनी साक्ष्य से अपने क्लेम को साबित किया है तथा श्रमिकगण की ओर से संस्थान में नियुक्त टाईम कीपर उदयशंकर ने भी अपनी साक्ष्य के दौरान कथन किया है कि श्रमिकगण प्रारम्भ से ही स्वीपर के पद पर कार्यरत थे, उसनका पीनिंग वर्क से कोई संबंध नहीं था। अन्य गवाह राम सिंह ने भी उपरोक्त तथ्यों की पुष्टि की है। प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजात्‌ प्रदर्श डवल्यू-1 लगायत 8 अखण्डनीय साक्ष्य रही है तथा अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से कोई साक्ष्य न्यायालय के समक्ष पेष नहीं की गई है जिससे श्रमिकगण की साक्ष्य अखण्डनीय रही है। अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25एफ, 25जी, 25एच की पालना नहीं की गई और न ही अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजात्‌ को साक्ष्य से प्रमाणित ही कराया गया है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 द्वारा इकरारनामा के तहत अनुचित श्रम नीति एवं दुर्भावनावश प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को सफाई कर्मचारी के पद पर बहाल नहीं किया गया। अतः प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण के सेवापृथक आदेश को अपास्त कर सेवा में निरन्तर मानी जाकर सेवा बहाल करने के समस्त पिछला समस्त वेतन दिलाया जावे। प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा अपने तर्कों के समर्थन में निम्न न्यायिक दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किये गये -

1. एआईआर 1984 सुप्रीम कोर्ट 500 गेमन इंडिया लि0 बनाम निंरजन दास।

2. 2002(3) वेल्टर्न लॉ केसेज 67 सुरेष चन्द्र बनाम स्टेट ब्रिज कन्स्ट्रक्षन कॉ0

3. 2013 (139) एफएलआर 541 दीपाली गुंडू सरवास बनाम क्रांति जूनियर अध्यापक व अन्य।

4. एआईआर 1976 सुप्रीम कोर्ट 1111 स्टेट बैंक बनाम एन.एस. मनी।

5. 2000(5) एस एल आर 124 प्रभूदयाल बिरारी बनाम एम.पी. राज्य नागरिक आपूर्ति निगम।

6. सिविल अपील संख्या 3701/2015 गौरी शंकर बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान।

7. 2016 (149) एफएलआर 941 राजकुमार बनाम शिक्षा विभाग

8. 2015 एआईआर एससीडवल्यू 6910 पवन कुमार अग्रवाल बनाम एसबीआई व अन्य।

9. 2015 एआईआर एससीडवल्यू 869 जसमेर सिंह बनाम स्टेट ऑफ हरियाणा व अन्य।

10. 2000 ााा एलएलजे 1678 पीजी इन्स्टी. ऑफ मैडीकल एजुकेशन बनाम वी0के0 शर्मा

11. 2004(103) एफएलआर 102 मै0 निक इंडिया टूल्स बनाम राम सूरत व अन्य।

12. सिविल अपील संख्या 1741/1980 निर्णय उिदनांक 2.12.1983 गम्मन इंडिया लिमिटेड बनाम

निरंजन दास।

13. 1992(64) एफएलआर 978 टे्रड विंग्स लिमिटेड बनाम पी.डी. फोडकर।

14. 1964 ए आईआर 1746 हॉकटीफ गेमन बनाम इण्डस्ट्रियल ट्रिब्युनल व अन्य।

15. 1988 एआईआर 215 भगवान दास चोपडा बनाम यूनाईटेड बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया।

16. सिविल अपील संख्या 3620/1993 इंडियन बैंक बनाम के.ऊषा व अन्य, सुप्रीम कोर्ट निर्णय

दिनांक 26.1.98

अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 के प्रतिनिधि द्वारा बहस की है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण एवं उसके मध्य कभी भी

कर्मचारी एवं नियोजक का संबंध नहीं रहा है। प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को उसके द्वारा सेवापृथक नहीं किया गया है

तो अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना करने का प्रष्न ही नहीं उठता है। प्रार्थी प्रस्तुत रेफरेंस में पक्षकार नहीं

है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 आरएसटीडीसी द्वारा श्रमिक को मुआवजा राशि, नोटिस पे, छुटि्‌टयों की राशि का

भुगतान किया जा चुका है, जिसकी पावती पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है। अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 द्वारा जिन कर्मचारियों

की सूची पेश की गई उनमें प्रार्थीगण का नाम नहीं है। वैसे भी डेगाना टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट भारत सरकार की

अनुमति से दिनांक 6.9.97 से बंद हो चुका है और एक बंद संस्थान के विरूद्ध औद्योगिक विवाद चलने योग्य

नहीं है। अतः प्रस्तुत क्लेम खारिज किया जावे।

मैंने उभय पक्षों द्वारा दिये गये तर्कों पर मनन किया। प्रार्थीगण की साक्ष्य का परिषीलन करे तो प्रार्थी श्रमिका सीता व श्रीमति गितुडी ने अपनी साक्ष्य के मुख्य परीक्षण में कथन किया है कि उसकी प्रथम नियुक्ति वर्ष 1974 में दैनिक वेतनभोगी सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में आरएसआईएमडीसी जयपुर के डेगाना प्रोजेक्ट में हुई थी, जहां उसके द्वारा 1979 तक कार्य किया गया। वर्ष 1979 में यह आरएसएमडीसी में तथा 1984 में आरएसटीडीसी लि0 में हस्तांतरित हो गई, जहां उसके द्वारा सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य किया गया। वर्ष 1989 में उसे सफाई कर्मचारी के पद की नियमित वेतन श्रृंखला 750-930 दी गई जो उसे सेवासमाप्ति तक मिली। वर्ष 1991 में आरएसटीडीसी लि0 व हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड का आपस में समझौता होने पर आरएसटीडीसी के पैनिंग कर्मचारियों को छोड़कर अन्य सभी कर्मचारियों को उनकी पूर्व की सेवाओं की निरन्तरता के साथ हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में देने का अनुबंध हुआ तथा पैनिंग कर्मचारियों को मुआवजा देकर हटाने का तय हुआ। उसकी सेवाएें पैनिंग कर्मचारी मानकर नोटिस दिनांक 1.6.91 द्वारा दिनांक 4.6.91 से समाप्त कर दी जबकि वह पैनिंग कर्मचारी में नहीं आती थी जबकि उसके समान अन्य महिला कर्मचारियों को हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में एब्जार्ब किया गया। साथ ही कथन किया है कि उसे हटाने से पूर्व नियमानुसार छंटनी मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया तथा न ही नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन दिया गया। तथा ग्रेज्युटी, पीएफ, बोनस आदि की गणना भी सही नही ंकर कम भुगतान किया गया। उसका परिचय पत्र प्रदर्श डवल्यू-1 प्रदर्शित कराया गया। अप्रार्थी द्वारा उसकी सेवामुक्ति के बाद नये कर्मचारियों शिवकरण, सूजाराम, मुकेश, श्रीमति सरोज कंवर को स्वीपर के पद पर नई नियुक्ति दी गई लेकिन उसे नहीं बुलाया गया। जिरह के दौरान गवाह ने नोटिस, मुआवजा राषि व चैंक राषि 7226.37/-रू0 मिलने से इंकार किया। साथ ही अन्य 118 श्रमिकों को भी इसी तरह हटाया गया हो, पता नहीं होना कहा है तथा उसे अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 द्वारा सेवा से हटाने का नोटिस नहीं दिया गया। गवाह ने पीएफ, ग्रेज्युटी की राषि अदा करने से भी इंकार किया है। गवाह उदयशंकर व राम सिंह ने अपनी साक्ष्य के दौरान कथन किया है कि श्रमिकगण का पेनिंग कार्य से कोई संबंध नहीं था और वे स्वीपर के पद पर कार्यरत थे।

प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की प्रथम नियुक्ति 1.3.1974 को हुई थी, इस तथ्य की पुष्टि अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत टंगस्टन परियोजना डेगाना में कार्यरत कर्मचारियों की सूची से होती है जिनमें प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की नियुक्ति दिनांक 1.3.1974 अंकित है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि वर्ष 1979 में टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट के डेगाना में नियोजित श्रमिकों की सेवाएं आरएमडीसी में स्थानांतरित की गई और इसके साथ ही प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं भी स्थानांतरित की गई। वर्ष 1984 में टंगस्टन प्रोजेक्ट डेगाना में नियोजित श्रमिकों/कर्मचारियों की सेवाएं आरएसएमडीसी से अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 आरएसटीडीसी लिमिटेड में स्थानांतरित की गई। अप्रार्थी आरएसएमडीसी द्वारा प्रस्तुत जवाब में उसने स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को वर्ष 1989 में अकुशल श्रमिक के लिये निर्धारित वेतन श्रृंखला 750-930 दी गई। मेरे विनम्र मत में नियमित वेतन श्रृंखला का लाभ केवल नियमित कर्मचारी को ही दिया जाता है और श्रमिकगण को स्वीपर के पद की नियमित वेतन श्रृंखला 750-930 प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को वर्ष 1989 में दी गई। अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लिमिटेड द्वारा उसके व अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के मध्य निष्पादित एग्रीमेंट दिनांक 13.01.1991 के तहत पैनिंग कर्मचारियों के अलावा अन्य सभी कर्मचारियों की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में पूर्व की सेवाओं की निरन्तरता के साथ हस्तांतरित करने हेतु निष्पादित हुआ था, जिसके तहत अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लिमिटेड द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को पैनिंग कर्मचारी मानते हुये नोटिस दिनांक 1.6.1991 द्वारा दिनांक 4.6. 1991 से उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त की गई, लेकिन प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण पैनिंग कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्यरत हो, इस

संबंध में कोई मौखिक एवं दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य अभिलेख पर पेष नहीं है। जबकि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण ने अपनी साक्ष्य के दौरान पैनिंग कर्मचारी होने से इंकार किया है और उसकी ओर से प्रस्तुत गवाह उदयशंकर जो विपक्षी संस्थान में टाईमकीपर था तथा राम सिंह जो प्रार्थी यूनियन का सचिव था, ने श्रमिक का स्वीपर के पद पर प्रारम्भ से कार्यरत होना तथा उनका पैनिंग कार्य से कोई संबंध नहीं होना बताया है। अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लिमिटेड द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को स्वीपर के पद की नियमित वेतनश्रृंखला वर्ष 1989 में दी गई है जिसे स्वयं अप्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब में स्वीकार किया है। अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत मौखिक एवं दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य के खण्डन में कोई मौखिक साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की गई है जिससे यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण का कार्य पैनिंग वर्क के समान हो और वे पैनिंग कर्मचारी हो। मैंने एग्रीमेंट दिनांक 13.01.1991 का अवलोकन किया जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से अंकित है कि पैनिंग कर्मचारियों के अलावा अन्य सभी कर्मचारियों की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में हस्तांतरित मानी जावेगी। लेकिन अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को पैनिंग कर्मचारी मानते हुये नोटिस दिनांक 1.6.91 द्वारा दिनांक 4.6.1991 से उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी गई, जो अवैध व अनुचित है। अप्रार्थी द्वारा यह तर्क दिया गया है कि आरएसटीडीसी द्वारा धारा 20 एफ के तहत छंटनी कर श्रमिकगण को नोटिस, नोटिस पे एवं मुआवजा का भुगतान किया गया है, लेकिन किसी भी कर्मचारी की छंटनी किये जाते समय अधिनियम की धारा 25एफ के तहत श्रमिक को एक माह का नोटिस दिया जाना आवष्यक है लेकिन अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लि0 द्वारा दिनांक 1.6.1991 को नोटिस जारी कर उसके तीन दिन बाद से यानी दिनांक 4.6.1991 से श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी, जिससे साबित होता है कि अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लिमिटेड द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण को एक माह का नोटिस पे नहीं दिया गया और अधिनियम की धारा 25एफ के विपरीत जाकर अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की उल्लंघना करते हुये श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं समाप्त की गई है, जो अनुचित एवं अवैध है।

अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड द्वारा एग्रीमेंट दिनांक 13.01.1991 के तहत पैनिंग कर्मचारियों की सेवाओं को छोड़कर समस्त स्टाफ की सेवाएं, अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लिमिटेड के सभी असेट्‌स, व्यापारिक गतिविधियां वगैरह टेकओवर की गई है और जब अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी के समस्त कर्मचारियों की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में हस्तांतरित की गई है तो प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाओं के लिये भी अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड ही उत्तरदायी हो जाता है। प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं धारा 25 एफ के तहत छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आती है। अप्रार्थी आरएसटीडीसी लि0 द्वारा अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के विपरीत जाकर अवैध व अनुचित श्रम नीति अपनाते हुये श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं समाप्त की गई है, जबकि श्रमिकगण स्वीपर की नियमित वेतनश्रृंखला में कार्यरत रहे हैं और जब नियमित कर्मचारियों की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में हस्तांतरित की गई है तो प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाओं की जिम्मेदारी भी अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड की है। प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण का सेवामुक्ति आदेश दिनांक 1.6.1991 अपास्त किया जाता है। प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं सेवा की निरंतरता के साथ अप्रार्थी हिंदुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड में स्वीपर के पद की सेवाएं प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी हो जाती है। प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांत

प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया गया है जहां श्रमिक की सेवाएं अधिनियम की धारा 25 एफ के तहत छंटनी नहीं मानकर उसके सेवामुक्ति आदेश को अवैध व अनुचित माना गया हो और श्रमिक अपनी अधिवार्षिकी आयु पूर्ण कर चुका हो, ऐसी स्थिति में जहां श्रमिक फिजिकल पुनर्नियुक्ति संभव नहीं हो वहां पर श्रमिक को उसकी सेवामुक्ति दिनांक से सेवानिवृति की तिथि तक संपूर्ण वेक वेजेज में रिवाईज्ड वेजेज अथवा वेतन, रिवाईज्ड पे-स्केल, वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि, रिवाईज्ड महंगाई भत्ता और वेरियेबल महंगाई भत्ता और सभी सेवानिवृति परिलाभों के साथ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी माना है। विचारणीय मामले में भी प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण की सेवाएं अधिनियम की धारा 25 एफ के विपरीत मानकर छंटनी की कार्यवाही अनुचित एवं अवैध माना है। अतः उपरोक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत के प्रकाश में प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण अपनी सेवामुक्ति दिनांक 4.6.91 से सेवानिवृति की तिथि तक संपूर्ण वेक वेजेज जिसमेंं रिवाईज्ड वेजेज अथवा वेतन, रिवाईज्ड पे-स्केल, वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि, रिवाईज्ड महंगाई भत्ता और वेरियेबल महंगाई भत्ता और सभी सेवानिवृति परिलाभों के साथ प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी हैं।

उपरोक्त विवेचन के फलस्वरूप प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम स्वीकार किया

जाकर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है।

रैफरेंस तदनुसार उत्तरित किया जाता है।

अश्वनी विज, न्यायाधीश

अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 23.07.2024 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र

सरकार को प्रकाषनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजा जावे।

दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2131.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री राजेंर कु मार के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 34/1996 एंड सीआईएस न. 31/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-20040/07/1995-आईआर(कोल)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/1996 & CIS No 31/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Shri Rajendra Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. L-20040/07/1995-IR(Col)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

Presiding Officer       :        Ashwani vij, RJS (DJ Cadre)
Central IT Case No.     :        34/1996
CIS No.                 :        31/2014

केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक

एल-20040/07/95- आई.आर.(कोल ा) दिनांक 9.8.1996

राजेन्द्र कुमार वाल्मीकि पुत्र स्व0 श्री शंकरलाल (मृतक दौराने कार्यवाही) मार्फत कृष्णलाल वाल्मीकि, सरस्वती

कॉलोनी, ब्ल्यू पोटरीज के सामने, मैंन सांगानेर रोड, जयपुर।

1/1 ज्योति देवी पत्नी स्व0 श्री राजेन्द्र कुमार बाल्मिकि उम्र-44 वर्ष, निवासी- 171-के, लक्ष्मी कॉलोनी,

नगर निगम स्टेडियम के पास, सांगानेर, जयपुर।

--- प्रार्थी

1. रीजनल मैनेजर, इण्डियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, बाबर रोड, नई दिल्ली-110001

2. सीनियर स्टेशन मैनेजर, इण्डियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, एयर पोर्ट सांगानेर, जयपुर।

--- अप्रार्थीगण

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री कान सिंह राठौड़

अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से श्री बी0एस0 रतनू

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की उपरोक्त आज्ञा क्रमांक से निम्न अनुसूची का विवाद अधिनिर्णय

हेतु इस अधिकरण को प्राप्त हुआ है -

"Whether the demand of Shri Rajendra kumar Balmiki that he was employed by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jaipur and that his service were illegally terminated w.e.f. 25.4.1992 in violation of section 25-H and 25-F is justified? If so, to what relief is Shri Rajendra kumar Balmiki is entitled?"

प्रकरण दर्ज किया जाकर उभय पक्षों को नोटिस जारी किये गये। प्रार्थी की ओर से दिनांक 08.10. 1996 को स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश कर अभिकथन किया कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति विपक्षी संस्थान में पार्ट टाईम स्वीपर के पद पर 250/-रू0 प्रतिमाह पर दिनांक 1.7.1985 को हुई थी तथा विपक्षी संख्या 2 द्वारा प्रार्थी को दिनांक 25.4.92 के मौखिक आदेश से कार्य पर लेने से इंकार कर दिया जबकि संस्थान में श्रमिक के कार्य की कोई कमी नहीं थी। प्रार्थी द्वारा जरिये अधिवक्ता दिनांक 18.7.92 को लीगल नोटिस भिजवाने के बावजूद न ही कोई जवाब दिया और न ही कार्य पर लिया गया। प्रार्थी द्वारा एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया गया है। प्रार्थी द्वारा विपक्षी संस्थान में प्रतिदिन 8 घंटे से अधिक कार्य किया है, अतः प्रार्थी पूर्णकालिक श्रमिक है। प्रार्थी से चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी का कार्य भी लिया गया लेकिन पद का वेतन नहीं दिया गया। सामान्यतः 90 दिन कार्य करने के बाद श्रमिकों को विपक्षी द्वारा स्थाई कर दिया जाता है लेकिन प्रार्थी को स्थाई नहीं किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा नियमानुसार न ही कोई वरिष्ठता सूची जारी की। विपक्षी द्वारा श्रमिक को सेवा से हटाने से पूर्व न ही कोई आरोप पत्र दिया गया और न ही उसे एक माह का नोटिस, नोटिस पे, छंटनी मुआवजा दिया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25एफ, 25जी, 25एच की उल्लंघना

की गई है। प्रार्थी सेवामुक्ति से बेरोजगार बैठा है अतः उसे पुनः सेवा में बहाल कर पिछला पूर्ण वेतन समस्त

सुविधाओं सहित दिलाये जाने का निवेदन किया है।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम का जवाब पेश कर अभिकथन किया गया कि संस्थान में पार्ट टाईम स्वीपर का कोेई पद नहीं है बल्कि प्रार्थी को संस्थान परिसर की सफाई हेतु जुलाई 1987 में ठेका पर रखा गया था, जिसके लिये उसे 250/-रू0 प्रतिमाह भुगतान किया जाता था। प्रार्थी द्वारा स्वयं दिनांक 31.03.92 से कॉन्ट्रेक्ट को छोड़कर संस्थान का सफाई कार्य बंद कर दिया। प्रार्थी श्रमिक संस्थान का कर्मचारी ही नहीं था तो उसकी सेवापृथक करने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता है। प्रार्थी द्वारा संस्थान में कभी भी 2 घंटे से ज्यादा कार्य नहीं किया और न ही कोई और कार्य उसे लिया गया। प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने नियोजन के संंबंध में कोई दस्तावेज पेश नहीं किया गया है। 90 दिन की अस्थाई सेवा पर स्थाई किये जाने का कोई नियम संस्थान में नहीं है। औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधान प्रार्थी के मामले में लागू नहीं होते हैं अतः उनकी पालना किये जाने का सवाल ही नहीं उठता है। अतः प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम खारिज किया जावे।

प्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी श्रमिक राजेन्द्र कुमार बाल्मीकि का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ जिससे

अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई। अप्रार्थी की ओर से राजेश का शपथ पत्र पेेश हुआ जिससे प्रार्थी

प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई।

प्रार्थी श्रमिक का प्रकरण के विचारण के दौरान निधन हो जाने से न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 25.7.

20222 द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक के विधिक वारीसान को पक्षकार बनाया जाकर रिकार्ड पर लिया गया।

उभय पक्षों की ओर से लिखित बहस पेष हुई। प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा लिखित बहस पेश कर स्टेटमेंट

ऑफ क्लेम में वर्णित तथ्यों को दोहराते हुये कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक पार्टटाईम स्वीपर के पद पर

200/-रू. मासिक वेतन पर था, जो बाद में बढाकर 250/-रू. और 450/-रू0 कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी

द्वारा हमेशा मेहनत व ईमानदारी से कार्य किया गया। प्रार्थी द्वारा एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक

कार्य किया गया है। उसके बावजूद उसे कोई आरोप पत्र, नोटिस, नोटिस पे, छंटनी मुआवजा दिये बिना

अधिनियम की धारा 25 एफ, 25 जी, 25 एच का उल्लंघन करते हुये दिनांक 25.4.92 के मौखिक आदेश से

सेवा से हटा दिया गया जो अनुचित एवं अवैध है। अतः प्रार्थी को सेवा में बहाल कर समस्त लाभ परिलाभ

दिलाये जावे। प्रार्थी प्रातिनिधि द्वारा अपने तर्कों के समर्थन में निम्न न्यायिक दृष्टांत पेश किये गये -

1. 1994(69) एफएलआर 17 मुंसिपल कॉरपोरेशन ऑफ देहली बनाम सुखबीर सिंह।

2. जे टी 2011(5) एस सी 533 देवेन्द्र सिंह बनाम मुंनिसिपल कॉउंसिल

3. सिविल अपील संख्या 4445/2006 न्यू इंडिया एश्योरेंस कॉ0लि0 बनाम ए.शंकरालिंगम। निर्णय

दिनांक 3.10.2008

4. आर एल आर 1989(1) 156 यशवंत सिंह यादव बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राज0 व अन्य।

5. 2012 लेब आई सी 404 कान सिंह बनाम जिला आयुर्वेद अधिकारी।

6. 1997 आई एल एल जे 817 मैनेजिंग डायरेक्टर व अन्य बनाम फैली राम।

7. सिविल अपील संख्या 3701/2015 गौरी शंकर बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राज0 निर्णय दिनांक 16.4.2015

8. सिविल अपील संख्या 4370/2015 राजकुमार बनाम विजय कुमार गौरी शंकर निर्णय दिनांक 12.5.

2015

9. आरएलआर 1991(1) नार्थर्न रेलवे बनाम जज सीआईटी

10. 2008 (116) एफ एल आर 346 तारसेम सिंह बनाम जज लेबर कोर्ट व अन्य।

11. 2006(4) आरएलडवल्यू 3028 स्टेट ऑफ राज0 बनाम हरीश चन्द्र व अन्य।

12. 2007(114) एफएलआर 352 करूणा भट्‌टाचर्जी बनाम स्टेट ऑफ वेस्ट बंगाल व अन्य।

13. 2003 डवल्यू एल सी (यूसी) 523 जनरल मैनेजर बनाम लेबर कोर्ट व अन्य।

14. 2005 ाा एल एलजे 572 हरियाणा फाइनेंशियल कॉरपोरेशन बनाम लेबर कम इण्डस्ट्रियल ट्रिब्युनल व

अन्य।

अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि की ओर से लिखित बहस पेश कर कथन किया प्रार्थी श्रमिक अप्रार्थी संस्थान के कभी सुपरविजन में कार्यरत नहीं रहा। प्रार्थी संस्थान में केवल कॉन्टे्रक्स बेस पर 1-2 घंटे सफाई कार्य करता था जिसका उसे पारिश्रमिक भुगतान किया जा चुका है। प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रदर्श एम-1 के जरिये दिनांक 20.4.92 को साफ-सफाई का कार्य करने में असमर्थता जाहिर कर लिखित में आने से इंकार किया है। कार्य के दौरान प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध एक एफआई आर संख्या 308/1990 पुलिस थाना सांगानेर जयपुर में अं0धारा 452, 323, 147, 427 आईपीसी दर्ज है। प्रार्थी ठेके पर कार्य करने के कारण उसे आईडी कार्ड भी जारी नहीं किया गया। विधि का यह सुस्थापित सिद्धांत है कि मात्र 1-2 घंटे काम करने वाला व्यक्ति । तपहीज नियमित होने का अधिकार नहीं मांग सकता। प्रार्थी के मामले में अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं। अतः क्लेम खारिज किया जावे।

मैंने उभय पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया तथा प्रस्तुत न्यायिक

दृष्टांतों का ससम्मानपूर्वक अवलोकन व परिशीलन किया गया।

उभय पक्षों की साक्ष्य का परिषीलन करें तो प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने मुख्य परीक्षण में स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में वर्णित तथ्यों को दोहराया है और जिरह के दौरान उसके द्वारा प्रदर्श एम-1 पर ए से बी उसके हस्ताक्षर होना तथा प्रदर्श एम-2 में एफआईआर के मामले में झूठा फंसाना व राजीनामा होना बताया है। अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत गवाह ने अपनी साक्ष्य के मुख्य परीक्षण में जवाब में वर्णित तथ्यों को दोहराते हुये प्रार्थी का संस्थान में केवल 1-2 घंटे सफाई कार्य ठेके पर करना तथा उसके बदले में उसे भुगतान किया जाना कथन किया है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा स्वयं अपने क्लेम एवं साक्ष्य में पार्टटाईम स्वीपर के पद पर साफ-सफाई का कार्य किया जाना बताया है। प्रार्थी श्रमिक अप्रार्थी संस्थान में पूर्णकालिक श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य करता हो, इस संबंध में प्रार्थी की ओर से कोई मौखिक एवं दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य अभिलेख पर पेश नहीं की है। प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से अपनी नियुक्ति के संबंध में कोई नियुक्ति पत्र अथवा संस्थान में नियमित कार्य करने अथवा एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिवस कार्य करने के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है। प्रार्थी द्वारा स्वयं कथन किया है कि वह पार्ट टाईम कार्य करता था और अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा भी प्रार्थी के द्वारा केवल 1-2 घंटे साफ सफाई का कार्य किया जाना बताया है। अप्रार्थी संस्थान में पार्टटाईम स्वीपर का कोई पद स्वीकृत नहीं है, प्रार्थी श्रमिक संस्थान में स्वीपर के नियमित पद के विरूद्ध पूर्णकालिक कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्यरत रहा हो, पत्रावली अवलोकन से प्रकट नहीं होता है। प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने स्वयं दिनांक 2.4.92 को प्रदर्श एम-1 के जरिये अप्रार्थी संस्थान को यह लिखकर दिया है कि साफ-सफाई का कार्य करने में असमर्थ हूं तथा मैं 2.4.92 से नहीं आउंगा, आप अपना बंदोबस्त कर ले। प्रार्थी द्वारा अपनी जिरह के दौरान प्रदर्श एम-1 पर ए से बी अपने हस्ताक्षर होना स्वीकार किया है। प्रार्थी द्वारा स्वयं अपने कार्य को छोडा गया है और प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी संस्थान में अल्पकालिक श्रमिक के रूप में साफ-सफाई का कार्य ठेंके पर करता था, जिसके लिये उसे नियमित पद पर स्थाई किये जाने की मांग पूर्णतया अनुचित एवं अवैध है। जब प्रार्थी श्रमिक संस्थान में पूर्णकालिक श्रमिक के रूप में कार्यरत ही नहीं रहा है तो औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधान प्रार्थी श्रमिक पर लागू नहीं होते हैं और जब श्रमिक पर अधिनियम के प्रावधान ही लागू नहीं होते है तो अधिनियम की धारा 25एफ, 25जी, 25एच की पालना किये जाने का प्रष्न ही नहीं उठता है। प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है। प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांतों में प्रतिपादित सिद्धांत हस्तगत प्रकरण से भिन्नता रखते हैं अतः प्रार्थी के मामले में उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत चस्पा नहीं होते हैं।

उपरोक्त विवेचन के फलस्वरूप प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम अस्वीकार किया जाकर

प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है।

रैफरेंस तदनुसार उत्तरित किया जाता है।

अश्वनी विज, न्यायाधीश

अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 02.08.2024 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र

सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजा जावे।

नदिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2132.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार गैल इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री नानू सिंह रावत के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न. 08/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

र् [सं. एल-30011/17/2006-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to GAIL India Limited and Shri Nanu Singh Rawat which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.

[No. L-30011/17/2006-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

पीठासीन अधिकारी

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी

Reference No. L-30011/17/2006-IR (M) Dated:27.01.2014

श्री नानू सिंह रावत पुत्र श्री बुद्वा सिंह रावत, निवासी- ग्राम- कालेडी (कानाखेडी), जिला- अजमेर,

राजस्थान

.........प्रार्थी

1. महा प्रबंधक, गैल इण्डिया लिमि., ग्राम- दिलवारी, किशनगढ रोड, नसीराबाद, जिला- अजमेर,

(राजस्थान)

.....अप्रार्थी/विपक्षी

उपस्थितः-

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री आर.सी. जैन, प्रतिनिधि।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री तेजप्रकाश ार्मा, अभिभाषक।

1. श्रम एवं नियोजन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 27.01.2014 को औद्योगिक विवाद

अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 10 (1) (डी) एवं 2A के

अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियो के अनुसरण में निम्नाकित औद्योगिक विवाद न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस अधिकरण

को संदर्भित किया गया :-

"Whether Shri Nanu Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Budh Singh Rawat was the employee of the

management of GAIL? If yes, whether the action of the management of GAIL in terminating the services

of Sh. Nanu Singh Rawat w.e.f. 21-09-2004 is fair, legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?''

2. प्रार्थी की ओर से दिनांक 30.10.2014 को दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसके संक्षिप्त तथ्य

इस प्रकार हैः-

3. प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति विपक्षी संख्या-1 के अधीन चपरासी के पद पर बूस्टर स्टेशन-3 नसीराबाद में दिनांक 01.08.1999 को हुई थी। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 20.09.2004 तक विपक्षी के अधीन निरंतर कार्य किया। विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 21.09.2004 को कार्य पर नहीं लिया तथा मौखिक आदेश से सेवामुक्त कर दिया। प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त करने से पूर्व कोई नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन एवं छटनी मुआवजे का भुगतान भी नहीं किया गया। सेवामुक्त किये जाते समय विपक्षी के अधीन प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठतर अनेक श्रमिक कार्यरत थे तथा प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त करने के बाद नये श्रमिकों को भी भर्ती किया गया। इस प्रकार विपक्षीगण ने अधिनियम की धारा 25 F,G व H एवं नियम 77, 78 का अनुपालन नहीं किया। अतः विपक्षीगण द्वारा 21.09.2004 को की गई प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति को अवैध घोषित करते हुये प्रार्थी को सेवा में निरंतरता एवं विगत वेतन परिलाभोें सहित पुनः सेवा में बहाल किया जावे।

4. दिनांक 10.08.2015 को विपक्षीगण की ओर से वादोत्तर प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसके संक्षिप्त तथ्य

निम्नानुसार है।

5. विपक्षीगण द्वारा प्रार्थी को किसी पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई बल्कि प्रार्थी को ठेकेदार के माध्यम से मात्र अंशकालीन श्रमिक के रूप में आकस्मिक कार्य की पूर्ति हेतु रखा गया था और इस अवधि का भुगतान समय-समय पर कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 01.08.1999 से 20.09.2004 तक निरंतर कार्य नहीं किया न ही किसी कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया। प्रार्थी को मैसर्स के. सी. मालवीय नसीराबाद द्वारा ठेके के अधीन की गई सेवाओं की समस्त पी.एफ. राशि का भुगतान कर दिया गया क्योकि भुगतान का दायित्व उसी का था। प्रार्थी ने विपक्षीगण के लेटर हेड पर जाली हस्ताक्षर कर कूटरचित दस्तावेेज बनाये जिसकी विज्ञप्ति दैनिक नवज्योति समाचार पत्र में प्रकाशित की गई थी। उक्त मैसर्स के. सी. मालवीय ठेकेदार की संविदा दिनांक 15.10.2004 को समाप्त हो गई। प्रार्थी ने मैसर्स के. सी. मालवीय को पक्षकार नहीं बनाया है। प्रार्थी की सेवा संतुष्टिप्रद न होने के कारण ठेकेदार द्वारा ही समाप्त की गई थी। प्रार्थी न तो कर्मकार की परिभाषा में आता है और न ही विपक्षीगण उद्योग की परिभाषा में आते है। ठेकेदार द्वारा निष्चित अवधि के लिये रखे गये श्रमिक की नियुक्ति अधिनियम की धारा 2 (oo) (bb) के अंतर्गत आने से श्रमिक धारा 25 F का लाभ प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता। विपक्षीगण द्वारा अधिनियम के किसी प्रावधान का उल्लंघन नहीं किया गया है। अतः वाद निरस्त किया जावे।

6. प्रार्थी ने अपने साक्ष्य में AW-1, नानू सिंह रावत (स्वयं प्रार्थी) को परीक्षित किया तथा प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य

में प्रदर्श W-1, से W-3, तक प्रलेख प्रदर्शित किये।

7. विपक्षीगण ने अपने साक्ष्य में NAW-1, विजय पावसे, प्रबंधक तथा NAW-2, जी. आर. चौहान, मुख्य

महाप्रबंधक को परीक्षित किया। प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य के रूप में प्रदर्श M-1, से M-65, तक प्रलेखों को

प्रदर्शित किया।

8. दिनांक 09.09.2024 को मैंने उभयपक्ष के अभिभाषकों के मौखिक तर्क सुनें और उपलब्ध साक्ष्य का

परिशीलन किया।

9. प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि का यह तर्क है कि विपक्षीगण के साक्षी NAW-2, जी. आर. चौहान, ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा के दौरान यह स्वीकार किया है कि दिनांक 01.08.1999 से 15.10.2004 तक प्रार्थी द्वारा किया गया कार्य गैल इंडिया के ऑफिस बॉय के कार्य से संबंधित है। यह सही है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 21.09.2004 से ही सेवा से हटा दिया था। यह साक्षी प्रदर्श W-3, जो कि प्रार्थी का उपस्थिति अभिलेख है पर A से B के स्थान पर स्वयं के हस्ताक्षर होने की संभावना को दबे शब्दों में स्वीकार करते हुये यह कहता है कि हस्ताक्षर उसके होना लग तो रहा है लेकिन वह कह नहीं सकता कि हस्ताक्षर उसके है या नहीं। उनका यह भी तर्क है कि यह मान भी लिया जाये कि प्रार्थी को ठेकेदार द्वारा नियोजित किया गया था तो भी अधिनियम की धारा 2 (s) और 2 ( g) में किये गये राजस्थान संशोधन के अंतर्गत प्रधान नियोजक विपक्षीगण को ही माना जायेगा और प्रार्थी को विपक्षीगण का कर्मकार माना जावेगा। प्रार्थी का निष्चित अवधि के लिये नियुक्त किये जाने संबंधी कोई आदेश विपक्षीगण ने प्रस्तुत ही नहीं किया है। इसलिये प्रार्थी का विपक्षीगण का कर्मकार होना तथा उसकी अवैध छंटनी किया जाना भली भांॅति प्रमाणित है। अतः वाद स्वीकार किया जावे। उन्होनें अपने तर्क के समर्थन में निम्नाकिंत न्यायिक दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत कियेः-

1. डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मीनल डिवीजन बनाम भीकू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावडा 2010 LAD IC 1089 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट)।

2. ऐग्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर व अन्य बनाम लेखराज व अन्य (2005) 12 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट कैसेज) 181

3. सवाई माधोपुर सेन्ट्रल कोपरेटिव बैंक बनाम अशोक कुमार शर्मा व अन्य 1998 WLC (UC) 178

(राज.)।

4. श्री किशन बनाम लेबर कोर्ट एण्ड इण्डस्ट्रीयल ट्रिब्युुनल अजमेर SB Civil W.P. No. 18471/2011 आदेश तिथि 02.11.2023 (राज. उच्च न्यायालय)।

5. रजिस्ट्रार एम. डी. एस. विष्वविद्यालय अजमेर बनाम लेबर कोर्ट कम इण्डस्ट्रीयल ट्रिब्युुनल SB

Civil W.P. No. 16552/2011 आदेश तिथि 16.03.2014 (राज. उच्च न्यायालय)।

6. DB Civil Special Appeal No. 768/2006 आदेश तिथि 21.01.2013 (शीर्षक अंकित नहीं)।

7. महिर्षि दयानन्द सरस्वती विश्वविद्यालय बनाम लेबर कोर्ट कम इण्डस्ट्रीयल ट्रिब्युुनल 2016 (150)

855 (राज.)।

8. चिनप्पा यू. बनाम कॉटन कोर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया व अन्य W.P. No. 8395/1989 आदेश तिथि

03.08.1995 (आन्ध्र प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय)।

9. इंजीनियरिंग कामगार यूनियन बनाम इलेक्ट्रो स्टील कास्ंिटग लिमि. Civil Appeal No.

86-89/2000 आदेश तिथि 16.04.2004 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट)।

10. मै. भारत हेवी इलेक्ट्रीकल्स लिमि. बनाम स्टेट ऑफ यू.पी. 2003 (98) FLR 826 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट)।

11. सेके्रटरी हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्ट्रीसिटी बोर्ड बनाम सुरेश व अन्य 1999 (81) FLR 1016 (सुप्रीम

कोर्ट)।

12. चीफ सेेके्रटरी, हरियाणा व अन्य बनाम चेतराम 2006 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज) (L&S) 574।

10. विद्वान अभिभाषक विपक्षीगण ने अपने तर्को में प्रमुख रूप से यह तर्क लिया है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति किस पद पर हुई यह तथ्य ही अनिश्चित है क्योंकि प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श W-1 में स्वयं को ऑफिस बॉय, प्रदर्श W-2 में पीऑन और प्रदर्श W-3 में कार्यालय सहायक होना वर्णित किया है। यद्यपि प्रदर्श W-1, प्रदर्श W-2 और प्रदर्श W-3 प्रलेख विपक्षीगण द्वारा जारी ही नहीं किये गये और ये कूटरचित हैं। प्रदर्श W-3 और प्रदर्श M-20/2 पर लिखी गई लिखावट एक जैसी है जो यह दर्शाती है कि यह दोनों ही प्रलेख प्रार्थी द्वारा कूटरचित हैं। प्रार्थी वास्तविक तथ्यों को छुपाकर कूटरचित दस्तावेजों के आधार पर यह प्रमाणित करना चाहता है कि वह विपक्षीगण का कर्मचारी रहा है। जबकि वास्तव में प्रार्थी ठेकेदार मै. के.सी. मालवीय का कर्मचारी था। जिसने दिनांक 15.10.2004 को प्रार्थी को असंतुष्टिप्रद कार्य होने पर सेवामुक्त कर दिया और प्रार्थी की भविष्य निधि का पूर्ण भुगतान प्रार्थी को कर दिया। जैसा कि प्रदर्श M-5, 6, व M-7 पत्र से स्पष्ट है। प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति ठेकेदार द्वारा एक निश्चित अवधि के लिये की गई थी, जो अवधि समाप्त होने पर स्वतः समाप्त हो गई। प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति छंटनी के रूप में नहीं है इसलिये प्रार्थी के संबंध में धारा 25 F के प्रावधानों का अनुपालन आवश्यक नहीं है। अतः वाद निरस्त किया जावे। उन्होनें अपने तर्क के समर्थन में निम्नलिखित न्यायिक दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत कियेः-

1. किरण ठाकुर बनाम रेजीडेंट कमिश्नर बिहार भवन W.P. No. 1668/2014 (दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय) आदेश तिथि 18.05.2023

2. रास्थान राज्य विद्युत प्रसारण निगम लि. बनाम अनिल कॉवरिया Civil Appeal No.

5743-5744/2021 आदेश तिथि 17.09.2021 (सुप्रीम कोर्टं)

3. देवेन्द्र कुमार बनाम स्टेट ऑफ उत्तरांचल व अन्य AIR 2013 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) 3325

4. चीफ मैनेजर पंजाब नेशनल बैंक व अन्य बनाम अनित कुमार दास Civil Appeal No. 3602/2020

(सुप्रीम कोर्ट)

11. उभयपक्ष के तर्को व साक्ष्य के परिशीलन के उपरांत इस विवाद में निम्नलिखित विचारणीय बिन्दु

उत्पन्न हुये हैः-

1. क्या प्रार्थी प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति विपक्षीगण के अधीन दिनांक 01.08.1999 को हुई तथा 21.09.2004

को विपक्षीगण ने मौखिक रूप से प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अधिनियम की धारा 25 F के प्रावधानों

का अनुपालन किये बिना कर दी, जो अवैध है?

...................प्रार्थी

2. क्या प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के समय प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठतर अनेक श्रमिक कार्यरत रहे और नये

श्रमिकों को भी विपक्षीगण ने नियोजित कर प्रार्थी को वरीयता नहीं दी?

.................प्रार्थी

3. अनुतोष?

12. विचारणीय बिन्दुओं पर क्रमिक विनिश्चय इस प्रकार हैः-

14. इस बिन्दु के संदर्भ में सर्व प्रथम यह विचारणीय है कि क्या प्रार्थी एवं विपक्षीगण के मध्य कर्मकार

और नियोजक के संबंध विद्यमान है। प्रार्थी ने अपने सषपथ कथन में यह कहा है कि उसकी

नियुक्ति विपक्षी संख्या-1 के अधीन बूस्टर स्टेशन-3 नसीराबाद में चपरासी के पद पर दिनांक 01.

08.1999 को हुई थी, 20.09.2004 तक उसने निरंतर कार्य किया। प्रतिपरीक्षा में प्रार्थी का कथन है

कि उसे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं दिया गया। के.सी. मालवीय ठेकेदार को वह नहीं जानता। विपक्षी ने

उसे ठेका दिया हो तो उसे जानकारी नहीं है। उसने के.सी. मालवीय के यहॉ कभी काम नहीं किया।

प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श W-1 से प्रदर्श W-3 प्रलेखों के संबंध में यह कहा है कि प्रदर्श W-1 उसे H. R. विवेक पाठक ने दिया था। प्रदर्श W-2 20.09.2004 का लिखा हुआ है। विपक्षी का यह तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने कूटरचित प्रलेख साक्ष्य में प्रदर्शित किये है। जबकि प्रार्थी का यह तर्क है कि उसकी कूटरचना के संबंध में पुलिस में कोई शिकायत नहीं की गई। विपक्षी के साक्ष्य का परिशीलन करने पर यह प्रकट होता है कि विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी के विरूद्व कूटरचना के अपराधों के संबंध में कोई प्रथम सूचना पुलिस को नहीं दी। मात्र प्रदर्श M-31 विज्ञप्ति दैनिक न्वज्योति समाचार पत्र दिनांक 11.06.2005 में प्रकाशित करवायी। विपक्षी के साक्षी NAW-2 जी. आर. चौहान ने प्रदर्श W-1, प्रदर्श W-2 व प्रदर्श W-3 को प्रार्थी द्वारा कूटरचित बनाना तो कहा है किंतु इस तथ्य को स्वीकार किया है कि उसने कोई प्रथम सूचना प्रार्थी के विरूद्व नहीं की।

15. NAW-2 जी. आर. चौहान यह स्वीकार करते है कि ठेकेदार के.सी. मालवीय और गैल इंडिया के मध्य

कार्य अनुबंध हुआ था, किंतु वह अनुबंध पेश नहीं किया है। प्रदर्श W-1, प्रदर्श W-2 प्रमाण पत्रों को

साक्षी ने इस आधार पर फर्जी कहा है कि ऐसे प्रमाण पत्र वह जारी नहीं करते। प्रदर्श W-3

उपस्थिति पंजिका के संबंध में साक्षी दृढ़ता से यह नहीं कहता है कि इस पर A से B के मध्य

उसके हस्ताक्षर न हाें, वरन्‌ इन हस्ताक्षरों के बारे में उसने कहा है कि वह नहीं कह सकता कि यह

हस्ताक्षर उसके है या नहीं। इस स्थिति में यह संभावना निर्मूल नहीं है कि प्रदर्श W-3 पर A से B

हस्ताक्षर जी. आर. चौहान ने किये हों।

16. प्रदर्श W-2 प्रमाण पत्र पर किसी डी. सांवत, वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक के हस्ताक्षर हैं जो विपक्षी के अधीन कार्यरत रहे हैं। उक्त डी. सांवत नामक प्रबंधक को विपक्षीगण ने साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है। जबकि डी. सांवत का किसी पद पर कार्यरत होना साक्षी जी. आर. चौहान ने स्वीकार किया है। अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा के अंत में साक्षी जी. आर. चौहान ने यह कहा है कि यह सही है कि दिनांक 01.08.1999 से 25.10.2004 तक प्रार्थी द्वारा किया गया कार्य गैल इंडिया के ऑफिस बॉय के कार्य से संबंधित है। यह सही है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 21.09.2004 से ही सेवा से हटा दिया था। विद्वान अभिभाषक विपक्षीगण ने अपने तर्क के दौरान साक्षी जी. आर. चौहान जो कि मुख्य महा प्रबंधक जैसे उत्तरदायित्व पूर्ण पद पर नियुक्त रहे हैं, की इस स्वीकारोक्ति के संबंध में कोई विरोधी तर्क अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं किया है। जिससे इस कथन को प्रभावहीन माना जावे। इस कथन के प्रकाश में विपक्षी के दूसरे साक्षी NAW-1 विजय पावसे का यह कथन कि प्रार्थी ने 01.08.1999 से 20.09.2004 तक निरंतर कार्य नहीं किया, विश्वसनीय नहीं लगता है।

17. विपक्षी का यह भी तर्क है कि प्रार्थी को के.सी.मालवीय ठेकेदार ने कार्य पर रखा था तथा उसी के द्वारा उसकी सेवा समाप्त की गई है। यहॉ यह उल्लेखनीय है कि यद्यपि विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त ठेकेदार से की गई संबिदा/अनुबंध को साक्ष्य में प्रदर्शित नहीं किया गया है किंतु NAW-1 विजय पावसे का यह कथन है कि के.सी.मालवीय कान्टे्रक्ट लेबर एक्ट के अंतर्गत पंजीकृत ठेकेदार था तथा विपक्षी संस्थान भी पंजीकृत संस्थान है। प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि ने प्रधान नियोजक के कार्य हेतु ठेकेदार के माध्यम से नियोजित श्रमिक को प्रधान नियोजक का ही कर्मकार माने जाने का तर्क देते हुये अधिनयम की धारा 2 (s) और 2 (g) में राजस्थान सरकार द्वारा किये गये संशोधनों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया है। इस तर्क के समर्थन में प्रार्थी की ओर से माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित निर्णयों श्री किषन बनाम लेबर कोर्ट एण्ड इण्डस्ट्रीयल ट्रिब्युुनल अजमेर, रजिस्ट्रार एम. डी. एस. विष्वविद्यालय अजमेर बनाम लेबर कोर्ट कम इण्डस्ट्रीयल ट्रिब्युुनल, DB Civil Special Appeal No. 768/2006 आदेश तिथि 21.01.2013 (शीर्षक नहीं) एवं महिर्षि दयानन्द सरस्वती विश्वविद्यालय बनाम लेबर कोर्ट कम इण्डस्ट्रीयल ट्रिब्युुनल व अन्य में पारित विधि का अवलम्ब लिया गया है। माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने इन निर्णयों में यह अवधारित किया है कि अधिनयम की धारा 2 (s) और 2 (g) में किये गये संशोधन के अंतर्गत किसी उद्योग में ठेकेदार द्वारा नियोजित व्यक्ति जो कि प्रधान नियोजक के साथ निष्पादित ठेके के संबंध में हो, प्रधान नियोजक का कर्मकार माना जावेगा।

18. माननीय आन्ध्र प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने अपनेे निर्णय चिनप्पा यू. बनाम कॉटन कोर्पोरेशन ऑफ

इंडिया व अन्य में एवं माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय इंजीनियरिंग कामगार यूनियन

बनाम इलेक्ट्रो स्टील कास्ंिटग लिमि. में यह अवधारित किया है कि राज्य द्वारा पारित विधि पर यदि

राष्ट्रपति की अनुमति प्राप्त कर ली गई हो तो वह केन्द्रीय विधि पर प्रभावी रूप से प्रचलित मानी

जावेगी। विपक्षीगण की ओर से इस अधिमत के विपरीत कोई न्यायिक दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत नहीं हुआ है।

इस तथ्यात्मक और विधिक परिदृश्य में प्रार्थी को यदि ठेकेदार के.सी.मालवीय द्वारा नियोजित

कर्मकार मान भी लिया जावे तो भी वह प्रधान नियोजक गैल इंडिया (विपक्षीगण) का ही कर्मकार

माना जावेगा।

19. माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने मै. भारत हेवी इलेक्ट्रीकल्स लिमि. बनाम स्टेट ऑफ यू.पी. के निर्णय

में यह स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि जब कर्मकार प्रधान नियोजक के परिसर में कार्य करने हेतु नियोजित

किया गया हो तो चाहे उसे ठेकेदार के माध्यम से कार्य पर रखा गया हो, प्रधान नियोजक अपने

दायित्व से उनमुक्त नहीं हो सकता।

20. यहा यह उल्लेख भी सुसंगत होगा कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति एक निश्चित अवधि की संविदा के अधीन ठेकेदार द्वारा किया जाना यद्यपि विपक्षीगण का कथन है, किंतु ऐसा कोई अनुबंध/संविदा साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है जिससे प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति एक निश्चित अवधि के लिये संविदा पर किया जाना प्रमाणित हो। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने चीफ सेेके्रटरी, हरियाणा व अन्य बनाम चेतराम के निर्णय में यह कहा है कि अधिनयम की धारा 2 (oo) और 2 (bb) के अंतर्गत जहा निश्चित अवधि हेतु संविदा को नवीनीकृत न किये जाने के आधार पर सेवा समाप्ति की गई हो किंतु नियोजक द्वारा उस संविदा को प्रमाणित करने हेतु कोई सामग्री प्रस्तुत न की जावे, तो सेवा समाप्ति अधिनयम की धारा 25 F के प्रावधानों के विपरीत होगी। इसी क्रम में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय सेके्रटरी हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्ट्रीसिटी बोर्ड बनाम सुरेश व अन्य में यह कहा है कि जहॉ नियोजक, प्रधान नियोजक न होकर एक ठेकेदार हो जो कि अनुज्ञप्ति प्राप्त ठेकेदार न हो तो ऐसी ठेका व्यवस्था छद्वम्‌ एवं दिखावटी कही जायेगी।

21. विपक्षी के साक्षी जी.आर. चौहान की प्रतिपरीक्षा में की गई स्वीकारोक्ति एवं प्रदर्श W-1, प्रदर्श W-2,

एवं प्रदर्श W-3 को मात्र कूटरचित कहना तथा कूटरचना के के अपराध के विरूद्व कोई दाण्डिक

कार्यवाही न करने को, विपक्षी की प्रलक्षित स्वीकृति कहा जा सकता है। प्रदर्श W-3 उपस्थिति

पंजिका पर साक्षी जी.आर. चौहान द्वारा स्वयं के हस्ताक्षरों के होने या न होने पर दृढ़ता से कोई

निश्चित उत्तर न देना इस प्रलेख की वास्तविकता की ओर ही इंगित करता है।

22. प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत निर्णय ऐग्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर व अन्य लेखराज व अन्य में माननीय उच्चतम

न्यायालय ने यह कहा है कि कर्मकार जब स्वयं को परीक्षित करे और प्रबंधन साक्षी ने उक्त अवधि

में कर्मकार द्वारा कार्य करने को स्वीकार किया हो तो 240 दिन कार्य किया जाना प्रमाणित होता है।

इसी प्रकार माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय सवाई माधोपुर सेन्ट्रल कोपरेटिव बैंक

बनाम अशोक कुमार शर्मा व अन्य में यह कहा है कि जब प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित हो कि

कर्मकार ने 240 दिन कार्य पूर्ण किया है तो प्रबंधन की विखण्डनात्मक साक्ष्य के अभाव में यह तथ्य

प्रमाणित माना जायेगा।

23. साक्ष्य एवं विधि की इस स्थिति में प्रार्थी का दिनांक 01.08.1999 से 20.09.2004 तक विपक्षीगण के

अधीन ऑफिस बॉय अथवा कार्यालय सहायक (जो कि अंग्रेजी से हिन्दी अनुवाद कहा जा सकता है)

के पद पर नियोजित रहकर कार्य करना प्रमाणित होता है तथा सेवा समाप्ति तिथि 21.09.2004 के

पूर्ववर्ती एक कलेण्डर वर्ष की अवधि में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना भी प्रमाणित होता है।

24. विपक्षी ने अपने साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित नहीं किया है कि उसने प्रार्थी को सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व एक

माह का नोटिस या नोटिस वेतन एवं छंटनी प्रतिकर का भुगतान किया हो, इस स्थिति में प्रार्थी की

सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व अधिनियम की धारा 25 F के प्रावधानों का अनुपालन न किया जाना प्रमाणित

होता है। इसलिये विपक्षी द्वारा की गई प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अवैध छंटनी प्रमाणित होती है। अतः

यह बिन्दु प्रार्थी के पक्ष में निर्णीत किया जाता है।

26. प्रार्थी नानू सिंह रावत ने अपने सशपथ कथन में यह तो कहा है कि विपक्षी के अधीन उसे सेवामुक्त किये जाते समय अनेको जूनियर श्रमिक कार्यरत थे तथा सेवामुक्त किये जाने के बाद नये श्रमिकों को भर्ती किया गया। किंतु प्रार्थी ने ऐसे किसी कनिष्ठ श्रमिक अथवा नये श्रमिकों के न तो नामों का उल्लेख अपने कथन में किया और न ऐसे श्रमिकों के नियुक्ति आदेश अथवा अन्य कोई प्रमाण साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत किये हैं। प्रार्थी प्रतिपरीक्षा में कहता है कि उससे जूनियर किसी श्रमिक का नाम उसे याद नहीं है। वह यह भी नहीं बता सकता कि उन्हें कब और किस पद पर रखा गया था। वह उसकी सेवामुक्ति के बाद रखे गये नये श्रमिक का नाम भी नहीं जानता। प्रार्थी के इन कथनों के आधार पर यह प्रमाणित नहीं माना जा सकता कि प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठतर श्रमिकों को सेवा में रखते हुये प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त किया हो और नये श्रमिकों को भी नियोजित किया हो। अतः साक्ष्य के अभाव में यह बिन्दु प्रार्थी के विरूद्व निर्णीत किया जाता है।

28. विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या-1 प्रार्थी के पक्ष में विनिश्चित किया गया है तथा दिनांक 21.09.2004 को विपक्षीगण द्वारा की गई प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अधिनियम की धारा 25 के प्रावधानों का अनुपालन न किये जाने के आधार पर अवैध प्रमाणित हुई है। प्रार्थी की ओर से यह निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी को सेवा में निरंतरता, विगत वेतन परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावे। जबकि विपक्षी का इस बिन्दु पर विरोध है। उनका यह तर्क है कि प्रार्थी को ठेकेदार द्वारा दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में आकस्मिक कार्यों हेतु लगाया गया था। प्रार्थी द्वारा विगत बीस वर्षो से विपक्षी के अधीन कोई कार्य नहीं किया गया और प्रार्थी खेती-बाड़ी करते हुये पर्याप्त आय अपने परिवार के भरण पोषण हेतु अर्जित कर रहा है। मैंने उभयपक्ष के तर्को पर विचार किया। प्रार्थी ने अपने अभिवचनों और साक्ष्य में उसे दिये जा रहे वेतन का कोई उल्लेख नहीं किया है। किंतु विपक्षीगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श M- 43, M-51 व M-52 जो कि मै. के.सी. मालवीय द्वारा संधारित वेतन भुगतान पपत्र है, के अवलोकन से प्रार्थी को 2400/-रू. मासिक वेतन भुगतान किया जाना प्रकट होता है। प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ पत्र में यद्यपि यह कहा है कि वह सेवामुक्ति के उपरांत पूर्णतः बेरोजगार है किंतु प्रतिपरीक्षा में उसने यह स्वीकार किया है कि घर में थोडी बहुत खेती-बाड़ी है जो वो ही करता है। प्रार्थी ने यह नहीं कहा है कि वह स्वयं और परिवार के भरण पोषण हेतु किसी से सहायता प्राप्त करता हो या किसी अन्य पर निर्भर हो। इस स्थिति में यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी अपने व अपने परिवार के भरण पोषण में शारीरिक रूप से सक्षम है। सेवामुक्ति के उपरांत खेती-बाड़ी करते हुये उसने आजीविका अर्जन भी किया है।

29. प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति को अधिनियम की धारा 25 F के आज्ञापक प्रावधानों का अनुपालन विपक्षीगण द्वारा न किये जाने के आधार पर ही अवैध माना गया है। प्रार्थी सफाई कर्मी के दैनिक वेतन भोगी पद पर अस्थाई कर्मचारी था जिसकी सेवायें विपक्षीगण ने ठेकेदार के माध्यम से प्राप्त की थी। प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति किसी स्थाई एवं रिक्त पद के विरूद्व नहीं थी, न ही यह नियुक्ति विपक्षी की विहित चयन प्रक्रिया के अंतर्गत की गई थी। सेवा समाप्ति को अवैध पाये जाने के उपरांत पुनः उसी पद पर बहाली स्वतः नहीं हो जाती है, वरन्‌ प्रकरण के सुसंगत तथ्यों और परिस्थितियों पर विचार करते हुये यह अवधारित किया जाना होता है कि क्या बहाल किया जाना और विगत वेतन दिलवाया जाना आवश्यक है। अथवा उसे एक निष्चित प्रतिकर राशि एक मुष्त दिलवाये जाने से न्याय का उद्‌ेश्य हल हो सकता है। इस प्रकरण में यदि प्रार्थी को पुनः उसी पद पर पदस्थापित करने का आदेश पारित किया जावे तो विपक्षी को यह विधिक अधिकार सदैव उपलब्ध रहेगा कि अधिनियम की धारा 25 F के प्रावधानों का विधिवत अनुपालन कर वह प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा से पृथक कर दे। इस प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई स्थिति विद्यमान नहीं है जिससे प्रार्थी को सेवा में बहाल न किये जाने पर उसके

समानता के अधिकार का अथवा वरिष्ठता का हनन होना प्रकट होता हो। प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति की

प्रकृति, किये गये कार्य की अवधि और प्रार्थी द्वारा सेवामुक्ति के उपरांत अर्जित आय को विचारित

करते हुये इस अधिकरण के सुविचारित अधिमत से प्रार्थी को सेवा मेें पुनः प्रत्यास्थापित किया जाना

न्यायोचित नहीं है। प्रार्थी को एकमुश्त प्रतिकर के रूप में चार लाख रू. विपक्षी से भुगतान करवाये

जाने से न्यायहित साधन हो सकता है।

30. अतः विपक्षीगण द्वारा दिनांक 21.09.2004 को की गई प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अधिनियम की

धारा 25 F के विपरीत पाये जाने पर अवैध घोषित करने के उपरांत प्रार्थी को पुनः विपक्षीगण की

सेवा में प्रत्यास्थापित न करते हुये प्रार्थी को एकमुश्त प्रतिकर के रूप में चार लाख रू. विपक्षीगण

द्वारा भुगतान करने का आदेश दिया जाता है। विपक्षीगण प्रतिकर राशि का भुगतान अधिनिर्णय के

प्रर्वतनीय होने की तिथि से 2 माह की अवधि में प्रार्थी को करे, अन्यथा प्रार्थी इस राशि पर

9 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से ब्याज भी पाने का अधिकारी होगा।

31. संदर्भित विवाद का न्यायनिर्णयन इसी प्रकार किया जाता है।

32. अधिनिर्णय की प्रतिलिपि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 17 (1) के अनुसरण में

प्रका ानार्थ प्रेषित की जावे।

33. न्यायालय द्वारा अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 26.09.2024 को सुनाया गया।

राधामोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2133.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार के न्द्रीय लोक निमााण विभाग के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-I के पंचाट (04/2023) प्रकाशित करती है।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2024- आई आर (बी-I)-236]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024

S.O. 2133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.04/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-236]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.04/2023

Registered On:-10.05.2023

Hira Singh S/o Sh. Matha Ram R/o Village Droul, Post Office Satog, Tehsil Theog, Himachal Pradesh-171209.

...........Workman

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, CPWD, Kennedy Cottage, Chaura Maidan, Rd. Nabha, Near Vidhan Sabha Shimla Himachal Pradesh 171004.

2. M/s Soni Management and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. Grand Hotel, CPWD, Near Kali Bari Mandir, The Mall Road, Shimla-171001.

........Respondents5020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed On:-12.08.2024

1. The workman Sh. Hira Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the Workman expired and AR for Workman made a statement that none of the LR has contacted the representative of the Workman for impleading them as LRs. It is further stated that it appears none is interested to pursue the present case and the same may be disposed off accordingly.

3. Since the workman has expired and LRs are also not interested to pursue the case further, therefore the present case is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2134.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार सन सिक्यूरिटी र्सर्वसेज, सवे नं.67 परमार नगर, पुणे; महाप्रबंधक, बीएसएनएल, अहमदनगर; उपविभागीय अभियंता, बीएसएनएल, कोपरगांव अहमदनगर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री बालू ओंकार पवार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदनगर, पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या Reference (IDA) No. 23/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000792019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-128-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2024

S.O. 2134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No. 23/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000792019) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Sun security Services, Survey No.67 Parmar nagar, Pune; The General Manager, BSNL, Ahmednagar; The Sub division Engineer, BSNL, Kopargaon Ahmednagar, and Shri Balu Omkar Pawar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.11.2024.

[No. L-42025-07-2024-128-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar)

Exh. O-13

Reference (IDA) No. 23/2019

(CNR No. MHLC160000792019)

1. M/s.Sun Security Services, Survye No.67, 1st Floor,

Parmar Nagar-3,

Pune 411013.

2. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O.

Ahmednagar 414002.

3. Sub Divl.Engineer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Kopargaon, Distt, Ahmednagar

Ahmednagar ... First Party

Vs.

Balu Omkar Pawar

Age: 41 years, Occ.: Nil,

At Po.: Khadki, Tal.: Kopargaon,

Dist.: Ahmednagar. ... Second Party

AWARD

( Date: 10-07-2024)

3. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide referral order dated 28-03-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Balu Omkar Pawar was dismissed from service on 7-2-2018. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ?

4. Accordingly, the second party Balu Omkar Pawar has filed his statement of Claim on record. In pursuance of notice, First Party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their W.S. but though notices is served to First Party No.1 he did not appear and not file any W.S.

5. The Second Party remained absent and though various opportunities given to him he did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, this Court having no alternative but to record negative finding to both the issues. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order-

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the "negative".

2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

Dated :10.07.2024 SHARAD G.DESHPANDE. Presiding officer

दिल्ली, 20 नवम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 2135.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार सन सिक्यूरिटी र्सर्वसेज, सवे नं.67 परमार नगर, पुणे; महाप्रबंधक, बीएसएनएल, अहमदनगर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री गणेश बालासाहेब अनाप, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदनगर,पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या Reference (IDA) No. 25/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000812019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल– 42025-07-2024-141-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2024

S.O. 2135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No. 25/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000812019) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Sun security Services, Survey No.67 Parmar nagar, Pune; The General Manager, BSNL, Ahmednagar; and Shri Ganesh Balasaheb Anap, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.11.2024.

[No. L-42025-07-2024-141-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)

Exh. O-11

Reference (IDA) No. 25/2019

(CNR No. MHLC160000812019)

1. M/s.Sun Security Services,

Survye No.67, 1st Floor,

Parmar Nagar-3,

Pune 411013.

2. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O.

Ahmednagar 414002.

... First Party

Vs.

Ganesh Balasaheb Anap,

Age: 41 years, Occ.: Nil,

C/o. Near Neharu Garden, Maliwada,

Tal.: Sangamner, Dist.: Ahmednagar,

Ahmednagar 414002.

… Second Party

AWARD

( Date: 10-07-2024)

1. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide referral order dated 28-03-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Ganesh Balasaheb Anap was dismissed from service on 7-2-2018. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ?

2. Accordingly, the second party Ganesh Balasaheb Anap has filed his statement of Claim on record. In pursuance of notice, First Party no.2 appeared and filed their W.S. but though notices is served to First Party No.1 he did not appear and not file any W.S.

3. The Second Party remained absent and though various opportunities given to him he did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, this Court having no alternative but to record negative finding to both the issues. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order-

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the "negative".

2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

Dated :10.07.2024

SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.