8106 GI/2024

(5321)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 51]

नई दिल् ली, दिसम् बर 22—दिसम् बर 28, 2024, िजनवार/ पौष 1—पौष 7, 1946

No. 51]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 22—DECEMBER 28, 2024, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 1–PAUSHA 7, 1946

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मत्रांलय

(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2259.—केन्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा जनयमावली, 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के जनयम

10 के उपजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, जवत्तीय आसूचना एकक-भारत, िीवन भारती जबलल्डंग, कनॉट

प्लेस, नई दिल्ली, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कममचाररयों ने जिन्िी का कायमसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत

करती िै।

[फाा. सं. ई-11017/1/2016- ए.डी.(जिन्िी-IV)]

जिजिर िमाम, संयुक्त जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-02012025-259839

CG-DL-W-02012025-259839

5322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S. O. 2259.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Financial Intelligence Unit-India, 7^th Floor, Tower-

2, Jeevan Bharati Building, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001, where more than 80% staff have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2016- AD(Hindi-IV)]

SHISHIR SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2260.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

रजिस्ट्रार, राष्ट्रीय प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान कनामटक, श्रीजनवास नगर पोस्ट्ट, मैंगलोर; मेससम श्री वेंकटेश्वर एंटरप्राइिेि,

बसवेश्वरनगर, बेंगलुरु,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती संिेि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय,बैंगलोर, पंचाट(संिभम संख्या 19/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42012/212/2021- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S.O. 2260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2022) 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

The Registrar, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Srinivas Nagar Post, Mangalore ; M/s. Sree

Venkateshwara Enterprises, Basaveshwanagar, Bengaluru, and Smt. Shubha,Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2024

[No. L-42012/212/2021- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 12^th NOVEMBER 2024

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB.

Presiding Officer

I D No. 19/2022

I Party

II Party

Smt. Shubha,

D/o Jagannath Suvarna,

D No. 15-41/4, Girija Sadan,

Padi House, Near Check Post,

Mukka, Surathal,

MANGALORE – 574 146.

1. The Registrar, National Institute of Technology

Karnataka, Srinivas Nagar Post, MANGALORE

– 575 025.

2. M/s. Sree Venkateshwara Enterprises, No. 19,

1-G Cross, Vivekananada Road, 8^th Main, 3^rd

Stage, 4^th Block, Basaveshwanagar, Bengaluru.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5323

Appearances

I Party :

Shri J Ravindra Naik

Advocate

II Party :

None

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity

‘the Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the National Institute of Technology Karnataka and

Sree Venkateshwara Enterprises who was terminated from work vide letter dated 30.06.2022.

After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 14.06.2023. The Claim Statement was

received through Post on 10.12.2022 and the matter came to be posted for Objection/Counter Statement of the

II Party. During the pendency of Industrial Dispute the 1^st Party filed a Memo that she is not pressing the

Petition for further proceedings as she has been given employment by the Respondents and requested the

Petition to be closed as not pressed.

Perused the records. The 1^st Party has filed a Memo dated 12.11.2024 which bears the signature of the

Petitioner / 1^st Party and counter signed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on record. Therefore, in view

of the above, the Memo is recorded and prayer is allowed. The Petition is thus dismissed as not pressed.

Transmit.

A W A R D

Petition is dismissed as not pressed.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 12^th November 2024)

Smt. K. P. INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2261.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससम ईएसएस-िेएवाई इंिीजनयसम, एनसीएल अमलोरी प्रोिेक्ट, लसंगरौली (म.प्र.)प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और , श्री

संिय नामिेव, कामगार ,ऊिाांचल जवस्ट्थाजपत कामगार यूजनयन, मािन मोड़ लसंगरौली, (म.प्र.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर पंचाट(संिभम संख्या आईडी नंबर

सीिीआईटी/एलसी/आर/49/2023, को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024- 222-आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S.O. 2261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/49/2023), of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s ESS- JAY Engineers, NCL

Amlori Project, Singrauli (M.P.), and Shri Sanjay Namdev, Worker, Urjanchal Visthapit

Kamgar Union, Majan Mod Singrauli,(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 16.12.2024,

[No. L-42025/07/2024-222- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

5324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/2023

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The Sanjay Namdev,

Urjanchal Visthapit Kamgar Union,

Majan Mod Singrauli

(M.P.) - 486887

Workman

Versus

M/s ESS- JAY Engineers,

NCL Amlori Project,

Singrauli (M.P.)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 26^th day of November-2024.)

Vide communication reference number SH-1(68)/2021 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 demand of the union Urjanchal Vishthapit Evam Kamgar Union Waidhan to reinstate

the services of Shri Rambhuvan Shah, Rammilan Yadav, Govind Prasad Yadav, Ram lal Shah, Pappu lal Shah,

Anmol Singh and Arvind Shah by the management of M/s ESS-JAY Engineers a contractor of NCL Amlohri is

justified? If not what other benefits the workmen are entitled to ? ”

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service

of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management 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: 26/11/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2262.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष सि प्रबंि जनिेिक, राष्ट्रीय उच्च िजक्त परीक्षण प्रयोगिाला प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, संस्ट्थागत क्षेत्र, लोिी रोड, नई

दिल्ली, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और , श्री जवष्णु प्रसाि सेन,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर पंचाट(संिभम संख्या आईडी नंबर सीिीआईटी/एलसी/आर/21/2018,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5325

को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 06.12.2024 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42012/30/2018- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार] अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S.O. 2262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/21/2018), of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Chairman cum Managing Director, National High Power Test Laboratory Pvt.

Ltd., Institutial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, and Shri Vishnu Prasad Sen, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.12.2024,

[No. L-42012/30/2018- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/21/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Sh. Vishnu Prasad Sen

S/o Shri Ramesh Sen,

R/o 197, Mata Mandir Road, Mohangiri,

Ward No.20, Vishiah (M.P.)

VIDISHA(MP) - 464001

Workman

Chairman cum Managing Director

National High Power Test Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.

Corde-8, Fist Floor, Scopes Complex-7,

Institutial Area, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi - 110033

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 16^th day of October-2024)

As per letter dated 18/04/2018 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-42012/30/2018-IR (DU) dt. 18/04/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether, the action of the management of National High Power Test Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. (a joint

venture of NTPC, NHPC, Power Grid, DVC and CPRI) office at Core 7 Scope Complex, 7 Institutional

Area, Lodhi Road in terminating the services of Sh. Vishnu Prasad Sen, employed as Junior Engineer

(Civil) w.e.f. 02.07.2012 till 31.12.2016 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

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

respective statements of claim and defense.

According to the workman, he was first employed by the management initially on the post of the Junior

Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 02.07.2012 in Panna with the Employee Code No. C003 after following the recruitment

5326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

process and worked till 31.12.2016 that is the date of termination of his services by management, without any break

and central day, thus worked for 240 days and more continuously in every year. His appointment under order of

management dated 02.07.2012 above mentioned, was for fixed term of one year which was extended for any one year

vide year of management dated 04.07.2013 and further one year vide order dated 04.07.2014 with a other extension of

one year vide order of management dated 03.07.2015. The management further extended his services for another six

months that is from 01.07.2016 to 31.12.2016. The details of sanctioned posts with the management is available on its

website according to which the post of Junior Engineer Civil on which the workman has been working after following

recruitment process is sanctioned post of permanent nature. It is further the case of workman that a provision of

Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946 is applicable to the management. The action of management in not

appointing him on permanent appointment and not regularising him in spite of vacancy, is violation of the Standing

Orders Act of 1946 hence unfair labour practice which is unjust and against law. Also, it has been alleged that his

services has been terminated by management without notice or compensation. Hence, is against law and unjust being

in violation of Section 25 F, 25 H, 25 G and 25 M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) the workman

has thus requested that holding the action of management in terminating his services from 31.12.2016 thereby held

entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits and also be held entitled to be offer permanent appointment

regularising his services.

Inspite of service of notice, none has present on behalf of management. Hence, the case has preceded ex-

party against management.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in-chief which is uncontroverted because there is

no cross-examination from the side of management. He has further filed and proved his first appointment letter dated

24^th July, 2012, extension letter dated 4^th July, 2013, letter of Management dated 27^th May, 2014 requiring him to

indicate his wellness to continue with the organisation, office order dated 10^th March, 2015, application of the

workman dated 23^rd December, 2016, copy of order of Hon’ble High Court, Certified Copy of Statement of Account,

Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 6^th May, 2014 regarding details of sanctioned posts and job

specification of manpower to be recruited, recruitment notification of 2014, list of employees on required role of the

company, application dated 2^nd June 2016 filed by workman for his regularisation, application dated December 14^th,

2016, December 26^th, 2016 and December 28^th, 2016 filed by workman seeking his regularisation which are exhibit

W-1 to W-11.

I have heard ex-party argument of Learned Counsel for workman Shri K.B. Singh and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

Since the reference relates only about the legality of termination of the workman, hence this Tribunal will

confine itself only to the dispute raised in the reference.

From the perusal of affidavit and the documents proved as mentioned, it is established that the first

appointment of the workman was a fixed appointment for one year, which was extended firstly on year to year basis

and thereafter for half-yearly and quarterly basis up to 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the services of the workman were

disposed with by management.

Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines retrenchment as follows :-

Since, the workman was appointed for a fixed term of One year which was extended yearly and thereafter on

this Six monthly or Quarterly basis, shows that primafacie it was a fixed term appointment. Since, the appointment of

the workman was for a fixed term which was not extended further; apparently it cannot be called retrenchment as

defined under Section 2 O O of the Act.

Learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that in this case the management has adopted unfair labour

practice by appointing the workman for the fixed term in spite of the fact that there has been sanctioned vacancy of

Junior Engineer Civil that is the post on which Workman was appointed and this vacancy is of permanent nature the

vacancy still exists. It is further been submitted by Learned Counsel that other persons who were appointed on

contract basis by management have been regularised against permanent vacancy excluding the present workman

which is illegally accorded by management. Learned Counsel further submits that this Tribunal has power to undo

the illegalities mentioned above.

Section 2 (ra) of the Act defines unfair Labour Practice which is as follows: -

Unfair Labour practice means any of the practices specified in fifth schedule.

Schedule V of the Act details about the Unfair Labour Practices on the part of employee and workman.

Clause No. 10 para 1^st of the Schedule which is about unfair Labour Practices on the part of Employees and Trade

Unions of employees is being reproduced as follows:-

To employ workman as Badlis, Casuals or Temporaries and to continue them as such for years with

the object of depriving them of status and privilege of permanent workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5327

Section 25 (T) of the Act provides that no employee or workman or a Trade Union was committed any unfair

labour practice. The point here arises for consideration is whether the action of management in the case in hand is

unfair labour practice by the employee or not.

Exhibit W-6 filed and proved by workman is copy of the minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors

held on 6^th May, 2014 with respect to decisions/Resolution regarding details of sanctioned posts and challenges

proposed therein. This document goes to show that earlier there was one sanctioned post Junior Engineer/ Supervisor

Civil which is not changed. The detail of sanction posts which is part of Exhibit W-6 also mentions this fact. It is also

mentioned that the employee will be recruited as a trainee in Supervisor Cadre for one year after which he/ she will be

absorbed in regular cadre. This provision is with regard to Junior Engineer/ Supervisor that is the post which the

workman was holding before termination of his services.

Though there is material on record to indicate that management has adopted unfair labour practice in

employing continuing the applicant workman as a Contract Worker inspite of the fact that there has been sanctioned

vacancy right from 2012 to 2016 that is the date of detachment of the workman due to non extension of his work

contract but the mandate in the reference is restricted only to legality of termination and not the non awarding of

permanent status and regularisation of the workman on the post, any order beyond the scope of the reference will not

be permissible in law.

Since it is established that on the date of termination of his services, the workman was on contract basis,

none extension of his services that is the non extending the contract cannot be held to be a retrenchment as denied

under Section 2 (oo) and hence the termination of his services cannot be held to be unjust or illegal.

The reference stands answered accordingly.

DATE:- 16/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2263.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार वायु

सेना स्ट्कूल, कलईकुंडा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय,कोलकाता,पंचाट(संिभम संख्या REF.NO.05 OF 2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक

में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42012/14/2018- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S.O. 2263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05 OF 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to Air Force School, Kalaikunda, and Its Workmen, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 16.12.2024.

[No. L-42012/14/2018- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. NO. 05 OF 2019

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

5328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Air Force School, Kalaikunda

Its Workmen

Appearance:

On behalf Air Force School: Mr. Kanchan Das, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen

: Absent

Dated: 5th December, 2024

A W A R D

Today has been fixed for evidence from the side of the workmen. Unfortunately, none appears from the side

of the workmen when the matter is called. That apart, record shows, on earlier two dates also the workmen were

found absent without any step.

Authority of Air Force School, Kalaikunda is present along with their Ld. Counsel.

None-appearance of the workmen for three consecutive dates give rise to an assumption that workmen are no

more interested to pursue with the dispute which they have raised against the authorities of Air Force School,

Kalaikunda, Paschim Medinipur.

Be that as it may, by order No. L-14012/14/2018 –IR(DU) dated 04-02-2019, the Central Government,

Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred sub-section 1(d) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of Air Force station, Kalaikunda in terminating and discontinuing the service of Sh.

Debasis Bhattacharya & 5 others w.e.f. 03-10-2016 who are Transport attendants in the Education Section of Air

Force Station is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled to?”

As per claim statement the concerned six workmen were appointed as Transport Attendants by Air Force

School, Kalaikunda, on contractual basis in between 2005 to 2013. However, they have not been paid minimum rate

of wages since 2015 including incentive and puja bonus. That they were paid monthly wages through their bank

accounts since 2014. However, all on a sudden they were prevented to join their duty verbally and stopped from

entering the gate without any reason in the morning of 03-10-2016.

Thus, they have alleged that they have been illegally terminated from the service by the authorities of the Air

Force School without giving any notice or without hearing them and in violation of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

Therefore, they have prayed that they may be reinstated as Transport Attendant and for compensation and for the cost

of the dispute.

The school authorities in their written statement have alleged that Air Force School, Kalaikunda is not a

profit making organisation and was established in the year 1959 and functions under the aegis of the Indian Air Force

Educational and Cultural Society. The school is not under the direct control of Air Force Authorities. The school has

no school bus of its own, but Air Force Station, Kalaikunda provides its own buses to the school for using within the

campuses of the station for the students of Air Force School, Kendriya Vidyalaya-I and Kendriya Vidyalaya-II. That

for proper handling of children/students during their journey from home to school and back had engaged Transport

Attendants and whose payment were made by the parents of the students.

That all on a sudden those six Transport Attendants went on strike w.e.f. 01-10-2016 and that too without

any prior intimation or notice, putting the management of school into great trouble. Then they started demanding high

remuneration, extra bonus etc. which were not a part of their terms of engagement. They were paid consolidated

amount out of the funds contributed by the parents whose kids use the school buses. Due to such sudden strike Air

Force Authority was put into embarrassment in running the school buses without attendants and which put lot of

inconveniences to the students. Therefore school authority having no other alternative had to engage a new set of

Transport Attendants to take care of the students travelling in the Air Force buses. They have alleged that there was

no illegal termination of the workmen and question of reinstatement does not arise and prays for dismissal of the

reference.

The workmen in their rejoinder have reiterated what they have alleged in their claim statement.

Unfortunately, the workmen who have raised the dispute, have failed to produce any oral or documentary

evidence to substantiate their claim that they have been illegally terminated by the Air Force Authority on 03-10-2016

without any fault on their part.

Thus, there is nothing in the record to decide the issue under reference apart from uncorroborated pleadings

of the parties.

In view of above, Reference No.05/2019 is dismissed and a “No Dispute Award” is passed accordingly.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5329

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2264.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

बीएसएनएल, पजिम बंगाल िूरसंचार सर्कमल, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कामगार, बीएसएनएल

अनजलस्ट्टेड कैिुअल वकमसम यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम

न्यायालय,कोलकाता,पंचाट(संिभम संख्या REF.NO. 49 OF 2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-40011/52/2013- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S.O. 2264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49 OF 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to BSNL, West Bengal Telecom Circle, and Their Workmen, BSNL Unlisted Casual Workers’ Union, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2024.

[No. L-40011/52/2013- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. NO. 49 OF 2013

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

BSNL, West Bengal Telecom Circle.

Their Workmen, represented by BSNL Unlisted Casual Workers’ Union.

Appearance:

On behalf of BSNL, West Bengal Telecom Circle: Mr. Amaresh Bag, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Union : Mr. Rabi Kumar Dubey, Ld. Advocate.

Dated: 20th November, 2024

A W A R D

By order No. L-40011/52/2013 –IR(DU) dated 05-09-2013, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of power conferred sub-section 1(d) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has

referred the following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of management of BSNL, West Bengal Telecom Circle, 1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700001 in not paying enough maintenance money to the telephone mechanics, so that they are able to pay at

least wages notified by the Central Government from time to time to the external labours/unlisted casual labours

whenever they are engaged by them occasionally is justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The case of the union which has raised the present dispute in gist is that BSNL, West Bengal Circle has

engaged unlisted labourers for maintenance of landline, Cable Joint Maintenance, WLL Programming, NTC, VPT,

providing WLL prepared, WLL set repair and maintenance, Nigh Guards, Sweeper etc. in different sub-divisions of

North 24 Parganas.

That those unlisted workmen working for BSNL, North 24 Parganas in different categories comes within the

definition of ‘workman’ as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the principal employer

5330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BSNL, a Central Govt. Enterprise, has failed to adhere to Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and failed to pay wages to those

unlisted workers at minimum rate of wages.

The union all along placed its demands for minimum rate of wages and maintenance money by Telephone

mechanics before the authorities of BSNL and for payment wages to its unlisted workers as per Central Govt.

Minimum Rate of Wages, but the authorities of BSNL turned deaf ear. Finding no other alternative the union had

approached Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata for relief. Unfortunately, the Labour Commissioner

failed to resolve the dispute and as such referred the dispute to the Ministry for making necessary reference. Thus, the

union has prayed for payment of minimum rate of wages to the unlisted workers and for payment of maintenance

money to the telephone mechanics as per Central Govt. rate.

Such case of the union has been contested by BSNL by filing written statement, where it has alleged that

those unlisted workers were engaged by its contractors engaged for maintenance of Cable, joint etc. The liability to

pay minimum rate of wages as per Central Govt. rate lies with those contractors.

That the job of cable joint maintenance, land line maintenance, providing WLL phone is sourced out to

contractors. That the direct employees of BSNL will not come under the purview of I.D. Act and Minimum Rate of

Wages Act, 1948 is not applicable to those permanent or directly employed employees of BSNL. That the union

which has raised the dispute has been misleading the employees of the contractors to safeguard the contractors and

placing their demand directly to BSNL. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

The union in order to prove its case and claim has examined its Circle Secretary Mr., Safikul Alam as

W.W.1.

On the other hand BSNL has declined to adduce any evidence. No document whatsoever have been exhibited

either by the union which has raised the dispute and by BSNL, though in the record I find union has filed documents

as per list and which it has failed to exhibit for reasons best known to it.

Both union and BSNL have filed their written notes of argument.

Nevertheless, let me discuss the evidence of Mr.Safikul Alam, Circle Secretary of the union which has raised

the dispute and who has deposed in this case on behalf of the union. He reiterated the content of the claim statement

filed by the union in his evidence in chief on affidavit, but his evidence recorded under oath by the Tribunal appears

to be inconsistent and self-contradictory.

He in his cross examination has stated BSNL has recognised engagement of casual workers but at the same

time he has stated that he has not seen any document of BSNL with regard to engagement of unlisted workers. He has

further stated BSNL never issued any appointment letter to casual labours but SDO, BSNL used to issue work order

every day and there is no contractor in between BSNL and those casual workers. He has further stated that he was

engaged to do work in BSNL in the year 1994 and since 18-07-2002 he is working as a contractor for installation of

WLL and he worked as a contractor till 08-03-2004. Such statement of W.W.1 appears to be self-contradictory as he

has stated in one breath that no contractor was engaged by BSNL for supply of casual workers, but at the same time

he has stated that though he was a casual employee of BSNL and was also a contractor of BSNL for installation of

WLL from 18-07-2002 to 08-03-2004.

Further, he during his cross examination has stated that telephone mechanics were not authorised to engage

casual labours but at the same time he has stated that telephone mechanics could engage casual labours. That

telephone mechanic used to pay wages to those casual labours engaged by them. The Telephone Mechanics were paid

by SDO, Telephone for making payment to casual labours. That he never received any receipt from casual workers

with regard to payment of wages.

Similarly, Telephone Mechanics too never issued any payment receipt to the casual labours engaged by

them. He has further stated that he has no knowledge whether there is any unlisted casual labour in BSNL. If that be

so, then the case of the union fails as the union has raised the present dispute in respect of unlisted casual labours

working in BSNL. He further stated, no list of casual labours is prepared. The labours who worked in the office are

called unlisted casual labours.

He further during his cross examination on 28-08-2023 has stated that he started working for BSNL as casual

labour since 1994 directly under Sub-Division Telephone Engineer, Basirhat and he was not an employee of private

contractor. That he was paid salary/ wages through vouchers on monthly basis. Unfortunately, he has failed to

produce those vouchers.

He stated the other concerned employees are working under S.D.E.T., Basirhat, Bangaon, Barasat and Habra.

Every Sub-Division has separate sub-Divisional Engineer Telecom. The other concerned casual workers were also

paid through vouchers. Those vouchers were of BSNL. Unfortunately, he has failed to produce those vouchers. He

has stated in Basirhat Sub Division there were 23 casual employees. In Habra there were 13-14 casual, in Barasat

there were 12 casual and in Bongaon there were 17-18 casual employees.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5331

So, in the absence of documentary evidence this Tribunal is not inclined to rely on the inconsistent and self-

contradictory oral evidence given by W.W.1 under oath before the Tribunal.

Nothing has come on record to show that BSNL engaged or engages casual labours directly and it being a

Central Govt. enterprise does not adhere to Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and did not pay minimum Central or State

Govt. rate of wages to its casual employees or that Telephone Mechanics were allowed to engage casual unlisted

workers and they were paid by S.D.E.T. to make payment to those unlisted casual workers.

Nevertheless, this Tribunal is of view, if BSNL gets its work done through any casual employee

engaged by it directly or through contactor, if any, then it is bound to adhere to Minimum Wages Act, 1948

and it being a Central Govt. Undertaking, it is bound to pay minimum rate of wages fixed by the Central Govt.

from time to time to its casual employees and it cannot evade its statutory liabilities imposed by Minimum

Wages Act, 1948 towards its casual employees and avoid payment to its casual employees the wages at

minimum rate fixed by Central Govt. from time to time.

In view of the above Reference No.49 of 2013 is disposed of and award to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2265.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

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

ds iapkV (a55/2017) izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-253]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2024

S.O. 2265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.55/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. I

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s IDBI Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-253]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,

NEW DELHI.

DID No.55/2017

Shri Lalbabu S/o Shri Ram Chander,

C/o Rashtriya Rajdhani Shramik Sangh (Regd),

Rampura, New Delhi-110035.

Workman…

Versus

M/s IDBI Bank,

B-3/1, Phase-II, Upper Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar,

New Delhi-110052.

M/s Central Investigation And Security Services Ltd.,

7, Satya Niketan, 1^st Floor, Motibagh-II,

5332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi-110021.

Management…

AWARD

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

termination from the service on 28.08.2015 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be

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

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

28.08.2015 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry by the management. He has

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

Management No.1 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. However, Management

no.2 appeared and filed the rebuttal written statement. After that, rejoinder was filed and issues were framed. And

after that, case was listed for claimant evidence on 04.12.2017. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the claimant

nor his A/R appeared despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his

claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 22.08.2024

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2266.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार, संगरूर; डी.ई.टी. टेलीफोन एक्सचेंि संगरूर, पंिाब; उप मंडल इंिीजनयर/एसडीओ िूरसंचार,

संगरूर, पंिाब; कजनष्ठ िूरसंचार अजिकारी, संगरूर, पंिाब; मेससम अमीरुद्दीन ऑटोमोबाइल सर्वमस, अलीगढ़ (यू.पी.), के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िसवीर लसंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-1,चंडीगढ़,पंचाट(संिभम संख्या 77/2018)को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024-223- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2024

S.O. 2266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court -1, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager, Telecom, Sangrur ; The D.E.T. Telephone Exchange Sangrur, Punjab ; Sub

Divisional Engineer/ SDO Telecom Snagrur, Punjab ;Junior Telecom Officer, Sangrur, Punjab; M/s Amiruddin

Automobile Service, Aligarh (U.P.), and Shri Jasvir Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 19.12.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-223- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.77/2018

Registered On:-12.11.2018

Jasvir Singh S/o Sh. Rulda Singh R/o VPO Jarg, Tehsil Payal, Distt. Ludhiana (Punjab).

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5333

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom, Sangrur.

The D.E.T. Telephone Exchange Sangrur, Punjab.

Sub Divisional Engineer/ SDO Telecom Snagrur, Punjab.

Junior Telecom Officer, Sangrur, Punjab.

M/s Amiruddin Automobile Service, Shop No.11, Welcome Palace, Anoop Shahar Road Jamalpur, Aligarh

(U.P.)-202001.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:- 03.12.2024

The workman Sh. Jasvir 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.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by

Workman.

Since the Ld. Counsel of Workman has withdrawn the present case, therefore there is no need to proceed the

case further. Hence the present case is dismissed as withdrawn. File after completion be consigned in the record

room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID

Act, 1947.

B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2267.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री गुरप्रीत लसंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-1,चंडीगढ़,पंचाट(संिभम संख्या 78/2018)को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024-224- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2024

S.O. 2267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court -1, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager, Telecom, Sangrur ; The D.E.T. Telephone Exchange Sangrur, Punjab ; Sub

Divisional Engineer/ SDO Telecom Snagrur, Punjab ;Junior Telecom Officer, Sangrur, Punjab; M/s Amiruddin

Automobile Service, Aligarh (U.P.), and Shri Gurpreet Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 19.12.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-224- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

5334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.78/2018

Registered On:-12.11.2018

Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh R/o Village. Alipur P.O.

Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).

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

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom, Sangrur.

The D.E.T. Telephone Exchange Sangrur, Punjab.

Sub Divisional Engineer/ SDO Telecom Snagrur, Punjab.

Junior Telecom Officer, Sangrur, Punjab.

M/s Amiruddin Automobile Service, Shop No.11, Welcome Palace, Anoop Shahar Road

Jamalpur, Aligarh (U.P.)-202001.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:- 03.12.2024

1. The workman Sh. Gurpreet 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 case was fixed for filing replication by

Workman.

3. Since the Ld. Counsel of Workman has withdrawn the present case, therefore there is no need to proceed the case

further. Hence the present case is dismissed as withdrawn. 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.

B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2268.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

भारतीय पुरातत्व सवेक्षण, गुवािाटी सर्कमल, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और, श्री इंरिीत िमाम, कामगार, के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िमष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, गुवािाटी पंचाट(संिभम संख्या आईडी नंबर

11 of 2020), को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

18.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024-219- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2024

S.O. 2268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID. No. 11 of 2020), of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5335

in relation to Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle, and Shri Indrajit Sarma, Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.12.2024,

[No. L-42025/07/2024-219- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

GUWAHATI

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer / Link Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Guwahati.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 11 OF 2020

PARTIES: Indrajit Sarma.

Vs.

Management of Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workman:

Mr. Indrajit Sarma (in person).

For the Management of ASI:

Dr. N.K. Swain (for Superintending Archeologist, Guwahati).

INDUSTRY:

Archeological Survey of India (Ministry of Culture).

STATE:

Assam.

DATED:

25.10.2024.

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, vide its Order No. F. G/R. 8(05)/2020-Dy.CLC(C)/ID

dated 19.10.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of

Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle and Indrajit Sarma, their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle, 5^th Floor, West

End Building, Housefed, Beltola – Basistha Road, Guwahati 781006 (a) in terminating the services of Sh. Indrajit

Sarma, Workman, C/o Ramesh Ch. Sarma, H. No -02 Bishnu Rabha Path, Behind Dona Residency, Chachal, Six

Mile, Guwahati 781022 w.e.f. 20.05.2020 is justified without complying the provision of Sec. 25F of the I.D Act,

1947? (b) Whether the demand of the workman for non-payment of wages during February to May, 2020 is justified?

If not, what relief Sh. Indrajit Sarma, Workman, Guwahati is entitled to?”

On receiving Order No. F. G/R. 8(05)/2020-Dy.CLC(C)/ID dated 19.10.2020 from the Office of the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the

dispute, Reference case No. 11 of 2020 was registered on 22.10.2020 and an order was passed for issuing notice to

the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant

documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

By order dated 22.12.2020, the Tribunal, on the basis of an objection raised by the workman, passed an

ordered that the management shall not engage any advocate in this matter. Indrajit Sarma, the aggrieved workman

filed a claim statement on 25.11.2020, disclosing that he is working under the Archeological Survey of India,

Guwahati Circle (hereinafter referred to as ASI) from 03.11.2024 as a skilled casual worker on consolidated pay. He

discharged work of various nature in the office of the Superintending Archeologist, ASI on verbal and written order

issued from time to time. A few of which has been produced by him and admitted in evidence as Exhibit 1A, 1B and

8A to 8J. On 19.05.2020 when the workman approached the Superintending Archeologist, ASI for payment of his

pending salary for the month of February, 2020, he was verbally informed that his engagement in the office of ASI

will not be continued further and cited some administrative reasons. On 26.05.2020, once again he requested the Head

of the Office for reconsidering the decision of his disengagement from service but no heed was paid and the

concerned authority terminated his service during the period of widespread pandemic, COVID-19. According to the

5336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman he has not received the salary from February, 2020 to May, 2020. For the last time he received his

consolidated pay of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) for month of January, 2020. According to the

workman the management has violated the provision of Labour Law of retrenchment provided under Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act, 1947), which provides that no workman

employed who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that

employer until – (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment; (b) the workman has been paid wages for the notice period in lieu of Notice; (c) the workman has been

paid the retrenchment compensation. It is the case of the workman that the management is liable to pay him

retrenchment compensation and reinstate him in service along with back wages. The workman inter-alia contended

that due to sudden termination from service without any prior notice he is facing financial distress and mental agony.

The workman has also claimed for bonus under Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 for the entire period of

his service. The workman lodged a complaint before the Deputy Central Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati

on 14.06.2020 and the matter for conciliation was fixed on four dates but management representative remained absent

on three dates, resulting in its failure. On reference being made the workman has prayed for necessary relief as per

law.

The management of ASI, Guwahati Circle contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement /

counter affidavit on 19.01.2021 through the Superintending Archeologist, ASI. The first and foremost objection raised

by Archeological Survey of India is that it is neither an industry nor an industrial establishment, so the provisions of

the I.D. Act, 1947 does not apply to it. According to the employer establishment, the Archeological Survey of India

looks after the centrally protected monuments of National importance, spread over the entire length and breadth of the

country and the I.D. Act, 1947 does not apply to the employees or the daily waged casual workers engaged on muster

rolls. Citing the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as

the CGIT-cum-LC), Jaipur in the matter of Bhagirath Sharma S/o Radheshyam Sharma Vs. Superintending

Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Jaipur Circle [CGIT/B-18/97], it is contended that the I.D. Act,

1947 is not attracted to the Archeological Survey of India and urged that the present dispute raised by the claimant is

liable to be dismissed.

Responding to the factual matrix of the case, it is submitted that the applicant was engaged by ASI as a

casual worker on daily wages and his name appeared in the muster roll, prepared up to May, 2017. The applicant was

thereafter engaged on a consolidated monthly remuneration, purely on need basis at different period, on the

availability of the funds with ASI. No letter of engagement was issued to the workman. The payment was made to

him by issuing hand receipts from time to time, as per their period of engagement. It is further stated that the applicant

worked at ASI from 2014 to January, 2020 for which the payment has already been made and there is no outstanding

due payable to the workman. It is the specific case of the employer establishment that since no letter of engagement

was ever issued, the applicant was verbally informed about his disengagement in January, 2020, as there was no

requirement of work. The employer establishment urged that ASI has paid all the dues to the workman till January,

2020, prior to his disengagement and no employer – employee relationship exists between the establishment and

applicant. It is contended that the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable

to be dismissed in law and fact.

The points for consideration before this Tribunal are (a) whether the I.D. Act, 1947 is applicable to the

present case involving ASI, (b) whether the action of the management of ASI, in terminating the services of Indrajit

Sarma, the workman w.e.f. 20.05.2020 is justified without complying the provisions ofSection 25-F of the I.D.

Act, 1947, and (c) whether the demand of the workman for payment of wages from February, 2020 to May, 2020 is

justified. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to.

In order to substantiate his case Indrajit Sarma has filed an affidavit-in-chief along with some documents. In

his affidavit-in-chief he has stated that he worked at ASI from 03.11.2014, as a skilled casual worker on consolidated

pay. In support of his claim, he has placed Experience Certificate dated 14.05.2018 and 19.11.2019 which have been

admitted in evidence as Exhibit 1A and 1B. It is also stated by him that ASI does not have any special law or Act

governing the casual workers in their establishment. Thus, in absence of any exclusive Act or Law for governing

casual workers of ASI, the I.D. Act, 1947 would apply to him. In support of his contention the workman placed

reliance upon a judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the Writ (C) No. 20486 of 2013, which held

that the Garden / Horticulture department of the Archeological Survey of India is an industry. The workman asserted

in his affidavit-in-chief that during his period of continuous work from 03.11.2014 to 19.05.2020, he discharged

various types of work in the office of the Superintending Archeologist, ASI, as per verbal and written orders of the

Head of the Office. Copies of which have been produced and exhibited in the evidence as Exhibit 8A to 8J. It is

claimed that the nature of work performed by him qualifies the test of industrial activity and the dispute raised by him

would be governed by the I.D. Act, 1947. On 19.05.2020 when he approached the Head of the Office at ASI for his

salary for the month of February, 2020, he was verbally informed about his disengagement, citing administrative

reasons. The workman alleged that there has been gross violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act,

1947, by terminating him without Notice. Theworkman prayed for payment of his unpaid wages @ Rs. 18,000/-

per month from February, 2020 to May, 2020, retrenchment compensation and reinstatement in service with back

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5337

wages. The workman also claimed that he is entitled to Bonus under Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 for

the entire period.

In course of his cross-examination by ASI the workman witness admitted that he was a casual employee of

ASI and his name was maintained in the muster roll from 11/2014 to May, 2017, thereafter he was engaged on

consolidated pay per month. The workman also admitted that no formal letter of appointment was issued to him and

denied that his job was terminated due to non-approval by the Competent Authority or that he is not entitled to the

Bonus. In course of his evidence of the workman, the material document which have been admitted in the evidence

are as follows :

(i)

Copy of the work experience certificates dated 14.05.2018 and 19.11.2019 issued by the

Superintending Archeologist, ASI in favour of Indrajit Sarma have been produced as Exhibit - 1A

and 1B respectively.

(ii)

Copy of the office orders passed by the Superintending Archeologist, ASI, allotting work to is and

other have been produced as Exhibit - 8A to 8J.

(iii)

Copy of the Bank Account statement of the workman with the State Bank of India, Guwahati,

showing credit of consolidated pay to his account by ASI, as Exhibit – 11.

(iv)

Copy of the application submitted by three skilled casual workers to the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, disputing their discontinuation of service with ASI, as Exhibit

– 15.

(v)

Copies of the four minutes of meetings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Guwahati dated 24.08.2020, 10.09.2020, 23.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 have been produced as

Exhibit – 16A, 16B, 16C and 16D respectively.

(vi)

Copy of the application dated 15.10.2020 submitted by the workman addressed to the Labour

Enforcement Officer (Central), Guwahati, praying for initiating action for payment of pending

salaries, as Exhibit -17.

(vii)

Copy of the letter date 15.10.2020 issued by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) addressed to the

Superintending Archeologist, ASI for his explanation regarding non-payment of salaries from

February, 2020 to May, 2020, as Exhibit – 18.

The workman was recalled for re-examination on 19.12.2022 and proved Attendance Register, maintained

by ASI in respect of casual workers. Facsimile signatures on the Register for the month of February, 2020, March,

2020 and May, 2020 up to 19.05.2020 were identified. The Attendance Register was collectively marked as Exhibit

W-19. A copy of the Note Sheet regarding Sanction Order for payment of remuneration to casual workers for the

month of February, 2020 has been produced as Exhibit W-20. Cross-examination of the workman’s witness was

declined and no objection was raised against admission of the documents which has been produced by the

management of ASI.

In support of their contention ASI has examined Dr. N. K. Swain, Superintending Archeologist attached to

the ASI as Management Witness - 1. An affidavit-in-chief has been filed on 18.01.2023, stating that the claim of the

workman is not maintainable as Archeological Survey of India is not an industry nor industrial establishment

undertaking to attract the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947. Further assertion of ASI is that the workman was engaged

as a casual worker on daily wages and he was in the muster rolls prepared up to May, 2017. He was engaged at

different period for work between 2014 to January, 2020. According to the management witness payment has been

made to the applicant on issuing hand receipts from time to time as per the period of his engagement. The work

rendered by the workman was need based and on availability of fund with ASI. Their specific case is that the

workman was disengaged after January, 2020 and no work was assigned to him. It is admitted that Indrajit Sarma was

engaged with ASI on 03.11.2014 as daily waged worker and his attendance was recorded in the muster roll up to

May, 2017. Thereafter he was engaged on consolidated pay from June, 2017. As no sanction was accorded by the

Competent Authority from February, 2020 no further payment could be made and the services of the workman was

discontinued. It is the case of the management of ASI that due to lockdown imposed from 24.03.2020, no further

sanction was accorded thereafter w.e.f. 01.02.2020. In his examination-in-chief the management witness deposed that

Indrajit Sarma was engaged as a skilled casual labour at ASI, directly by the Superintending Archeologist, ASI and he

continued to serve till June, 2017. The witness further deposed that thereafter from July, 2017 to January, 2020 he

was engaged as a casual labour on consolidated pay. The witness admitted that no Notice of termination or

discontinuation was issued by the management. Copy of the Sanctioned order for engagement of Indrajit Sarma,

Bishaya Roy and Arsabhanta Singh for the month of January, 2020 has been produced as Exhibit M-1 and Order

dated 28.02.2020 a proposal for sanction of remuneration of the said three casual workers on consolidated

remuneration of Rs. 18,000/- per month for February, 2020, which was not sanctioned by the authority in March,

2020, as Exhibit M-2.

5338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

In course of cross-examination the management witness conceded the fact that Indrajit Sarma was engaged at

ASI from 03.11.2014 to 31.01.2020 and went further to state that it was not possible for him to state the period of

absence of the workman from duty during the said period. The workman also admitted that a Certificate dated

19.11.2019 was issued by Mr. K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, Superintending Archeologist, Head of the Office, which

has been marked as Exhibit 1B, wherein it has been certified that Indrajit Sarma was engaged on purely temporary

basis on consolidated pay from 03.11.2014 and he rendered different types of work stated therein. The witness

deposed that the Note Sheets from 18.02.2020 to 14.05.2020 bear the signature of Indrajit Sarma as well as signature

of the Competent Authority, who approved the same. The Note Sheets consisting of eight sheets have been produced

as Exhibit M-3. On a perusal of Note Sheets dated 18.02.2020, 24.02.2020, 04.03.2020, 06.03.2020, 11.03.2020,

16.03.2020, 18.03.2020, 19.03.2020, 05.05.2020, 12.05.2020, 14.05.2020 and 18.05.2020 bearing the signatures of

Indrajit Sarma, suggest that he had participated and was engaged in the work of the employer, even in the month of

February, 2020, March, 2020 and May, 2020. The witness in his cross-examination stated that the proposal for

sanction in respect of continuation of work for February, 2020 was placed before the Competent Authority in March,

2020 and disclosed that no prior Notice of Termination from service under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 was

issued to the workman and no retrenchment compensation was paid to him.

11.

It is to be borne in mind that an order under Section 36 (4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 was passed by the Tribunal

on 22.12.2020, directing that the management shall not engage any advocate in this proceeding as the workman has

not engaged any advocate and raised objection to the engagement of any lawyer by the management.

12.

Indrajit Sarma, the aggrieved workman in person argued that his case is well within the bounds of Industrial

Dispute act and having served at ASI, continuously from 03.11.2014 till 19.05.2020, the management committed

illegality by terminating his service without any prior Notice and thereby is liable to pay him the wages for the month

from February, 2020 to May, 2020 and also pay the retrenchment compensation as no notice of retrenchment was

issued to him. The workman further submitted that though he has claimed for his reinstatement in service he is not

pressing upon such claim to work under the establishment of ASI in the capacity of a casual worker. The other claim

of the workman is that an Experience Certificate covering the whole period of his service may be issued by ASI.

13.

Dr. N. K. Swain, Superintending Archeologist, who is the authorized representative of ASI argued that the

workman is not entitled to any relief for payment of wages for the period from February, 2020 to May, 2020, as

continuation of his service was not approved by the Competent Authority and the proposal for continuation of his

service for the month of February, 2020 was not sanctioned. No argument was advanced in the matter of non-

application of the I.D. Act, 1947 in the present case.

14.

I have considered the rival contention of the parties in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, their

pleadings, evidences and arguments advanced.

15.

Before considering the merit of the case on factual aspects, it is necessary to advert to the objection raised by

the ASI in their pleading and affidavit-in-chief relating to the non-application of I.D. Act, 1947 to the Archeological

Survey of India, which is a Central Government Organization, established for protecting monuments of national

importance spread over the entire length and breadth of the country. In support of such contention ASI placed reliance

upon the case of Bhagirath Sharma S/o Radheshyam Sharma Vs. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological

Survey of India, Jaipur Circle [CGIT/B-18/97], where the CGIT-cum-LC, Jaipur held that Archeological Survey of

India does not attract I.D. Act, 1947. In order to meet this assertion, it would be worthwhile to consider the judgement

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board, Etc. Vs. R.

Rajappa & Others [(1978) 2 SCC 213] where a seven Judges Bench laid down a comprehensive guideline for courts

while interpreting ‘industry’, where there existed a unanimous viewpoint that sovereign functions strictly understood

alone qualify for exemption. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as follows:

“……… I would also like to make a few observations about the so-called “sovereign” functions which have been

placed outside the field of industry. I do not feel happy about the use of the term “sovereign” here. I think that the

term ‘sovereign’ should be reserved, technically and more correctly, for the sphere of ultimate decisions. Sovereignty

operates on a sovereign plane of its own as I suggested in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru case - supported by

a quotation from Ernest Barker's Social and Political Theory. Again, the term “Regal”, from which the term

“sovereign” functions appear to be derived, seems to be a misfit in a Republic where the citizen shares the political

sovereignty in which he has even a legal share, however small, inasmuch as he exercises the right to vote. What is

meant by the use of the term “sovereign”, in relation to the activities of the State, is more accurately brought out by

using the term “governmental” functions although there are difficulties here also inasmuch as the Government has

entered largely new fields of industry. Therefore, only those services which are governed by separate rules and

constitutional provisions, such as Articles 310 and 311 should, strictly speaking, be excluded from the sphere of

industry by necessary implication.”

16.

In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [(1996) 2 SCC 293] the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that :

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5339

“ ………….. in the aforesaid case according to which except the strictly understood sovereign function, welfare

activities of the State would come within the purview of the definition of industry; and, not only this, even within the

wider circle of sovereign function, there may be an inner circle encompassing some units which could be considered

as’ industry if substantially severable.”

17.

It would be rewarding to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Ashok Harikuni, [(2000) 8 SCC 61], wherein it was held that :

“…………… every governmental function need not be “sovereign”. State activities are multifarious. From the primal

sovereign power, which exclusively inalienably could be exercised by the Sovereign alone, which is not subject to

challenge in any civil court to all the welfare activities, which would be undertaken by any private person. So merely

one is employee of statutory bodies would not take it outside the Central Act. If that be then Section 2(a) of the

Central Act read with Schedule I gives large number of statutory bodies should have been excluded, which is not.

Even if a statute confers on any statutory body, any function which could be construed to be “sovereign” in nature

would not mean every other function under the same statute to be also sovereign. The court should examine the

statute to severe one from the other by comprehensively examining various provisions of that statute. In interpreting

any statute to find it is “industry’ or not we have to find its pith and substance. The Central Act is enacted to maintain

harmony between employer and employee which brings peace and amity in its functioning. This peace and amity

should be the objective in the functioning of all enterprises. This is to the benefit of both, employer and employee.

Misuse of rights and obligations by either or stretching it beyond permissible limits have to be dealt with within the

frame work of the law but endeavor should not be in all circumstances to exclude any enterprise from its ambit. That

is why courts have been defining “industry” in the widest permissible limits and “sovereign” functioning within its

limited orbit.”

18.

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Union of India v. Surendra Singh Rashtriya

Adhayaksha [2019 SCC OnLine All 4671], dealt with a similar issue wherein services of 41 workmen employed in

Garden branch of Archeological Survey of India were terminated without complying with Section 25-F of I.D. Act,

1947. In the said case it was contended that organization is not an industry and none of the workmen had completed

240 days continuous service in a calendar year. The Hon'ble court while declaring the Petitioner organization to be an

industry under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act observed that whether Garden/Horticulture Department of the

Archeological Survey of India falls within the definition of “Industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, the

Supreme Court in the case of A Rajappa (supra) has held as under:

“Where there is (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and

substantial element is chimerical), and (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to

satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to

ceestial bliss e.g. making on a large scale Prasad or food), prima facie, there is an ‘industry’ in that enterprise.”

19.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Archaeological Survey of India Vs. Presiding Officer,

CGIT and Others [W.P.(C) 8154/2005 and C.M. No. 5958/2005], relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court of Allahabad in the case of Union of India v. Surendra Singh Rashtriya Adhayaksha (Supra.), concluded

that the petitioner satisfies the requisites of an industry as per Section 2(j) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The functions

that were performed by workers of Archeological Survey of India such as maintenance of gardens, removal of

vegetation, repair works in ancient monuments etc. cannot be said to be the sole function of government. It can be

performed by an external agency other than the Government which need not to be an instrumentality of state, and

hence cannot be termed as sovereign functions. The decision of the CGIT-cum-LC, Jaipur in the case of Bhagirath

Sharma S/o Radheshyam Sharma (Supra.) relied by the respondent establishment was overruled in that said case.

20.

Considering the nature of work rendered by the workman at ASI and the purpose for which the person was

employed by ASI from 03.11.2014, it would appear from Exhibit 1A and 1B, Certificates dated 14.05.2018 and

19.11.2019 issued by the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI that Indrajit Sarma was working as a skilled casual

worker on consolidated pay on temporary basis and he has assisted in Technical and Monument Sections for putting

up various files regarding different issues. Beside these he also attended documentation work, report writing,

participated in exhibitions and workshops organized by the office. In Exhibit 8A to 8J, which are office orders issued

by the Head of the Office from time to time, it transpires that the workman attended workshop at the Indian Institute

of Technology (IIT), Guwahati for use of Global Positioning System (GPS) in preparation of Contour and its use in

Geographic Information System (GIS). He was engaged at Dimapur, Nagaland for smooth compilation of

competitions at inaugural function and workshop on 20.11.2016, to participate in the World Heritage Week

celebration and to submit report to the office regarding participating of candidates in the penal discussion, to set up

exhibition in North-East Expo at Annual Cultural Festival at IIT, Guwahati organized awareness programme on the

fundamental duties of citizen, to organize a programme for celebration of International Museum Day. For execution

of work and survey of Manipur Memorial at Shillong, Meghalaya, to make arrangement for setting up exhibition in

the Arya Vidyapeeth College, Guwahati as a part of year-long Diamond Jubilee celebration. For conducting

archeological exploration from village to village at Ribhoi District and Saipung areas of West Jaintia Hills of

Meghalaya. It would appear from such Office Order that concerned workman was deployed to perform multifarious

5340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work which satisfies the triple test (i) systemic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and

employee, (iii) production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes. It

cannot be said that the work assigned to the workman were sovereign work of the state. Under the facts and

circumstances and legal principles laid down in the referred decisions, I hold that the activities in which Indrajit

Sarma was engages by ASI qualify the test of ‘industry’ and I hold that the I.D. Act, 1947 is applicable in the matter

of dispute raised by the workman.

21.

The workman has claimed that he performed continuous service under ASI from 03.11.2014 as a skilled

casual worker up to 19.05.2020. The workman has not been paid his wages from February, 2020 and that on

19.05.2020 he was verbally informed by the management of ASI that the he would not be paid the salary from

February, 2020 and was disengaged from his employment. It is Undisputed that the workman has received his

consolidated pay up to the month of January, 2020. The management witness in his cross-examination has stated that

the period of engagement of Indrajit Sarma at the office of ASI was from 03.11.2014 to 31.01.2020 and it was not

possible for him to state the period of absence of the workman from duty during the said period. The workman claims

to have performed continuous service for ASI during the said period. Since management did not prove to the contrary,

a presumption would arise in favour of the workman that he rendered continuous service to ASI for the entire period.

It is also admitted by the management witness that no Notice of termination or disengagement of service was issued

to Indrajit Sarma. It therefore transpires from the factual materials of this case that the workman who had been in

continuous service for not less than one year and to be more specific from 03.11.2014 to May, 2020 under ASI was

retrenched by the employer without any Notice, in writing, indicating the reason for retrenchment and no

compensation for retrenchment was paid to the workman.

22.

It may be gathered from the definition of “retrenchment” provided in Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947

that :

“ retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,

otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include -

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. ”

In the instant case we find that the termination of workman was not for any punishment inflicted upon him.

23.

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen :

“ No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a)

the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b)

the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months; and

(c)

notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. ”

24.

Applying the facts to the legal provisions of retrenchment, I hold that the workman is entitled to the

retrenchment benefit, which is an amount equivalent to one month’s pay in lieu of Notice. He is also entitled to the

payment of retrenchment compensation, which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. It is appropriate to point out that the workman

worked as a skilled casual labour from 03.11.2014 to May, 2017 on daily wages and from June, 2017 to 19.05.2020

on consolidated pay, except for the month of April, 2020. Therefore, he is entitled to retrenchment compensation for

every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months for the entire period. From the

Note Sheet dated 28.02.2020 (Exhibit W-20), which has been produced by the management, it appears that a proposal

was placed before the Competent Authority for payment of remuneration the workman for the month of February,

2020 but the proposal was regretted by the Competent Authority only on 03.03.2020 i.e., after ASI availed the

service of the workman. It also appears from the Attendance Sheets for the month of February, 2020, March, 2020,

April, 2020 and May, 2020 that Indrajit Sarma had attended his work in the month of February, 2020, March, 2020

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5341

and up to 19.05.2020 in May, 2020. The Attendance Sheets maintained at ASI has been produced at the instance of

the workman and has been collectively marked as Exhibit W-19. From the documents produced before the Tribunal

there is no qualm that the workman has continued his service in February, 2020, March, 2020 and May, 2020 at ASI.

No Notice, in writing, was issued to the workman to inform him about his disengagement from service. Therefore, I

find and hold that Indrajit Sarma is entitled to a consolidated pay of Rs. 18,000/- per month for month of February,

2020, March, 2020 and up to 19.05.2020 in May, 2020. He cannot be denied of his entitlement only for the reason

that the Competent Authority did not accord post facto sanction to the proposal for sanction. ASI should have

informed the workman that his service was not required and a prior Notice ought to have been given to him.

25.

The workman has also laid claim for payment of Bonus for the entire period of service from 11/2014 to May,

2020 as per provision of Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The management raised objection contending

that a casual labour is eligible to ad-hoc bonus if he or she worked for at least two hundred six days in offices

following five days a week in each year for three or more years. It is the case of the management that the workman

did not fulfill the criteria up to May, 2017, as he was working as a casual labour on muster roll and thereafter, he was

paid a lumpsum under consolidated pay. From the objection raised by the management it is evident that no Bonus was

paid to the workman at any point of time and the claim for Bonus has not been admitted. On traversing the provisions

of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, it appears to me that same is not applicable to ASI. The Ministry of Finance, the

Govt. of India by Office Memorandum bearing F. No. 7/22/2008 E-III(A) dated 26.10.2015 issued an order

authorizing payment of a Non-Productivity Linked Bonus (Ad-hoc Bonus) amounting to 30 days’ emoluments to the

eligible central government employees, not covered by Productivity Linked Bonus Scheme. The petitioner having

performed continuous work at ASI, as a casual skilled worker has fulfilled the requirement of performing at least two

hundred six days in office of ASI, which follows five days a week in each year is therefore entitled to Ad-hoc Bonus

at the prevailing rate during the period of his work.

26.

The petitioner was a casual temporary workman and was not appointed or engaged against any sanctioned

substantial post following any recognized selection process, therefore he is not entitled to be reinstated in service nor

back wages. Mr. Indrajit Sarma himself has foregone his claim for reinstatement and no relief can be granted to him

on such claim.

27.

The workman having spent several years in association with ASI has claimed for issuance of experience

certificate to the workman Indrajit Sarma. There is no adverse report against the workman, whose service has been

utilized by ASI during the period. Under such circumstance it would be appropriate on the part of the authority to

issue an experience certificate for the period from 03.11.2014 to 19.05.2020 along with his salary for the month of

February, 2020, March, 2020 and May, 2020, commensurating with his attendance. The management of ASI is also

directed to pay the retrenchment benefit to the workman within one month from the date of communication of the

Award. The Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of Indrajit Sarma, against ASI on contest.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of Indrajit Sarma, on contest against the Archeological Survey of

India, Guwahati Circle on contest without cost.

The Superintending Archeologist, the Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle is directed to pay the

consolidated monetary remuneration of Rs. 18,000/- per month to the workman for the month of February, 2020,

March, 2020 and May, 2020, commensurating with his attendance. The Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati

Circle is further directed to pay the retrenchment benefit of one month’s pay for the notice period and retrenchment

compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months from 03.11.2014 to 19.05.2020 and bonus as per rules / notification and issue an

Experience Certificate to the workman for the service rendered by him to Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati

Circle.

Let an Award be drawn up in the light of above discussion. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to

the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2269.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

भारतीय पुरातत्व सवेक्षण, गुवािाटी सर्कमल, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और , श्रीमती जबिया रॉय, कामगार, के बीच

5342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12 of 2020), को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

18.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024-218- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2024

S.O. 2269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID. No. 12 of 2020), of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle, and Smt. Bishaya

Roy,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

18.12.2024,

[No. L-42025/07/2024-218- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

GUWAHATI

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer / Link Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Guwahati.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 12 OF 2020

PARTIES: Bishaya Roy.

Vs.

Management of Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Employee:

Mrs. Bishaya Roy (in person).

For the Management of ASI:

Dr. N.K. Swain (for Superintending Archeologist, Guwahati).

INDUSTRY:

Archeological Survey of India (Ministry of Culture).

STATE:

Assam.

DATED:

28.10.2024.

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, vide its Order No. F. G/R. 8(06)/2020-Dy.CLC(C)/ID

dated 19.10.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of

Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle and Mrs. Bishaya Roy, their employee for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle, 5th Floor, West

End Building, Housefed, Beltola – Basistha Road, Guwahati 781006 (a) in terminating the services of Smt. Bishaya

Roy, Workman, C/o Sh. Tapan Sarkar, H. No -16, 3^rd Bye Lane (Right Side), 4^th AP Bn. Gate, Lutuma, Binowanagar,

Guwahati – 781018 w.e.f. 27.05.2020 is justified without complying the provision of Sec. 25F of the I.D Act, 1947?

(b) Whether the demand of the workman for non-payment of wages during February to May, 2020 is justified? If not,

what relief Smt. Bishaya Roy, Workman, Guwahati is entitled to?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5343

On receiving Order No. F. G/R. 8(06)/2020-Dy.CLC(C)/ID dated 19.10.2020 from the Office of the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the

dispute, Reference case No. 12 of 2020 was registered on 22.10.2020 and an order was passed for issuing notice to

the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant

documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

A Corrigendum dated 11.11.2020 was issued by the Deputy Central Labour Commissioner (Central),

Guwahati, whereby the name of the employee was corrected. By order dated 22.10.2020 the Tribunal directed that the

management shall not engage any advocate in this case since the employee herself did not engage any advocate and

raised an objection in the matter of engagement of advocate by the management. Dr. N. K. Swain, Superintending

Archeologist represented the management of the Archeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle (hereinafter referred

to as ASI).

Claim Statement was filed by Bishaya Roy, the aggrieved employee on 25.11.2020 and a copy of the same

was served upon the representative of ASI. Brief fact of the employee, as delineated in her claim statement is that she

started working in ASI from 16.06.2014 as a skilled casual worker on consolidated pay and discharged various work

at the office of Superintending Archeologist, ASI, as per verbal and written order of the Head of the Office. She was

primarily engaged in the Works Section of ASI to carry out various work relating to typing of official documents,

maintain budget and expenditure records, billing, etc. She rendered continuous service under ASI from 16.06.2014 till

19.05.2020. on 19.05.2020 she enquired from the Head of the Office of ASI regarding payment of pending salaries

from the month of February, 2020 and was informed that the office was under constrains regarding payment of

pending salaries and the matter remained unsettled. Bishaya Roy continued to work till 26.05.2020 and approaching

the Head of the Office he refused to pay the pending salaries. It is contended in the claim statement that without any

Notice of termination, the management discontinued the employment, violating the terms and condition precedent to

retrenchment of workman as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to

as the ID Act, 1947). It is claimed that the management of ASI has not paid her the salaries from the month of

February, 2020 and she is entitled to her consolidated pay for the month of February, 2020, March, 2020 and May,

2020 up to 26.05.2020 and retrenchment compensation. She also prayed for her reinstatement in service with back

wages. The employee further claimed that during her continuous service for more than five years no bonus had been

paid to her according to Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. It is disclosed that due to such unfair labour

practice the employee along with co-employees lodged a complaint before the Deputy Central Labour Commissioner

(Central), Guwahati on 14.06.2020. Conciliation proceeding was held on four dates i.e. 24.08.2020, 10.09.2020,

23.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 but the representative of the management remained absent on three occasions. There was

failure of conciliation giving rise to this Industrial Dispute.

The management of ASI contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on 19.01.2021. It is

contended in the written statement that the Archeological Survey of India looks after the centrally protected

monuments of National importance spread over the entire length and breadth of the country. It is neither an industry

nor an industrial establishment. It is claimed that the ID Act, 1947 does not apply to the employees of Archeological

Survey of India. In support of such claim the respondent / opposite party relied upon a decision in the case of

Bhagirath Sharma S/o Radheshyam Sharma Vs. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Jaipur Circle [CGIT/B-18/97], where the CGIT-cum-LC, Jaipur held that the Archeological Survey of India

does not attract the ID Act, 1947. Therefore, ASI contended that the matter deserves to be dismissed outright.

The second contention of the management of ASI is that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage casual

worker on muster roll of the establishment up to May, 2017. The engagement was need based and no letter of

engagement was issued to her. The petitioner was thereafter engaged on consolidated remuneration from June, 2017.

Payment of remuneration was made by issuing hand receipts. It is asserted that all the payments have been made to

the petitioner for the period from 2014 to January, 2020. She was verbally intimated for her disengagement in

January, 2020, as there was no requirement of work. It is asserted that ASI did not violate any provisions of the ID

Act, 1947. The employee is neither entitled to any arrear pay, retrenchment benefit, nor any bonus as she had been

working as a casual worker. It is contended that an employee is entitled to bonus only if she worked for at least two

hundred six days (206) in offices following five days a week in each year for three or more years as on 31st March of

the relevant financial year. The management urged that the petitioner / employee is not entitled to any relief and the

present case is liable to be dismissed.

The moot points for consideration before the Tribunal are (a) whether the ID Act, 1947 is applicable to the

present case involving ASI, Guwahati Circle, (b) whether the action of the management of ASI, Guwahati Circle, in

terminating the services of Bishaya Roy, the employee w.e.f. 27.05.2020 is justified without complying the provisions

of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947, and (c) whether the demand of the employee for payment of wages from

February, 2020 to May, 2020 is and retrenchment benefit is justified. If not, what relief the employee is entitled to.

The terminated employee in support of her case filed an affidavit-in-chief reiterating the facts stated in the

claim petition. It is stated that she started working at ASI from 16.06.2014 as a skilled casual worker on consolidated

pay and experience certificate was issued to her on 07.01.2016, which has been produced as Exhibit – 1. She further

5344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :DECEMBER 28, 2024/PAUSHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

stated that she performed various types of work and received her consolidated pay of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen

thousand only) per month for the month of January, 2020 which has been supported by her Bank Statement produced

as Exhibit – 14. It is averred that she performed continuous service for ASI from 16.06.2014 to 22.05.2020 and her

employment was verbally terminated after she performed her work from February, 2020 to May, 2020 without

complying the provisions of retrenchment under Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947.

In cross-examination the witness deposed that on 19.05.2020 she was informed that her engagement with

ASI was over. The employee denied the suggestion that she is not entitled to get Bonus. The workman witness

produced the following documents in support of her case :

(i)

Copy of certificate dated 07.01.2016 issued by Superintending Archeologist/Head of the Office,

ASI, in favour of Bishaya Roy that she was working in the office as a highly skilled Casual Worker

from 16.06.2014 on purely temporary basis is produced as Exhibit - 1.

(ii)

Copy of the Bank Statement of Bishaya Roy, as Exhibit – 14.

(iii)

Copy of the Minutes of Meeting dated 24.08.2020, 10.09.2020, 23.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 of the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati in respect of the Industrial Dispute raised by

the petitioners and others against ASI, as Exhibit 19, 20, 21 and 22 respectively, which reveals that

no one represented ASI on three out of four dates fixed for conciliation.

(iv)

Copy of a Complaint dated 15.10.2020 lodged by the petitioner before Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Guwahati regarding discontinuation of service and non-payment of salary,

as Exhibit – 23.

(v)

Copy of the letter dated 15.10.2020 issued by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) to

Superintending Archeologist, ASI, as Exhibit – 24.

Dr. N. K. Swain, Superintending Archeologist, ASI submitted his affidavit-in-chief on 18.01.2023, stating

that the dispute raised by the petitioner does not attract the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 as the Archeological

Survey of India is a Central Government Organisation which looks after the centrally protected monuments of

National importance spread over the entire length and breadth of the country. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-

chief that the petitioner was engaged for different periods of work between the year 2014 to January, 2020 for which

payment has been cleared for the entire period and the instant application is an abuse of process of law. It is stated

that Bishaya Roy was initially engaged in ASI on 16.06.2014 on daily wage basis and her attendance was recorded in

muster roll up to May, 2017 as per available records. Thereafter, she was engaged on consolidated pay from June,

2017. The management witness denied the claim of the petitioner that she was engaged in the office of ASI on

consolidated pay from 16.06.2014. The specific case of ASI is that the Competent Authority did not accorded

sanction for the employee for the month of February, 2020 onwards and her work was discontinued. The employee

was verbally informed from time to time about discontinuity of engagement. It is further stated that a casual worker is

eligible for ad-hoc bonus if he / she worked for at least two hundred six days (206) in offices following five days a

week in each year for three or more years as on 31^st March of the relevant financial year. On his examination-in-chief

on oath Management Witness – 1 deposed that he has been authorized by the Superintending Archeologist to adduce

evidence on behalf of the management. He admitted the fact that Bishaya Roy was engaged at ASI from 16.06.2014

to May, 2017 and thereafter she was engaged as casual worker on temporary basis from June, 2017 to June, 2019 on

consolidated pay of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month and subsequently on consolidated pay of

Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) from July, 2019. It transpires from his evidence that the Competent

Authority did not accord sanction for continuation of service from February, 2020 and her service was discontinued

without any Notice. According to the management witness the ex-worker is not entitled to any wages from February,

2020 nor any retrenchment benefits. The copy of sanction order of Competent Authority, whereby service of Bishaya

Roy was extended was produced as Exhibit M-1. The proposal for sanction of continuation of service of Bishaya Roy

for February, 2020 which was not granted by the Competent Authority has been produced as Exhibit M-2.

10.

In cross-examination the witness stated that the proposal for continuation of service of Bishaya Roy was

placed before the Competent Authority in March, 2020. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that there was no occasion for

discontinuing the service of the employee in the month of February, 2020. It is evident from Exhibit M-2 that sanction

used to be obtained post-facto. The evidence also reveals a clear admission that the service of the ex-worker was

terminated without any Notice.

11.

In course of cross-examination suggestion was put the management witness that Bishaya Roy continued to

serve at ASI during February, 2020 to 22.05.2020, which the witness denied. The witness however admitted that

the Vehicle Log Book of ASI dated 11.04.2020 bears the signature of Bishaya Roy, which has been admitted in the

evidence as Exhibit M-3. This evidence suggests that the petitioner employee attended the office work on 11.04.2020

and she had access to the Vehicle Log Book of ASI even after January, 2020. The management witness produced

copies of Attendance Register of Indrajit Sarma, Bishaya Roy and Salam Arjabharta Singh, for the months of

February, March, April and May 2020, which was maintained at ASI. The copy of the Attendance Register from

February, 2020 to May, 2020 has been collectively marked as Exhibit M-4. The witness admitted that no Notice of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 28, 2024/पौष 7, 1946

5345

disengagement was issued and denied that the employee is entitled to payment of retrenchment compensation and

wages for the month of February, 2020 to May, 2020.

12.

At the outset it would be apposite to consider the contention raised on behalf of ASI that the ID Act, 1947 is

not applicable to the Archeological Survey of India. At the time of argument Dr. N. K. Swain, Superintending

Archeologist did not press upon this issue. However, taking account of the contention raised in the pleading and in the

evidence, this Tribunal cannot lose sight of the fact that before entering into the factual aspects of the case, the legal

question raised by the management of ASI needs to be set at rest.

13.

In the case of Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board, Etc. Vs. R. Rajappa & Others [(1978) 2

SCC 213] the constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down a comprehensive guideline that

while interpreting the term ‘industry’, the sovereign functions strictly understood alone qualify for exemption of the

establishment. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as follows:

“I would also like to make a few observations about the so-called “sovereign” functions which have been placed

outside the field of industry. I do not feel happy about the use of the term “sovereign” here. I think that the term

‘sovereign’ should be reserved, technically and more correctly, for the sphere of ultimate decisions. Sovereignty

operates on a sovereign plane of its own as I suggested in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others Vs.

State of Kerala and Another [(1973) 4 SCC 225] - supported by a quotation from Ernest Barker's Social and

Political Theory. Again, the term “Regal”, from which the term “sovereign” functions appear to be derived, seems to

be a misfit in a Republic where the citizen shares the political sovereignty in which he has even a legal share,

however small, inasmuch as he exercises the right to vote. What is meant by the use of the term “sovereign”, in

relation to the activities of the State, is more accurately brought out by using the term “governmental” functions

although there are difficulties here also inasmuch as the Government has entered largely new fields of industry.

Therefore, only those services which are governed by separate rules and constitutional provisions, such as Articles

310 and 311 should, strictly speaking, be excluded from the sphere of industry by necessary implication.”

14.

It is also pertinent to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of