8488 GI/2024
(5363)
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. 53]
नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 5—िनवरी 11, 2025, िजनवार/ पौष 15—पौष 21, 1946
No. 53]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 5— JANUARY 11, 2025, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 15–PAUSHA 21, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न पष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि पष क संकलन के प प में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उप- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मत्रांल
(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)
(केन्री अप्रत् क्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड)
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2279.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उपजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, जनम्नजलज त का ाडल ों जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक
कमडचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का ड सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-I
2. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-II
3. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-III
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-20012025-260338
CG-DL-W-20012025-260338
5364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-IV
5. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-V
6. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-VI
7. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-VII
8. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्पाि िुल्क, इंिौर प्रभाग-िेवास
9. सीमा िुल्क आ ुक्ताल , मुंिरा
10. मूल् ांकन मिाजनिेिाल , मुंबई
11. केंरी माल एवं सेवा कर आ ुक्ताल , कच्छ (गांिीिाम)
12. केंरी माल और सेवा कर मण्डल का ाडल , भुि
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
जिजिर िमाड, सं ुक् त जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2024
S. O. 2279.—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, the following offices under Department of Revenue
where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
1. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-I
2. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-II
3. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-III
4. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-IV
5. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-V
6. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-VI
7. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-VII
8. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore Division-Dewas
9. Customs Commissionerate, Mundra
10. Directorate General of Valuation, Mumbai
11. Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Kutch (Gandhidham)
12. Central Goods and Services Tax Division Office, Bhuj
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2 DOR]
SHISHIR SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)
श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2280.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार सन जसक् ूररटी सर्वडसेि, सवे नं.67 परमार नगर, पुणे; मिाप्रबंिक, बीएसएनएल, अिमिनगर; उपजवभागी
अजभ ंता, बीएसएनएल, कोपरगांव अिमिनगर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री लक्ष्मण कचप पानसरे,
कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट श्रम न् ा ाल , अिमिनगर,पंचाट(संिभड सं् ा Reference (IDA) No.29/2019
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5365
(CNR No. MHLC160000852019)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 13.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-140-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2024
S.O. 2280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No.29/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000852019) of the
Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Sun security Services, Survey No.67 Parmar nagar, Pune; The General Manager, BSNL, Ahmednagar; The
Sub division Engineer, BSNL, Kopargaon Ahmednagar, and Shri Laxman Kacharu Pansare, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.11.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-140-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXUER
IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR
(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)
Exh. O-11
Reference (IDA) No. 29/2019
(CNR No. MHLC160000852019)
1.
M/s.Sun Security Services,
Survye No.67, 1st Floor,
Parmar Nagar-3,
Pune 411013.
2.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O.
Ahmednagar 414002.
3.
Sub Divl. Engineer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Kopargaon, Distt, Ahmednagar
Ahmednagar 414002.
... First Party
Vs.
Laxman Kacharu Pansare,
Age: 28 years, Occ.: Nil,
C/o. Jakhuri, Po.: Pimparne,
Tal.: Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar
Ahmednagar 414002.
... Second Party
5366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Date: 10-07-2024)
1. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi vide referral order dated 28-03-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Laxman
Kacharu Pansare was dismissed from service on 9-2-2018. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the
action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to
reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ?
2. Accordingly, the second party Laxman Kacharu Pansare has filed his statement of Claim on record. In pursuance
of notice, First Party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their W.S. but though notices is served to First Party No.1 he did
not appear and not file any W.S.
3. The Second Party remained absent and though various opportunities given to him he did not adduce any evidence.
Therefore, this Court having no alternative but to record negative finding to both the issues. Therefore I am
inclined to pass the following order-
AWARD
1. The reference is answered in the “negative”.
2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of
Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.
Ahmednagar
Dated :10.07.2024
SHARAD G. DESHPANDE, Presiding officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2281.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिक, राष्ट्री जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान, पूसा कॉम्प्लेक्स, दिल्ली; प्रबंिक, रािेंर ससंि सुरक्षा एिेंसी, मानसरोवर गाडडन,
नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रमेि, कामगार, द्वारा - मिासजचव, राष्ट्री राििानी श्रजमक संघ
(रजि.), निफगढ़, नई दिल्ली,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1
नई दिल्ली पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 35/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 26.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-210-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2024
S.O. 2281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court –I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Manager, National Institute of Science, Pusa Complex, Delhi; The Manager, Rajender Singh Security
Agency, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi, and Shri Ramesh, Worker, Through- The General Secretary,
Rashtriya Rajdhani Shramik Sangh (Regd.), Najafgarh, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 26.11.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-210-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5367
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI NO.1
NEW DELHI.
DID. No. 35/2020
Sh. Ramesh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan,
Through Sh. Ishwar Singh Mudgil, General Secretary,
Rashtriya Rajdhani Shramik Sangh (Regd.),
House No. 256, Pole No. 58,
Village & Post Office Kair, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
…..Workman
Versus
1. Manager,
National Institute of Science,
Dr. K.S. Krishna Marg, Pusa Complex,
Delhi-110012.
2. Manager,
Rajender Singh Security Agency,
W.Z.-30, First Floor, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
…….Management
AWARD
1. This is an application under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his termination
from the service on 16.05.2019 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated with
full back wages. He has not been provided any legal facilities. When the workman went to join his job he was
illegally terminated form his service on 16.05.2019 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic
enquiry by the management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the
present claim petition.
2. Management no.1 appeared and filed the rebuttal written statement. But, none appeared on behalf of the
management no.2 nor filed their written statement. 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.
3. Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute award
is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate
government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of Act.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Date: 07.11.2024
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2282.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
– सि – Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 60/2007) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012/48/-2007-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
5368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024
S.O. 2282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference. I.D. No. 60/2007) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/12/2024.
[No. L-22012/48/2007 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 60 OF 2007
PARTIES: Nand Kishore Singh.
Vs.
Management of Bansra Colliery of ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. H. L. Soni, Asst. Gen. Secy., Koyla Mazdoor Congress
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
28.10.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/48/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 19.07.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Bansra Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing the services of Shri
Nand Kishore Singh w.e.f. 27.10.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/48/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 19.07.2007 from the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 60 of 2007 was registered on 31.07.2007
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.
2. Mr. H. L. Soni, Assistant General Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on behalf of the
dismissed workman on 09.12.2009. Management contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on
27.01.2015. Brief fact of the case as per written statement of the union is that Nand Kishore Singh a permanent
employee of Bansra Colliery was posted as Haulage Khalashi. A Charge Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/BC/Per/
03-04/1422 dated 08.07.2003 was issued against him for his absence from duty for the period from 26.05.2003 till
08.07.2003. The workman replied to the Charge Sheet along with his medical papers in support of his absence from
25.04.2003 to 22.07.2003 and disclosed that he was suffering from illness which was beyond his control. No enquiry
was held in respect of the Charge Sheet. After lapse of three years the management issued another Charge Sheet
bearing Ref. No. ECL/B/Per/06-07/931 dated 16/17.06.2006 levelling charge of misconduct for his unauthorized
absence from 26.05.2003 till 17.06.2006 and habitual absenteeism. The workman submitted his reply but the
management initiated a domestic enquiry proceeding against him on the basis of Charge Sheet dated 16/17.06.2006.
Nand Kishore Singh, in his reply submitted his treatment papers, contending that there was no question of issuing a
second Charge Sheet over his absence for the period from 26.05.2003. Nand Kishore Singh participated in the enquiry
proceeding, arising out of the second Charge Sheet and he was dismissed from service by Order bearing
Ref. No. A.KNT/P&IR/26(B)/3828 dated 25/27.10.2006, issued by the General Manager of Kunustoria Area. It is the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5369
case of the union that the question of issuing a second Charge Sheet does not arise in the instant case and the
management has committed illegality by not conducting any Domestic Enquiry after issuance of first Charge Sheet
bearing Ref No. ECL/BC/Per/03-04/1422 dated 08.07.2003. It is urged that extreme punishment of dismissal issued
against the workman is disproportionate to the charge, specially when the workman was suffering from illness.
3. Management in their written statement disclosed that Charge Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/B/Per/06-07/931 dated
16/17.06.2006 was issued to the workman under Clause 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Order for
unauthorized absence of the workman from 26.05.2003 to 17.06.2006, for a period over three years. The workman
failed to submit any satisfactory reply to the Charge Sheet, as such a Domestic Enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry
Officer issued a Notice of enquiry and provided reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend his case. The
enquiry was held following the principles of natural justice and the workman was found guilty of charge framed
against him. It is further case of the management that due to habitual absence in the preceding three years from 2000
to 2002, the workman was subjected punishment. He did not improve his attendance and the management after
careful consideration of charge, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report and other relevant documents found no
extenuating circumstance and dismissed the workman from his service. It is the case of the management that the order
of dismissal is fully justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. The specific case for consideration before the Tribunal is whether the action of the management of Bansra
Colliery in dismissing Nand Kishore Singh from his service w.e.f. 27.10.2006 is legal and justified. If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to.
5. Nand Kishore Singh filed an affidavit-in-chief in support of his case. The main submission of the workman is that
after issuance of the first Charge Sheet dated 08.07.2003 no Domestic Enquiry was held and he waited for the same.
After lapse of three years a second Charge Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/B/Per/06-07/931 dated 16/17.06.2006 was
issued for his absence from duty from 26.05.2003 till date of issuance of the Charge Sheet. He received Notice of
enquiry dated 04.07.2006, calling upon him for appearance in the enquiry proceeding on 25.07.2006. He further stated
that the enquiry was held in respect of Charge Sheet 16/17.06.2006, where it was found that he was absent from duty
from 26.05.2003 to 17.06.2006. He admitted his participation in the enquiry proceeding arising out of the second
Charge Sheet and his dismissal from service by letter dated 25/27.10.2006, issued by the General Manager,
Kunustoria Area. The dismissed workman in his affidavit-in-chief stated that the management committed a lapse
by not conducting any Domestic Enquiry on the basis of the first Charge Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/BC/Per/03-
04/1422 dated 08.07.2003 and that the extreme punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the nature of alleged
misconduct, which was beyond his control. Nand Kishore Singh claimed that he should be reinstated in service and
back wages should be paid to him with other consequential benefits from the date of dismissal.
6. In his cross-examination the workman stated that he had sent verbal information to the management about his
illness and no written communication was made. The witness denied that he had intentionally absented from duty and
that the order of dismissal was justified. No document has been produced by the workman or the union before this
Tribunal.
7. Mr. Ayan Chatterjee, has been examined as Management Witness – 1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief, where he
has stated that he is posted as Assistant Manager (Personnel) at Bansra Colliery. The witness stated that the ex-
workman was chargesheeted by the management for unauthorized absence from duty from 26.05.2003 to 17.06.2006
vide Charge Sheet dated 16/17.06.2006. The workman submitted his reply on 01.08.2006, which was not found
satisfactory and a Domestic Enquiry was initiated. The concerned workman participated in the enquiry proceeding
and reasonable opportunity was provided to him to defend his case. The principles of natural justice were followed.
The Enquiry Report has been submitted, finding him guilty of the charge. A second Show Cause Notice was issued on
09.09.2006. The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the General Manager, Kunustoria Area after considering relevant
materials dismissed the workman for his long and habitual absence. Management produced the following document in
support of their case :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 16/17.06.2006 is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Reply of Nand Kishore Singh dated 01.08.2006 to the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 04.07.2006, whereby Mr. T. N. Mitra was appointed as
Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 04.07.2006 and 26.07.2006 issued by the Enquiry Officer
addressed to Nand Kishore Singh, as Exhibit M-4 and M-4/1.
(v)
Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding, in six pages, including findings of the Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit
M-5.
(vi)
Copy of the second Show Cause Notice dated 09/10.09.2006, as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of the Reply dated 09.10.2006 submitted against the second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit
M-7.
(viii)
Copy of the letter of dismissal dated 25/27.10.2006, as Exhibit M-8.
(ix)
Copy of the Charge Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/BC/Per/03-04/1422 dated 08.07.2003 has been
marked as Exhibit W-1, on admission.
5370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. In course of cross-examination the management witness stated that no enquiry proceeding was initiated in respect
of the earlier Charge Sheet and all relevant documents including reply to second Show Cause Notice were considered
by the General Manager before passing the order of dismissal. The witness stated that the workman absented for three
years and medical papers were submitted for a short period from 24.05.2003 to 24.07.2003.
9. Mr. H. L. Soni, Union representative advancing his argument submitted that initially a Charge Sheet bearing Ref.
No. ECL/BC/Per/03-04/1422 dated 08.07.2003 (Exhibit W-1) was issued to the workman for his unauthorized
absence from duty for the period from 26.05.2003 till the issuance of Charge Sheet and he was directed to submit
his explanation within three days. It is argued that the workman was suffering from jaundice and he submitted his
medical papers, which clearly stated that he was under medical treatment from 26.05.2003 to 22.07.2003. The
management did not take any action against the workman and subsequently a second Charge Sheet was issued on
17.06.2006, alleging unauthorized absence from duty from 26.05.2003 till 17.06.2006 i.e., date of issuance of the
Charge Sheet and also for habitual absence. It is argued that the second Charge Sheet (Exhibit M-1) is not sustainable
under law, as it is in respect of the charge of unauthorized absence, partly for the same period from 26.05.2003 till
08.07.2003. It is inter-alia argued that a person cannot be tried twice for the same misconduct. It is further argued that
had the management been dissatisfied with his reason for absence for the period from 26.05.2003 till 08.07.2003,
which was specified in Exhibit W-1, it was open for the management to initiate a Domestic Enquiry against the
workman for such absence but once no action was taken for the notified period, the management of ECL did not have
the jurisdiction to issue a second Charge Sheet for the same period of absence or even for part of the same period.
Referring to the Charge Sheet dated 17.06.2006 it is argued that though the charge under Clause 26.23 of the Certified
Standing Orders has been mentioned regarding habitual absence from duty without sufficient case, particulars about
such charge have not been mentioned. The union representative contended that the enquiry proceeding based upon the
second Charge Sheet is illegal and the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable under
law. It is urged that the workman was unable to attend his duty due to his illness and he is entitled to be reinstated in
service with a direction to the management for payment of his Back wages.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL argued that the workman had continuously remained absent from
26.05.2003 till 17.06.2006. He has submitted a medical certificate, issued by a private doctor for the period from
24.05.2003 to 22.07.2003 but he did not inform the Competent Authority about his illness and absence from his
duty and also failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding his absence till 17.06.2006. It is argued that the
workman has continuously absented from duty without any prior intimation, affecting the work of the management. It
is further submitted that after the workman was found guilty a second Show Cause Notice along with a copy of
Enquiry Proceeding was served upon him. The workman replied to the second Show Cause Notice dated
09/10.09.2006 which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and exercising his jurisdiction issued the order of
dismissal which has been produced as Exhibit M-8. Learned advocate submitted that the charge levelled against the
workman in the second Charge Sheet (Exhibit M-1) travelled beyond the period of absence mentioned in the first
Charge Sheet (Exhibit W-1). Therefore, the management did not commit any error by holding the enquiry proceeding
on the basis of second Charge Sheet. In the Enquiry Proceeding along with findings, produced as (Exhibit M-5), the
Enquiry Officer has reached a finding that as per documentary evidence Nand Kishore Singh submitted Medical
Certificate of a private doctor for the period from 24.05.2003 to 22.07.2003 but he failed to submit any document
from 23.07.2003 till the date of issuance of Charge Sheet. The workman had taken a plea that he was undergoing
herbal treatment at his home but could not adduce any evidence in support of the same. Learned advocate submitted
that the charge against the workman was proved and the order of dismissal does not call for any interference.
11.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the
contending parties in the light of Industrial Dispute referred to his Tribunal. On a perusal of the pleadings of the
parties it is gathered that no Departmental Enquiry was initiated for the absence of the workman from 26.05.2003 till
08.07.2003. Undisputedly the absence continued without further intimation, resulting in issuance of another Charge
Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/B/Per/06-07/931 dated 16/17.06.2006. The charge was in two folds, one on the
allegation of habitual absence and the other for unauthorized absence from duty from 26.05.2003 till date. The
workman submitted his reply (Exhibit M-2), wherein for the first time he informed the management the reason of his
absence for the period from 26.05.2003 to 22.07.2003 trying to justifying his absence on the ground of illness and
submitted medical certificate issued by Dr. J. B. Barat. The workman did not join his duty on any earlier occasion
prior to issuance of second Charge Sheet dated 16/17.06.2006. The workman claimed that he could not attend his duty
because he was suffering from same disease and was under treatment of Indian Home herbal medicine. If for
argument’s sake the statement of the workman in his reply is accepted to be true that he continued to suffer from same
disease, he would not have obtained the certificate from the doctor only his medical treatment for the period from
26.05.2003 to 22.07.2003, declaring him fit to join his duty. The workman failed to substantiate the reason of his
continuous absence beyond 22.07.2003. The management not finding the statement satisfactory was fully authorized
to initiate a Domestic Enquiry against the workman. After appointing Enquiry Officer (Exhibit M-3) and issuing
Notice of enquiry (Exhibit M-4 and M-4/1), the workman participated in the enquiry proceeding, wherein he was
found guilty of charge for his absence, specially for the period from 23.07.2003 till the dated of Charge Sheet i.e.,
17.06.2006. In respect of the charge under Clause 26.23, which is related to habitual absence, no evidence has been
led by the management regarding absence of the workman in the three preceding years up to 2003. The Enquiry
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5371
Officer on the basis of statement of management representative has found that three increments of the workman were
deducted in the year 1997, another three increments were deducted in the year 1998, from where it was concluded that
the workman is not interested in discharging his duty regularly and he was a habitual absentee. This statement does
not have any relevance to the charge, as the reason for deduction of increments have not been clearly stated by the
management representative. Be that as it may, it is well establishment that the charged employee was held guilty of
unauthorized absence from duty for a long period of over three years. He failed to justify his absence from duty for
the period from 23.07.2003 till 17.06.2006 i.e., for nearly three years. After holding the workman guilty of the charge,
a second Show Cause Notice was issued to him and the reply submitted by the charged employee on 09.10.2006 was
considered by the Disciplinary Authority, who having found no extenuating circumstance in favour of the workman
issued a letter of dismissal to Nand Kishore Singh dated 25/27.10.2006, dismissing him from service with immediate
effect. Having considered the evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in the Enquiry Proceeding. The
workman was provided with reasonable opportunity to represent his case. The Enquiry Officer has followed the
principles of natural justice during enquiry and found that the charged employee failed to garner evidence justifying
his absence for the period from 23.07.2006 to 17.06.2006. Discipline is an integral part of service by a person. Lack
of discipline disrupts the purpose and smooth functioning of any establishment. In the instant case, I find no infirmity
in the decision of the management dismissing Nand Kishore Singh from service and the order calls no interference.
The Industrial Dispute raised by the union, challenging dismissal of the workman is devoid of merit and the same is
dismissed on contest. The aggrieved workman is not entitled to any relief of consequential benefit.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute raised by the union against dismissal of the workman from service is dismissed on
contest. An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the
Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2283.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 11/2022) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012/36/-2022-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024
S.O. 2283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. I.D. No. 11/2022) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/12/2024.
[No. L-22012/36/2022 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXUER
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 11 OF 2022
PARTIES: Tarun Kanti Ghosh
Vs.
Management of Bansra Colliery of ECL and Another
5372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Chandi Banerjee, General Secretary, CMU (INTUC).
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
COAL.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
08.10.2024.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/36/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 25.04.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the demand raised by Colliery Mazdoor Union (INTUC) against the Management of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. In relation to its Bansra Colliery (under Kunustoria Area) for payment of arrear wages in respect of
Sundays and Holidays to Shri T.K. Ghosh, Foreman Incharge, UM No. 033186, of Bansra Colliery on his reversion
from Executive Cadre vide order dated 18/10/2013, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief Shri T.K. Ghosh is
entitled to? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/36/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 25.04.2022 from the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11 of 2022 was registered on 26.04.2022
/ 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and list of witnesses.
2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited and Mr. Chandi Banerjee,
union representative are found present on call. For ends of justice the case is fixed up today for further evidence of
workman witness. On a perusal of record, I find that Tarun Kanti Ghosh, aggrieved workman was examined in part on
14.11.2023 and thereafter on 15.01.2024. However, the workman has not put his signature on evidence recorded
on 15.01.2024 which is lying in record. Cross-examination is not complete. Hence, no evidentiary value can be
attached to his incomplete statements.
3. Mr. Chandi Banerjee, Union representative filed a petition stating that T. K. Ghosh retired from the post of
Foreman Incharge at Bansra Colliery and raised this Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal on account of non-
payment of difference of wage on his reversion from E-1 Grade to A-1 Grade. It is further stated that Mr. T. K. Ghosh
has expired and the case may be discontinued. Copy of application is served upon Mr. P. K. Das and the same is kept
with the record.
4. This Reference case was registered on 01.07.2022 and both parties filed their written statements. Mr. T. K. Ghosh
filed his affidavit-in-chief on 14.11.2023 and was examined in part. On earlier date i.e., on 07.06.2024 no step was
taken on behalf of the workman. Today Mr. Chandi Banerjee informed this Tribunal that workman has expired and
his family does not want to proceed further with this case. In such view of matter no purpose would be served by
proceeding any further as evidence of workman witness is incomplete. The Industrial Dispute is disposed of without
going into merit for non-prosecution by legal heirs of the deceased workman. Petition filed by the union
representative is accordingly disposed of. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2284.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 36/2006) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012/213/-2005-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5373
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024
S.O. 2284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.36/2006) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/12/2024.
[No. L-22012/213/2005 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 36 OF 2006
PARTIES: Sudhir Majhi (Kisku)
(represented by the dependant wife)
Vs.
Management of Madhusudanpur Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mrs. Puspita Roy, Advocate.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY: Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
25.10.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/213/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 01.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Madhusudanpur Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Madhusudanpur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Sudhir Majhi, U.G. Loader from service vide letter dated 2.9.2003 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/213/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 01.08.2006 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 36 of 2006 was registered on
14.08.2006 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.
2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Madhusudanpur Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited is
present. The case is fixed up today for hearing of argument.
3. After eighteen years on the date of hearing of argument, Smt. Bimali Kisku, wife of Sudhir Majhi (Kisku),
Ex-Underground Loader (U.M. No. 120528) at Madhusudanpur Colliery has filed an application before the Tribunal,
stating that Sudhir Majhi has expired on 24.08.2011 and the legal heirs of the workman, for personal reasons do not
want to proceed further and want to withdraw this case, pending before the Tribunal. It is prayed that a No Dispute
Award may be passed. Copy served upon Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management.
4. Considered the contents of the petition. It appears from the Schedule that workman was dismissed from service
on 02.09.2003. More than twenty-one years have passed and in the meantime, the dismissed workman has expired.
No purpose would be served by proceeding with this case any further. Therefore, the Industrial Dispute is disposed of
for non-prosecution. The management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to make payment of the pending legal
dues of Sudhir Majhi (Kisku) to his legal heir within one month from the date of communication of the Award.
5374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Petition filed by Bimali Kisku is disposed of. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2285.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 02/2018) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012/119/-2017-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024
S.O. 2285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference. I.D. No. 02/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/12/2024.
[No. L-22012/119/2017 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 02 OF 2018
PARTIES:
Gyan Bai
(Daughter of Late Shyam Bai)
Vs.
Management of Naba Kajora Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Basudeb Choudhury, Learned Advocate
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P.K. Das, Learned Advocate.
INDUSTRY: Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
21.10.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/119/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 22.12.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Naba Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Nabakajora Colliery, Kajora Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. in denial of
employment of Gyan Bai D/O Late Shyam Bai, ex-exployee on compassionate ground is correct?. If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to.”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/119/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 22.12.2017 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 02 of 2018 was registered on
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5375
09.01.2018 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.
2. After registration of the case, Shri C.B. Mishra, General Secretary of the United Koila Mazdoor Sangh initially
filed a written statement on behalf of Gyan Bai, daughter of deceased Shyam Bai on 16.12.2022. The Agent, Naba
Jambad Project, Kajora Area filed a written statement on behalf of management on the same date. The facts of the
case disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Shyam Bai was a permanent employee of Naba Kajora
Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL. She was a Wagon Loader and died in harness on 02.04.1985. Gyan Bai, her
daughter applied for employment on compassionate ground as per provisions under National Coal Wage Agreement
(NCWA). After receipt of the application, the management of ECL remained silent and did not provide any
employment to the dependent of the deceased employee. Mr. C.B. Mishra, General Secretary of the union requested
the management to consider the case of Gyan Bai and on 16.11.1995 a discussion took place between the union and
the management where it was assured that the application would be processed. On 11.08.2009 the union
representatives held a discussion in the chamber of G.M. (P&R) at the Headquarters of ECL at Sanctoria and it was
assured that the prayer for employment would be processed although it was a belated case and the management had
already regretted the proposal for employment in November 1997. An Industrial Dispute was raised before ALC(C),
Raniganj-Durgapur in the year 2012 over the issue of denial of employment to the dependent of workman. The
conciliation proceeding before the ALC(C), Raniganj-Durgapur failed on 22.12.2017. The Central Government
thereafter referred this Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. It is the contended that the claim for
employment of Gyan Bai is valid as per existing rules.
3. Management contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement wherein it is contended that
compassionate employment is provided to dependent of employee for the purpose of overcoming the sudden financial
crisis arising out of loss of the sole bread earner and it is not a vested right of the dependents. It is inter alia asserted
that the employee died in the year 1985 and the Industrial Dispute has been raised in 2012 after a span of 27 years due
to lack of seriousness on the part of the petitioner. It is further contended that the written statement filed on behalf of
the dependent does not disclose the date of death of the workman and the date when the daughter claimed for
employment. According to the management the name of the dependent was not recorded in the service record of
deceased employee and she failed to produce any document before the management in support of her relationship
with the deceased employee.
4. It is further asserted that the bonafideness of claim for employment was doubtful and the same was rejected by
the management as the application for employment was made 12 years after the death of ex-employee. Further case of
management is that the application submitted by the petitioner would reveal that her father Kartick Das was an
employee under ECL at the relevant time and she was dependent on her father having no financial hardship.
Management refuted the claim of the petitioner that she was the dependent of her mother at the time of her death. The
management has taken a plea that the instant case is not an Industrial Dispute as there is no employer-employee
relationship between management and claimant. It is claimed that the instant reference case is liable to be dismissed
and in support of their case, management relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited Vs. Anil Badyakar and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 2009), where it has been held that
“compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over”. Reliance is also placed
upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Nunibala Mondal @ Nuni Mondal & Ors. vs.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd & Ors. (W.P. 1660 (W) of 2016) where it is observed that “It is now judicially recognized
that a delay of more than five or six years is fatal to a matter pertaining to compassionate appointment”.
Management has also rested their case on the obiter dictum of another decision of Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in
the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnam Pradhan (M.A.T. No. 1036 of 2011) where it was held that
“compassionate appointment should not be offered after lapse of reasonable period, to say five years”.
5. The moot point for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the denial of the claim for employment to Gyan
Bai, daughter of Late Shyam Bai on compassionate ground by the management of Naba Kajora Colliery is justified
and correct?
6. Mr. Basudeb Choudhury, learned advocate representing the union examined Gyan Bai as Workman Witness-1
(WW-1). She has filed an affidavit-in-chief where she has reiterated the case disclosed in the written statement of the
union and averred that after death of her mother, she made several representations before the management for
considering her case for employment. She stated that her mother died on 02.04.1985 and Service Record Excerpt were
issued in the month of April 1987, as such there was no scope for her to be declared as the dependent of her mother in
the service record. She denied the contents of paragraph (4) of the written statement of the management where it was
stated that the name of the petitioner was neither recorded in the service record of Shyam Bai as dependent nor did
she produce any convincing and tangible evidence in support of her claim. She denied that the application for
employment was made for the first time 12 years after the death of Shyam Bai. In her examination-in-chief, Gyan Bai
deposed that her mother died before her marriage and she got married 12 years prior to the date of her adducing
evidence.
5376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
She further stated that as the company did not provide her any employment, she raised an Industrial Dispute through
the union. In course of her evidence the witness produced the following documents:
(i)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Shyam Bai which is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of Aadhar Card of Gyan Bai is marked as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the minutes of meeting held on 16.11.1995 is marked as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of the minutes of meeting held on 11.08.2009 is marked as Exhibit W-4.
In her cross-examination, she claimed to have submitted her application for employment immediately after the death
of her mother but she failed to produce any document. The witness admitted that she was unable to produce a copy of
her application claiming employment before the company. It is gathered from her cross-examination that she raised
Industrial Dispute after death of her mother and from the written statement it appears that the Industrial Dispute was
raised before ALC(C), Raniganj at Durgapur in the year 2012 i.e. 27 years after the death of her mother. Suggestion
was put to the witness that she was not a dependent of her mother or that her name was not recorded in service record
of her mother which she denied. It is strange to find that the witness could not state the name of her father. On being
specifically questioned about Kartick Das, she was unable to state if Kartick Das was her father or his name was
recorded as husband of Shyam Bai in her service record.
7. Management examined Shri Ramjee Tripathy, Assistant Manager (Personnel) at Naba Kajora Colliery as
Management Witness-1 (MW-1). In his affidavit-in-chief, the witness stated that compassionate employment is
provided to dependent of employee to tide over financial crisis due to sudden loss of the bread earner. In the instant
case, the workman died in 1985, the Industrial Dispute is raised in 2012, after 27 years and there was no seriousness
on the part of union or workman. It is further stated the management regretted the case of the petitioner in 1997.
Regarding the minutes of meeting referred by the union dated 16.11.1995 and 11.08.2009, it is stated that the minutes
of the meeting can’t be considered as a settlement between the parties and the management did not make any
commitment in the matter of providing employment. The specific case of the management is that the name of
claimant is not recorded as dependent in the service record of the deceased employee and as the claim has been made
after inordinate delay, the claimant is not entitled to any relief. In course of his evidence, management witness
produced a copy of application submitted by Gyan Bai claiming employment as Exhibit M-1. In cross-examination,
the witness denied that the management committed any illegality by not providing employment to Gyan Bai.
8. Basudeb Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the union argued that Gyan Bai being the dependent
daughter of deceased employee had submitted an application for her employment immediately after death of her
mother but management in order to frustrate her case did not process her application. It is argued that valuable time
has been wasted due to procrastination of the management. It is contended that according to the provisions of NCWA,
a dependent family member of deceased employee is entitled to get employment but in the instant case, the
management has violated the clear terms of NCWA applicable to it. In reply, Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate for the
management argued that the present case is not tenable as Gyan Bai has failed to produce any document to show that
she is the daughter of Shyam Bai. Referring to cross-examination of WW-1 it is submitted that the witness could not
state the name of her father. She clearly stated that she did not know the name of her father. Therefore, Exhibit W-1,
the death certificate of Shyam Bai bearing the name of Kartick Das as her husband is of no avail to Gyan Bai. It is
submitted that even if for argument sake it is assumed that Shyam Bai is the mother of Gyan Bai, it needs to be
considered that application for employment was submitted for the first time on 18.02.1997 i.e. 12 years after the death
of her mother. In the application it is stated that Kartick Das, the father of Kumari Gyan Bai was a workman under
Madhabpur Colliery. It is also stated that for such reasons, he was unable to claim any employment against the death
of his wife Shyam Bai. The petition sought for employment on the ground that father was unable to maintain her from
his sole earning for which she was in need for some employment. Learned advocate referred to the copy of
application produced by management witness as Exhibit M-1, which has not been controverted nor objected to on
behalf of union/dependent of workman. Learned advocate argued that right to compassionate employment cannot be
treated as a vested right and claim cannot be raised after a long period as the purpose of compassionate employment is
to provide assistance to dependents of deceased employee to overcome financial crisis which may arise due to death
of the sole bread earner. Learned advocate advocate argued that the Industrial Dispute which has been raised after 27
years from the year of death of Shyam Bai does not have any merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
9.
The Management has raised a vital question that this reference case does not involve any Industrial Dispute
due to want of employer and employee relation between the claimant Gyan Bai and the management of ECL. Since
this issue strikes at the root of this case under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the issue needs to be addressed at the
outset. It is undisputed that the petitioner is claiming employment as a dependant of Shyam Bai, ex employee,
according to the provision of clause 9.4.3 of NCWA which the management of ECL has denied. One of the Trade
unions has raised the Industrial Dispute on the ground that the variance has cropped up in connection with terms of
employment which provides for employment to dependent of the deceased employee. Besides, in the case of
Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda; (1978) 2 SCC 353, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when
once a dispute is referred for adjudication the presumption is that it is an Industrial Dispute. Taking such facts into
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5377
consideration, I hold that the the dispute raised satisfies relevant conditions specified in the definition of Industrial
Dispute in section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The question is thus set at rest.
10.
Having considered the material on record, facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced on
behalf of the respective parties, it transpires from the affidavit-in-chief of Gyan Bai that she is 57 years of age at
present and is married to Agar Das Mahant. There is no document on record to establish that Gyan Bai is the
dependent daughter of Shyam Bai. No document has been submitted by the claimant to establish the relationship of
Gyan Bai with the deceased. A copy of Death Registration certificate of Shyam Bai has been filed as Exhibit W-1
where her husband’s name has been recorded as Kartick Das. In course of cross-examination, workman witness stated
that she did not know the name of her father and went to the extent of stating that she did not know if Kartick Das was
her father. In the written statement and affidavit-in-chief, the date of submitting the claim application has not been
mentioned. The management witness after producing Exhibit M-1 deposed that Gyan Bai submitted an application for
employment on 18.02.1997. The statement regarding date of application has neither been contradicted nor denied by
learned advocate for the union. It is therefore presumed that for the first time application for employment was made
on 18.02.1997 i.e. 12 years after date of death. The Industrial Dispute was raised in 2012 and reference has been made
before this Tribunal in 2018. The Industrial Dispute therefore has been raised after 27 years and reference has been
made after 33 years. The present age of claimant is between 57 to 58 years. There is no convincing evidence before
this Tribunal that at the time of submitting application for employment Gyan Bai was a dependent daughter of
deceased employee. It is a well settled law that compassionate employment is not a vested right which can be
exercised any time in future. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Anil
Badyakar and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 2009) that “compassionate appointment is not a vested right which
can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over”. Gyan Bai is a married lady and there is no question of her being dependent on her
mother. The claim for employment has lost its relevance with passage of time. In my considered view, the concerned
union has raised this Industrial Dispute after inordinate delay, only to take a chance.
11.
In the matter relating to Industrial Disputes, the settled position is that law of limitation does not apply.
Nevertheless, the requirement to make the same within a reasonable time persists to maintain its relevance and a live
relation between the need and the claim.. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has emphasized the
need to raise Industrial Disputes within a reasonable time as laid down in the cases of (i) Bichitrananda Behra Vs.
State of Orissa; AIR 2023 SC 5064, (ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Sadhna
Singh; (2022) 5 SCC 634, (iii) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division,
Kota Vs. Mohan Lal; (2013) 139 FLR 125 SC. In the State of Karnataka and another Vs. Ravi Kumar; (2009)
122 FLR 737 SC Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that long delay in seeking reference of the dispute rendered the
reference stale. It is held that it should have been rejected by the Labour Court. It also needs to be borne in mind that
appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as laid down under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
12.
Considering the aforesaid principles of law, I am constrained to hold that the claim for employment made by
Gyan Bai on the alleged death of her mother is not sustainable under law due to inordinate delay and the Industrial
Dispute raised on her behalf suffers on account of long lapse of time and the same is liable to be rejected. The
question of providing employment to the petitioner as a dependent of her mother when the claim was raised after 12
years of death has no relevance. The husband of Shyam Bai was in service at the time of her death and the family did
not wade over any financial crisis for providing employment to the daughter. This Industrial Dispute therefore has no
merit and the same is dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute raised on behalf of Gyan Bai for compassionate employment on death of Shyam
Bai is without merit and the same is dismissed on contest. An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let
copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information
and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2286.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ईिा प्रोटेक्िनल जसक् ोररटी गाडड प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds
5378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iapkV (एलसी-आर
/
/
2023+) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल – 22013/01/-2024-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2024
S.O. 2286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/-R/34/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Isha Protectional Security Guard Pvt.Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 16/12/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/34/2023
Present: P. K. Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Prakash Samundre,
Bhopal, (M.P.) - 462041
Workman
Versus
The Director,
A.I.I.M.S.,
Bhopal, (M.P.) - 462041
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of October-2024.)
Vide communication reference number RLC-8(12)/2020 dated 31/03/2023; 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 action of the management of M/s Isha Protectional Security Guard Pvt. Ltd. a contractor of
All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) Bhopal to terminate the service of Shri Prakash Samudre is
legal and justified ? If not then what benefit the workman is 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 filed its written statement
of claim/ defence with affidavit and photo copy of documents. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties
in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 23/10/2024
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5379
नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2287.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बीआईपीएल-बीपीएल सं ुक्त उद्यम.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV
(एलसी-आर
/
/
2023+) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012/19/-2023-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2024
S.O. 2287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/-R/19/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BIPL-BPL Joint Venture, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/12/2024.
[No. L-22012/19/2023 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/19/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The Zonal Secretary,
Janata Mazdoor Sangh,
231, Ambedkar Nagar, Shakti Nagar,
Dist. Sonbhadra, (M.P.) - 231222
Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Amroli Project, NCL,
Post- Amroli, Dist. Singrauli,
(M.P.) – 486887
M/s BIPL – BPL Joint Venture,
Amroli Project, NCL,
Singrauli, Post- Amroli, Dist. Singrauli,
(M.P.) - 486890
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 29th day of November-2024.)
As per letter dated 21/02/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
22012/19/2023-IR(CM-II) dt. 21/02/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ क् ा िोनल सजचव, िनता मििूर संघ द्वारा मजससड बीआईपीएल – बीपील िॉइंट वेंचर, अमरोली परर ोिना,
एन सी एल, ससंगरौली एवं मिा प्रबंिक, अमरोली परर ोिना, एन सी एल, ससंगरौली से समािान पोटडल के माध् म से
ेका श्रजमकों को सेवा के िौरान िी िाने वाली जवजभन् न सुविां के अंतगडत राजि का भुगतानन करने के सम् बन् ि में उ ाई
गई मांग का िावा न् ा ोजचत िज? दि िॉं ,तो उक् त संघ के माध् म से ेका श्रजमक क् ा अनुतोष पाने के अजिकारी िज ? ”
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
5380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 29/11/2024
नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2288.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एन.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर
/
/
2023+) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22013/01/-2024-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2024
S.O. 2288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 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
Management of N.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/12/2024
[No. L-22013/01/2024 –IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5381
AWARD
(Passed on this 26th 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.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 26/11/2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2289.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार प्रबंि
जनिेिक, मेससड ूआरएस स्ट्कॉट जवल्सन इंजड ा (पी) जलजमटेड, सोलन; मेससड स्ट्टर्लिंग इंडोटेक कंसल्टेंट्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड,
ि पुर, रािस्ट् ान; परर ोिना जनिेिक, पीआई ू-जिमला, भारती राष्ट्री रािमागड प्राजिकरण (एनएचआईए), चक्कर,
जिमला, (जिमाचल प्रिेि), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मेिर चंि, कामगार , द्वारा -िे.सी. भारद्वाि अध् क्ष
(जि.प्र.) सोलन (जि.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़,
पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 17/2020)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉपी के सा 30.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-226-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2020) 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 Managing Director, M/s URS Scott Wilson India (P) Ltd., Solan; M/s Sterling Indotech Consultants
Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur, Rajasthan; The Project Director, PIU-Shimla, National Highways Authority of India
(NHIA),Chakkar, Shimla,(H.P), and Shri Mehar Chand ,Worker, Through-J.C. Bhardwaj President (H.P.)
Solan (H.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-226-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
5382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam,
ID No.17/2020
Registered On:- 29.12.2020
Mehar Chand S/o Sh. Gulaba Ram, Village- Daon, P.O. Dhundan, The. Arki, District- Solan (HP) Through J.C.
Bhardwaj President H.P. AITUC HQ- D-1 3rd Floor City Centre Plaza (Near District Courts) Solan H.P.
........... Petitioner/Workman
Versus
1.
M/s URS Scott Wilson India (P) Ltd., C/o Dhyansingh Near Hotel Neelam Village- Bara, Post Office-
Kumarhatti District Solan. Through its Managing Director.
2.
M/s Sterling Indotech Consultants Pvt. Ltd HO 601 Sunny Mart New Aatish Market Jaipur 322019
Rajasthan.
3.
The Project Director, PIU-Shimla, National Highways Authority of India (NHIA) House No-1 Rishikesh
Sadan Shanti Kutiya Chakkar Shimla H.P. 171005.
........Respondents
Counsels for the Parties:
Sh. Atul Bhardwaj AR for Workman
None for Respondents /Management (proceeded Ex-parte)
Judgment reserved on 03rd December, 2024
Judgment/Award Pronounced on 13th December, 2024
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1.
Present Petition is an Industrial Dispute filed directly under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the I.D. Act) by the workman Sh. Mehar Chand, challenging his termination order dated-
17.06.2019 with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
The case of Workman/Petitioner- the brief facts of the case as is unfolded from the claim statement of the
workman may be stated that respondent no. 1 & 2 are contractors and principal employer is respondent No. 3. The
workman was appointed as Driver in September, 2016 with respondent No.1 and thereafter, he was enrolled with
respondent No.2 and he continued and worked as such till his removal from service on 17.06.2019 without any cogent
reason and justification. It is also stated that workman/ petitioner was drawing his salary @ Rs.10,220/- per month at
the time of his termination. It is stated that petitioner worked satisfactorily during his service tenure and he was
deemed to be confirmed on completion of one year as he was appointed on a permanent basis. The further case of
petitioner workman has been that his termination is not a simpliciter one but stigmatic and there has been allegation of
misusing and damaging company property which is evident from the order of termination. No enquiry in connection
with any such allegation was ever held against the petitioner and termination order was passed in contravention of
law. Neither one month salary nor one month prior notice was given to the workman before termination of his service.
It is further stated by the petitioner workman that he was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty
with full devotion but he has been terminated without giving any opportunity against allegation and it was in violation
of principal of natural justice. Before his termination of service petitioner workman had completed more than 240
days of his service tenure within 12 Calendar Months for the purpose of Section 25-B of the I.D. Act and this way he
was entitled to certain protection in the matter of employment. The respondents have followed unfair labour practices
and acted on a formula ‘hire and fire’ and acted in arbitrary manner while terminating the petitioner workman without
proof of charges levelled against him. The petitioner/workman had approached Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner,
Central Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh for re-conciliation of the matter but there had been no settlement
there and a certificate for failed re-conciliation between the parties have been issued. No reference by the Central
Govt. was made under section 10 of the I.D. Act and present claim petition has been filed raising an Industrial
Dispute under Section 2-A of the Act.
3. The case of Respondents/Management- In response to the notices issued upon respondent No.1 to 3, it appears
that only respondent No.2 appeared. Despite proper service of notices upon respondent No. No.1 & 3 they did not
appear before the Court. It appears further that after filing reply to claim petition even respondent
no. 2 also left taking steps in the present proceedings and vide order dated 30.08.2023 respondents no.1 to 3 were
ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5383
4. As per reply filed by the respondent No.2, the case of respondent no. 2 may be stated in brief that the petitioner
was appointed on ad-hoc basis as a driver under contract of employment for a specific period of time. On expiry of
this period his services were dispensed with. And this way the termination is valid in term of section 2 (oo), (bb) of
Industrial Dispute Act , 1947. The act of management does not amount to violation of section
25 F, in view of section 2 (oo), (bb) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is also pleaded by responded no. 2 that
termination of employee on the ground of loss of confidence without an inquiry is well settled and that the employee
is not entitled to reinstatement. According to respondent no. 2 departmental enquiry before dismissal of workman is
not sine qua non in all cases. The respondent has admitted that applicant workman was in employment but he was yet
to be confirmed by respondent no. 2 the job of petitioner was terminated because of his gross negligence. The job of
driver was not a permanent nature job and was as on required basis. According to respondent before termination even
warning letter dated 18.02.2019 was also issued for misbehaving and denial to follow instruction. It is stated that
workman Mehar Chand had caused accident of car while driving in drunken state. In support of their case the
respondent no. 2 has brought on record certain documents being Appointment Letter dated 17.09.2016. , Warning
Letter for disciplinary violation dated 18.02.2019. , Copy of photographs of the car which allegedly met an accident
and Statement of co-driver Harish Kumar.
5. Issues: On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues have arisen to be adjudicated in the present
industrial dispute case-
i Whether termination of workman Mehar Chand from the service on 17.06.2019 is illegal?
ii Whether termination of workman is in violation of natural justice and without compliance of section 25
F of the I.D. Act, 1947 ?
iii Whether workman Mehar Chand is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential
benefits?
iv What other relief if any in the facts and circumstances of the case?
6. Evidence of parties: During hearing of the case the petitioner/workman got examined himself as a witness in
support of his case and one document -termination letter dated 17-06-2019 has been brought on the record as
Annexure- P-A. It may be noticed that the workman-witness has not been cross-examined by the respondents as they
left their participation in the present proceedings even after due service of the notices upon them. Also no evidence
has been adduced on behalf of respondents.
Findings
7.
Issues no. i. Whether termination of workman Mehar chand from the service on 17.06.2019 is illegal?
ii. Whether termination of workman is in violation of natural justice and without compliance of
section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947?
Above noted these two issues are inter connected hence are taken together. As per claim of the workman he
was appointed and working as driver is an admitted fact and not denied in the reply/written statement filed by the
respondent-2. The Appointment letter which has been brought on the record annexed with the written statement as
R2/A shows that it has been issued on 19.09.2016 but the appointment to workman has been given retrospectively
from 07.09.2016, meaning thereby the workman was already in employment before the issuance of the appointment
letter. Workman has claimed that his appointment was on regular basis but as per the written statement of the
respondent it was a contractual appointment for specific period. The appointment letter (R2/A) does not mention any
such specific period for which appointment was given, rather it provides the manner of confirmation and also period
of probation is stated therein before the workman can be confirmed. No document has been produced by the
respondents to the effect that in fact the workman was appointed on contractual basis for a specific period. Thus the
stand of respondents falsified from their own document- the appointment letter. So far as the confirmation of service
is concerned it is provided in the appointment letter itself that probation period will be of six months, which may be
extended for another six months and confirmation will be given in writing. The workman has not produced any such
written confirmation of services but it is a fact that the workman worked till his termination on 17.06.2019. As per
terms of the appointment letter if no confirmation is given in writing during extended probation period, the
appointment will automatically stand cancelled. Here in the present case there is no case of automatic cancellation of
appointment as the workman served with respondent no.2 even after lapse of probation period. Although no written
confirmation letter has been given by the respondent but the nature of appointment and continuous work by the
workman even after the probation/extended probation period, is an indication of the fact that the workman Mehar
Chand was working in a regular capacity. Now the question arises if the workman is a regular employee, can he be
dismissed by making imputation of certain allegation but without affording opportunity and holding any departmental
inquiry? In this case it has been done.
5384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. The termination letter dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure-P-A to the evidence of workman) speaks about an allegation
that workman had misused and damaged company property and was involved in unlawful activities on 16.06.2019.
Thus this allegation in termination letter shows some unlawful act/misuse by workman and causing damage to the
company property, just one day prior and if it was so, there appears that no opportunity was given to the workman
before terminating his services. On the record the respondents have not brought on any document which may so as to
which particular car number was allotted and being driven by the workman on the date of alleged car accident. So far
as car accident is concerned, the respondent no.2 has filed statement of a colleague– Harish Kumar (R2/C) along with
written statement/reply and in the said statement Harish Kumar has clearly stated that he, Mehar Chand and another to
whom he does not know, took wine and thereafter they planned to return, but who was driving the car he was not
aware. It further appears that the car which made an accident was official vehicle/car allotted to and driven by Harish
Kumar. If one goes through the facts described in the statement of Harish Kumar it is clear that he himself along with
Mehar Chand (the workman herein) had drunk wine and under influence of wine the vehicle made an accident but
who was the driver at that particular time is not disclosed. Not only this, Harish Kumar falsely reported in the office
that the car had been stolen. The nature of such statement and conduct shows that Harish Kumar himself was also
involved in alleged accident and he concealed the true fact, but there is nothing on record to show as to what action
was taken against said Harish Kumar. It appears that workman Mehar Chand has been made an scapegoat and
discriminatory termination order has been passed for the incident in which another employee was also involved.
9. The workman in his affidavited evidence has clearly stated that his services with the respondent was continuous
for the purpose of section 25B of the I.D. Act and he had already completed more than 240 days before his
termination. Therefore he became entitled for certain protection under the I.D. Act. He has also deposed that neither
any charge-sheet was served on him nor any departmental inquiry was held for the alleged charges for which he has
been dismissed from the services. What has been deposed in the evidence by the workman remained uncontroverted
without any rebuttal as neither the respondents cross-examined the workman nor they adduced their own evidence
against it. It is clear that dismissal of the workman is in violation of the section-25F of the I.D. Act, as the conditions
precedent provided in the section before retrenchment of workman have not been followed. In above view of the
matter it is held that the termination of workman Mehar Chand from the service vide termination letter dated
17.06.2019 is illegal, same has been passed in violation of natural justice, without holding any departmental inquiry
and same is also in violation section 25F of I.D Act.
10.
Points no. (iii) Whether workman Mehar Chand is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other
consequential benefits? (iv) What other relief if any in the facts and circumstances of the case?
While discussing points no. (i) & (ii) it has been held that dismissal/termination of Mehar Chand the
workman is illegal and in violation of natural justice as well as against the provisions contained in section 25F of I.D
Act, therefore, the workman Mehar Chand is entitled for reinstatement on the same post of driver. However, no award
for back wages can be passed for the period when workman has been out of job in facts and circumstances of present
case and considering that no document is available on the record to show that the petitioner/workman was confirmed
employee of respondents.
11.
In the light of discussions made here in above and in the facts and circumstances at the present case the present
Industrial Disputes is decided in favour of workman. The termination order dated 17.06.2019 passed by respondent
no.2 Authorized Signatory Sterling Indo Tech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be set aside.
12. It is therefore,
ORDERED
The termination letter dated 17.06.2019 is set aside. An award for reinstatement of the petitioner/workman
Mehar Chand is passed hereby. He is entitled to be reinstated again on the post of driver with a direction to
respondents especially respondent No.2 M/s Sterling Indo Tech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to appoint workman Mehar
Chand on the same terms and conditions which where applicable to him before his termination. But no award is
passed for back wages for the period during which workman Mehar Chand has been out of service.
13. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dated: 13.12.2024
B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2290.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार मिाजनिेिक डाक, डाक जवभाग, डाक भवन, संसि मागड, नई दिल्ली; पोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर िनरल, डाक जवभाग, चंडीगढ़,
के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और सकडल सजचव, राष्ट्री ग्रामीण डाक सेवक संघ पंिाब सकडल, (बेिाला एस.ओ.),
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5385
िोजि ारपुर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़, पंचाट
(संिभड सं् ा 20/2015)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40011-37-2015-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2015) 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 Director General of Posts, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi; Postmaster
General, Department of Posts, Chandigarh, and The Circle Secretary, National Union of Gramin Dak Sewak
Punjab Circle, (Bihala S.O.), Hoshiyarpur, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40011-37-2015-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.20/2015
Registered On: 23.11.2015
The Circle Secretary, National Union of Gramin Dak Sewak Punjab Circle, HQ, VPO Patti (Bihala S.O.),
Hoshiyarpur-146104.
...........Workmans
Versus
1. The Director General Postal, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.
2. The Post Master General, Department of Post, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector-17-D, Chandigarh-160017.
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On: 13.12.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40011/37/2015-IR(DU) dated 17.11.2015, under clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Department of Posts in effecting the changes in service
conditions of Gramin Dak Sevaks in supersession of the existing Department of Posts, Gramin Dak
Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001 to the revised rules called the Gramin Dak Sevaks
(conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Individual and
Union as Statutory required under Sec 9-A of the ID Act, 1947 is fair, just and legal? If not to what
relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
1. After receipt of above reference, registered notices were sent to workman to file claim statement. On 17.02.2016
claim statement by workman was filed. Written Statement by Respondent/ Management also filed. When case was
running for workman’s evidence, although he filed evidence through affidavit but did not turn up for cross
examination.
2. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for Management Sh. Alankrit Bharadwaj submitted that deliberately workman is
not appearing for his Cross-examination. It appears that again a registered letter dated 20.11.2024 sent to workman
which is served on 25.11.2024 as per the postal mail tracking report. But the workman did not appear. It is very old
case. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for Cross-examination but of no use. It appears
that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits. This Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh is left with no choice except to pass ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no
5386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
3.
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, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2291.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार मेससड ब्लू िील्ड प्रोटेक्िन नेटवकड प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ग्रीन पाकड एक्सटेंिन, नई दिल्ली; मेससड सोमा आइसोलक्स
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, अंबाला, (िरर ाणा),के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िेर ससंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 43/2016)को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल – 42012-61-2016-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/2016) 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 M/s Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., Green Park Extension, New Delhi ; M/s Soma Isolux Pvt.
Ltd., Ambala, (Haryana), and Shri Sher Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42012-61-2016-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.43/2016
Registered On: 07.10.2016
Sher Singh S/o Sh. Pyara Singh R/o Vill-Bairsal, Tehsil-Nilokheri, Distt-Karnal (Haryana)-132001.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
M/s Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., L-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.
2.
M/s Soma Isolux Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office, Model Town, Near Maruti Car Driving School, Ambala
(Haryana)-133001.
........Managements
AWARD
Passed On: 29.11.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/64/2016-IR(DU) dated 20.09.2016, under clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the Action of the management M/s Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. In terminating
the services of the workman Sh. Sher Singh S/o Sh. Pyara Singh, Security Guard w.e.f. 01.12.2014 is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5387
1. After receipt of above reference, registered notices were sent to workman to file claim statement. Despite service
of registered notices upon workman he did not turn up before this Tribunal.
2. Perused the file and it is found that none is appearing on behalf of workman. Several opportunities have already
been given to the workman to file the claim statement but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested
in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion
be consigned in the record room.
3.
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, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2292.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मेससड रक्षक जसक् ूररटास (प्राइवेट) जलजमटेड, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक, मेससड इंटरनेिनल सेंटर
फॉर ऑटोमोरटव टेक्नोलॉिी, आईएमटी मानेसर, गुड़गांव, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सम ससंि,कामगार,
द्वारा -मिासजचव, मकेंटाइल कमडचारी संघ, अमर नगर, फरीिाबाि,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़,पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 89/2014)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा
िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42011-16-20214-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/2014) 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 Director, M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., Dwarka, New Delhi ;The General Manager, M/s
International Centre for Automative Technology, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, and Shri Samay Singh, Worker,
through- The General Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association, Amar Nagar, Faridabad, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42011-16-20214-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam,
ID No. 89/2014
Registered On:- 22.05.2014
Samay Singh S/o Sh. Dhan Singh, Ex Workman, C/o Sh. Hublal Yadav, General Secretary, Mercantile Employees
Association, H.No.530, Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar, PO-Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Director M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., T-5, Plot No.12, Manish Plaza-111, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-
110075.
2. The General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automative Technology, Plot No.26, Sec 3, HSIDC, IMT
Manesar, Gurgaon-122050.
........Respondents
5388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Counsels for the Parties:
Sh. Shashi Kumar Yadav AR for Workman
None for Management (already ex-parte)
Judgment reserved on 04th December, 2024
Judgment/Award Pronounced on 17th December, 2024
JUDGMENT/ AWARD
1. Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/16/2014-IR(DU) dated 05.05.2014, under clause (d) of Sub-
Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through
contractor and thereafter termination of services of Shri Samay Singh S/o Sh. Dhan Singh Ex Workman
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?’
2. It may be mentioned that after receipt of above said reference, notice to workman was issued for filing statement
of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses but no such claim was filed by the workman and by
order dated 03.11.2014 the then Presiding Officer of this CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, dismissed the
reference for want of prosecution. However, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 29.02.2016
passed in CWP No.25029 of 2015 was pleased to set aside order dated- 03.11.2014 and directed this Court to decide
the reference on merit and thereafter, the workman Samay Singh filed his claim statement on 22.05.2017.
3. The case of Workman- According to the claim statement, the workman Samay Singh was directly appointed by
M/s Automotive Research Association of India Company as Shop Floor Operator on 05.11.2002. In 2007 the name of
the company was changed as M/s International Centre for Automotive Technology (I.C.A.T.), Plot No.26, Sector 3,
HSIDC, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. In this company more than one thousand workers are working. The last drawn
salary of the applicant/ workman was Rs.9024/- per month. The work and conduct of the applicant/ workman
remained always satisfactory, he never gave a chance of complaint. It is stated that the respondent/ management had
not given any statutory benefits and legal aid. The respondent/management also got workman’s signature on blank
papers, vouchers and forms on the pretext that these signed papers are required for Pension Scheme. The Respondent/
Management did not permit the applicant/ workman on duty w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by saying that work load was too less
and as soon as the work load would increase he would be called back with continuity of service and full back wages.
But the Respondent/ Management did not call for duty till date and even Respondent/ Management did not pay wages
including over time for the month of May, 2012. The applicant/ workman had continually approached to the
respondent/ management for his duty but the Respondent/ Management gave only promises months after months and
finally they denied. The applicant/ workman had worked for more than 240 days in each years of his service from
05.11.2002 to 27.05.2012 and there is no break in his service during this period. The action of the Respondent/
Management was against the provision of Section 25F, 25N and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated
that the Respondent / Management terminated the services of the applicant-workman without paying him his earned
wages and other dues. The act of the Respondent/ Management of the termination of the services of the applicant/
workman is totally illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions laid down in the I.D. Act and against the
principle of natural justice. It has been prayed that the services of the applicant/ workman be ordered to be reinstated
with full back wages and continuity of services alongwith other benefits.
4. The case of Respondent- In response to the notices issued upon respondent a written statement has been filed on
behalf of respondent, but same has been shown purported to be filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. It may be noted
that in the present dispute there is no respondent No.2 arrayed as a party in the claim statement and an objection to
this effect has been raised in the rejoinder/ replication filed on behalf of workman.
5. The case of respondent which may be stated in brief is that workman was never appointed or employed by the
respondent and there was no employer-employee relationship between the replying respondent and the workman.
According to respondent, names of workman employed are borne on muster rolls and other records of the
management but the name of workman does not appear anywhere in such record. It is further case of respondent that
in absence of any employee-employer relationship question of terminating the service does not arise. It is also stated
that workman has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the certain material facts. No
Industrial Dispute exists between the workman and the replying respondent. According to further case of respondent
the workman was engaged on contract by contractor M/s Rakshak Securities Private Limited under the provisions of
Contract Labour (R&A Act 1970). It has been further stated that said contractor has not been made a party to present
case intentionally in the claim statement filed by workman and therefore the reference is not maintainable. While
giving para wise reply to the claim statement, the respondent has denied that workman was ever appointed and
worked with replying respondent. It is stated that workman was employed on temporary basis and later on he was
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5389
employed by the contractor as per the stand taken by contractor in the Conciliation Proceedings the services of
Workman was transferred by the contractor vide letter dated 24.05.2012 but the workman had not joined the place of
transfer. It is also denied that replying respondent did not provide statutory benefits to workman. It is denied by the
respondent that since 28.05.2012 management stopped taking work from the workman and assured that when work
load could increase he will be called back to the service. It has been denied by replying respondent that workman had
ever approached respondent for his duty and that he worked earlier for more than 240 days from 05.11.2002 to
27.05.2012 without any break in the service. It is also case of respondent that there is no violation of any provisions
contained in Section 25 F, 25 N & 25 G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. According to the respondent the
reference is bad in law petitioner is not a workman employed by respondent management and he is not entitled to any
relief.
6. Issue for adjudication: As already stated herein above that present industrial dispute case has arisen on a
Reference, the point/issue which requires adjudication in the present case is the question itself referred under Section
10 of the ID Act as-
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through
contractor and thereafter termination of services of Shri Samay Singh S/o Sh. Dhan Singh Ex Workman
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?’
7. Evidence of parties: During hearing of the case the workman got examined himself as a witness and several
documents have been brought on the record which are marked as Ex WW-1/1 to Ex WW-1/49. These documents are-
Salary Slips, office notes related with duty, order for appointing workman as office attendant. Photocopy of cheque
for an amount Rs.6000/-, ID Cards, Canteen Cash Memo, Medical Fitness report, employees monthly report, skill test
certificates/ competency test certificates, Employees State Insurance Corporation Form, Employees’ Pension Scheme
and Contribution, Income Tax Form 16 etc. (These documents are not marked in series nature wise but are marked in
haphazard way while recording the evidence of workman).
8. On behalf of management no evidence has been adduced, despite opportunity given and Management was
proceeded ex-parte when it left taking proper step in the present case.
9. Submission of the Parties: It has been submitted on behalf of Workman that Samay Singh had joined service
with respondent on 05.11.2002 and was drawing regular salary of Rs.9,024/- when all of sudden without any rhyme
and reason the respondent stopped taking work since 28.05.2012 and he the workman was communicated that his
services were no more required. According to Ld. Counsel the arbitrary removal and termination of workman is in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 M of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to Ld.
Counsel the termination of workman is completely illegal, unfair and against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act.
It is also argued that in fact after recruiting the workman directly the respondent again placed his employment through
contractor and ultimately terminated arbitrarily. It is also argued that there is certificate which has been brought on
record as Ex.WW-1/49 dated 03.02.2012 issued by HOD (HR) V. Sankaran wherein it is mentioned that workman
Samay Singh is working with respondent since 05.11.2002 till the date as Shop Floor Operator and getting monthly
salary of Rs.9024/- per month. This document itself is sufficient to show that workman had worked for a period of 10
years continuously and he cannot be terminated without following due procedures laid down in Industrial Dispute
Act. It is also argued that during hearing of the present case even an application was filed for summoning certain
records from the office of respondent but those records were not provided which shows that respondent management
has deliberately concealed the documents showing regular service of the workman. According to Ld. Counsel it is a
fit case where an award in favor of workman may be passed by setting aside termination of services w.e.f. 28.05.2012
by the respondent and directing the respondent to reinstate the workman on the same terms and conditions which were
applicable on the date of termination of services of the workman.
10.
None appeared in this case on behalf of Respondent-Management to argue the case against the claim of
workman. It may be mentioned that because of not taking proper steps the respondent-management has already been
proceeded ex-parte.
Findings
11.
On the record no written termination order either produced by workman or brought on record by respondent
with written statement which was filed earlier. A perusal of written statement filed on behalf of respondent depicts
that according to respondent there was no employer-employee relationship between respondent and workman and it
was also denied that respondent had ever appointed or employed the workman at its establishment. Name of workman
does not borne under Muster Rolls and as per respondents written statement neither there was any employer-employee
relationship nor question of terminating the service arises. According to case of respondents workman was only a
contract labour employed on temporary basis. However, the uncontroverted/ unrebutted documents which have been
brought on record shows that the stand taken by respondent in its written statement is without any basis. To clarify my
view, I may refer to a document which is Exhibit WW-1/1 which is a letter of temporary appointment
5390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dated 23.10.2006 and a certificate dated 03.02.2012 brought on record as Ex.WW-1/49. Although the initiation
appointment letter of October, 2006 shows that it was a temporary appointment w.e.f. 01.11.2006 for one year but the
certificate dated 03.02.2012 shows that workman Samay Singh has been in service since 05.11.2002 and was getting
salary of Rs.9024/- per month. The effect of the certificate issued by HOD of the respondent clearly establishes the
fact that the workman was already in service since 05.11.2002 and temporary appointment letter has only been issued
in October, 2006 to deprive workman from his legitimate dues from the respondent. Not only this, even this certificate
of HOD further proves the fact that even temporary appointment continued at least till 03.02.2012 when this
certificate was issued. Other documents which are on the record also show that workman was also member of
Employees State Insurance Scheme and there has been also contribution in that scheme. Employee’s Monthly report
which are Exhibit WW-1/27 and Ex.WW-1/32 show that workman was working even in April 2012 as per the said
Employees Monthly Report. On the record are also there are some office notes issued on 12.12.2005, 24.04.2007,
12.01.2010 which show that workman was on duly with the respondent and therefore the stand taken in written
statement on behalf of respondent that it was only a contractual and purely temporary employment cannot be
accepted. Whatever evidence oral and documentary brought on record on behalf of workman could not be shaken or
rebutted by management. Although a cross examination of workman was done on behalf of respondent-Management.
In above view of the matter from the appreciation of available documents on the record and analysis of evidence it
can be held that the workman was initially appointed by the respondent and he was working since 05.11.2002 but
later on by issuing a temporary appointment letter dated October, 2006 the respondent illegally attempted to deprive
the workman of his legitimate dues. It is not in dispute that the respondent-company is still functional and not closed
therefore, on the pretext of no workload it cannot stop taking work from the workman who served for about 10 years
with it.
12. Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and
according to this Section a workman who had worked for not less than one year in continuation, he can only be
retrenched by employer after fulfilling certain conditions stipulated in that section. For Example workman is entitled
for one month notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu of such
notice wages for the period of that notice. In the present case I have already pointed out that this workman has worked
continuously with respondent for about 10 years and therefore his retrenchment without any notices assigning reason
for the same is certainly in violation of Section 25 F. The Supreme Court of India reported decision Management,
W.B. India Limited Versus Jagannath AIR 1974 SC 1166 has held that even a temporary workman is retrenched has
right to claim retrenchment compensation. In another decision Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana (2010) (2)
SCC 543 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even a casual employee if has completed 240 days of service in
preceding 12 months then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms
of Section 25 F of the ID Act. In the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court it can be safely held that the
arbitrary action on part of respondent in not taking work from workman Samay Singh w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is unjust,
unfair and illegal and same is in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
13. In the light of discussions made here in above and in the facts and circumstances at the present case the
Reference received from Government of India Ministry of Labour vide Reference No.L-42011/16/2014-IR(DU) dated
05.05.2014 is adjudicated in favour of workman Samay Singh and it is held that Samay Singh the workman was
appointed directly by the respondent and later on a temporary appointment was issued and his termination from
services of respondent w.e.f. 28.05.2012 was unjust, unfair and illegal in violation of provisions contained in Section
25 F of Industrial Dispute Act. The workman Samay Singh is entitled for reinstatement on the same post and
respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with all other
consequential benefits.
14. It is therefore,
ORDERED
An award in favour of workman Samay Singh is passed hereby declaring the termination of service
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 as unjust, unfair and illegal. The workman Samay Singh is entitled for reinstatement on the same
post and respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with
all other consequential benefits.
15.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dated: 17-12-2024
B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2293.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मेससड रक्षक जसक् ूररटास (प्राइवेट) जलजमटेड, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक, मेससड इंटरनेिनल सेंटर
फॉर ऑटोमोरटव टेक्नोलॉिी, आईएमटी मानेसर, गुड़गांव, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुरेन्र कुमार िोगी,
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5391
कामगार, द्वारा -मिासजचव, मकेंटाइल कमडचारी संघ, अमर नगर, फरीिाबाि,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1,चंडीगढ़,पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 90/2014)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा
ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42011-17-20214-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/2014) 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 Director, M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., Dwarka, New Delhi ;The General Manager, M/s
International Centre for Automative Technology, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, and Shri Surender Kumar Jogi,
Worker, through- The General Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association, Amar Nagar, Faridabad, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42011-17-20214-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam,
ID No.90 /2014
Registered On:-22.05.2014
Surender Kumar Jogi S/o Sh. Amar Singh Ex Workman, C/o Sh. Hublal Yadav, General Secretary, Mercantile
Employees Association, H.No.530, Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar, PO-Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003 .
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Director M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., T-5, Plot No.12, Manish Plaza-111, Sector 10, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110075.
2. The General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automative Technology, Plot No.26, Sec 3, HSIDC, IMT
Manesar, Gurgaon-122050.
........Respondents
Counsels for the Parties:
Sh. Shashi Kumar Yadav AR for Workman
None for Management (already ex-parte)
Judgment reserved on 04th December, 2024
Judgment/Award Pronounced on 17th December, 2024
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/17/2014-IR(DU) dated 08.05.2014, under clause (d) of Sub-
Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive Technology
(ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through contractor and
thereafter termination of services of Shri Surender Kumar Jogi S/o Shri Amar Singh Jogi, Ex Workman w.e.f.
28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’
2. It may be mentioned that after receipt of above said reference, notice to workman was issued for filing statement
of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses but no such claim was filed by the workman and by
order dated 03.11.2014 the then Presiding Officer of this CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, dismissed the
reference for want of prosecution. However, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 29.02.2016
5392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
passed in CWP No.24979 of 2015 was pleased to set aside order dated- 03.11.2014 and directed this Court to decide
the reference on merit and thereafter, the workman Surender Kumar Jogi filed his claim statement on 22.05.2017.
3. The case of Workman- According to the claim statement, the workman Surender Kumar Jogi was directly
appointed by M/s Automotive Research Association of India Company as Shop Floor Operator on 28.07.2004. In
2007 the name of the company was changed as M/s International Centre for Automotive Technology (I.C.A.T.), Plot
No.26, Sector 3, HSIDC, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. In this company more than one thousand workers are working. The
last drawn salary of the applicant/ workman was Rs.8267/- per month. The work and conduct of the applicant/
workman remained always satisfactory, he never gave a chance of complaint. It is stated that the respondent/
management had not given any statutory benefits and legal aid. The respondent/management also got workman’s
signature on blank papers, vouchers and forms on the pretext that these signed papers are required for Pension
Scheme. The Respondent/ Management did not permit the applicant/ workman on duty w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by saying
that work load was too less and as soon as the work load would increase he would be called back with continuity of
service and full back wages. But the Respondent/ Management did not call for duty till date and even Respondent/
Management did not pay wages including over time for the month of May, 2012. The applicant/ workman had
continually approached to the respondent/ management for his duty but the Respondent/ Management gave only
promises months after months and finally they denied. The applicant/ workman had worked for more than 240 days in
each years of his service from 28.07.2004 to 27.05.2012 and there is no break in his service during this period. The
action of the Respondent/ Management was against the provision of Section 25F, 25N and 25G of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated that the Respondent / Management terminated the services of the applicant-workman
without paying him his earned wages and other dues. The act of the Respondent/ Management of the termination of
the services of the applicant/ workman is totally illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions laid down in the
I.D. Act and against the principle of natural justice. It has been prayed that the services of the applicant/ workman be
ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of services alongwith other benefits.
4. The case of Respondent- In response to the notices issued upon respondent a written statement has been filed on
behalf of respondent, but same has been shown purported to be filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. It may be noted
that in the present dispute there is no respondent No.2 arrayed as a party in the claim statement and an objection to
this effect has been raised in the rejoinder/ replication filed on behalf of workman.
5. The case of respondent which may be stated in brief is that workman was never appointed or employed by the
respondent and there was no employer-employee relationship between the replying respondent and the workman.
According to respondent, names of workman employed are borne on muster rolls and other records of the
management but the name of workman does not appear anywhere in such record. It is further case of respondent that
in absence of any employee-employer relationship question of terminating the service does not arise. It is also stated
that workman has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the certain material facts. No
Industrial Dispute exists between the workman and the replying respondent. According to further case of respondent
the workman was engaged on contract by contractor M/s Rakshak Securities Private Limited under the provisions of
Contract Labour (R&A Act 1970). It has been further stated that said contractor has not been made a party to present
case intentionally in the claim statement filed by workman and therefore the reference is not maintainable. While
giving para wise reply to the claim statement, the respondent has denied that workman was ever appointed and
worked with replying respondent. It is stated that workman was employed on temporary basis and later on he was
employed by the contractor as per the stand taken by contractor in the Conciliation Proceedings the services of
Workman was transferred by the contractor vide letter dated 25.05.2012 but the workman had not joined the place of
transfer. It is also denied that replying respondent did not provide statutory benefits to workman. It is denied by the
respondent that since 28.05.2012 management stopped taking work from the workman and assured that when work
load would increase he would be called back to the service. It has been denied by replying respondent that workman
had ever approached respondent for his duty and that he worked earlier for more than 240 days from 28.07.2004 to
27.05.2012 without any break in the service. It is also case of respondent that there is no violation of any provisions
contained in Section 25 F, 25 N & 25 G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. According to the respondent the
reference is bad in law petitioner is not a workman employed by respondent management and he is not entitled to any
relief.
6. Issue to be adjudicated: As already stated herein above that present industrial dispute case has arisen on a
Reference, the point/issue which requires adjudication in the present case is the question itself referred under Section
10 of the ID Act as-
‘‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through
contractor and thereafter termination of services of Shri Surender Kumar Jogi S/o Shri Amar Singh Jogi, Ex
Workman w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?’
7. Evidence of parties: During hearing of the case the workman got examined himself as a witness and several
documents have been brought on the record which are marked as Ex WW-1/1 to Ex WW-1/49. These documents are-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5393
Salary Slips, office notes related with duty, ID Cards, Canteen Cash Memo, Medical Fitness report, employees
monthly report, skill test certificates/ competency test certificates, Employees State Insurance Corporation Form,
Employees’ Pension Scheme and Contribution, Secondary Examination Certificate, over time chart etc. (These
documents are not marked in series nature wise but are marked in haphazard way while recording the evidence of
workman).
8. On behalf of management no evidence has been adduced, despite opportunity given and Management was
proceeded ex-parte when it left taking proper step in the present case.
9. Submission of the Parties: It has been submitted on behalf of Workman that Surender Kumar Jogi had joined
service with respondent on 28.07.2004 and was drawing regular salary of Rs.8267/- when all of sudden without any
rhyme and reason the respondent stopped taking work since 28.05.2012 and he the workman was communicated that
his services were no more required. According to Ld. Counsel the arbitrary removal and termination of workman is in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 N of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to Ld.
Counsel the termination of workman is completely illegal, unfair and against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act.
It is also argued that in fact after recruiting the workman directly the respondent again placed his employment through
contractor and ultimately terminated arbitrarily. It is also argued that there is certificate which has been brought on
record as Ex.WW-1/49 dated 05.04.2012 issued by HOD (HR) V. Sankaran wherein it is mentioned that workman
Surender Kumar Jogi is working with respondent since 28.07.2004 till the date as Shop Floor Operator and getting
monthly salary of Rs.8267/- per month. This document itself is sufficient to show that workman had worked for a
period of about 8 years continuously and he cannot be terminated without following due procedures laid down in
Industrial Dispute Act. It is also argued that during hearing of the present case even an application was filed for
summoning certain records from the office of respondent but those records were not provided which shows that
respondent management has deliberately concealed the documents showing regular service of the workman.
According to Ld. Counsel it is a fit case where an award in favor of workman may be passed by setting aside
termination of services w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by the respondent and directing the respondent to reinstate the workman on
the same terms and conditions which were applicable on the date of termination of services of the workman.
10. None appeared in this case on behalf of Respondent-Management to argue the case against the claim of
workman. It may be mentioned that because of not taking proper steps the respondent-management has already been
proceeded ex-parte.
Findings
11. On the record no written termination order either produced by workman or brought on record by respondent with
written statement which was filed earlier. A perusal of written statement filed on behalf of respondent depicts that
according to respondent there was no employer-employee relationship between respondent and workman and it was
also denied that respondent had ever appointed or employed the workman at its establishment. Name of workman
does not borne under Muster Rolls and as per respondents written statement neither there was any employer-employee
relationship nor question of terminating the service arises. According to case of respondents workman was only a
contract labour employed on temporary basis. However, the uncontroverted/ unrebutted documents which have been
brought on record shows that the stand taken by respondent in its written statements is without any basis. To clarify
my view, I may refer to a document which is Exhibit WW-1/1 which is a letter of temporary appointment dated
23.10.2006 and a certificate dated 05.04.2012 brought on record as Ex.WW-1/49. Although the initiation appointment
letter of October, 2006 shows that it was a temporary appointment w.e.f. 01.11.2006 for one year but the certificate
dated 05.04.2012 shows that workman Surender Kumar Jogi has been in service since 28.07.2004 and was getting
salary of Rs.8267/- per month. The effect of the certificate issued by HOD of the respondent clearly establishes the
fact that the workman was already in service since 28.07.2004 and temporary appointment letter has only been issued
in October, 2006, to deprive workman from his legitimate dues from the respondent. Not only this, even this
certificate of HOD further proves the fact that even temporary appointment continued till 05.04.2012 when this
certificate was issued. Other documents which are on the record also shows that workman was also member of
Employees State Insurance Scheme and there has been also contribution in that scheme. Employee’s Monthly report
which is Exhibit Ex.WW-1/32 shows that workman was working even in April 2012 as per the said Employees
Monthly Report. On the record are also there are office notes issued on 29-09-2011, which shows that workman was
on duly with the respondent and therefore the stand taken in written statement on behalf of respondent that it was only
a contractual and purely temporary employment cannot be accepted. Whatever evidence oral and documentary
brought on record on behalf of workman could not be shaken or rebutted by management. Although a cross
examination of workman was done on behalf of respondent-Management. In above view of the matter from the
appreciation of available documents on the record and analysis of evidence it can be held that the workman was
initially appointed by the respondent and he was working since 28.07.2004 but later on by issuing a temporary
appointment letter dated October, 2006 the respondent illegally attempted to deprive the workman of his legitimate
dues. It is not in dispute that the respondent-company is still working and therefore, on the pretext of no workload it
cannot stop taking work from the workman who served for about 10 years with it.
12. Sections 25 F, 25N of the Industrial Dispute Act stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and
according to this Section a workman who had worked for not less than one year in continuation, he can only be
5394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retrenched by employer after fulfilling certain conditions stipulated in that section. For Example workman is entitled
for one month/3 months’ notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu
of such notice wages for the period of that notice. In the present case I have already pointed out that this workman has
worked continuously with respondent for about 8 years and therefore his retrenchment without any notices assigning
reason for the same is certainly in violation of Sections 25 F/25N. The Supreme Court of India reported decision
Management, W.B. India Limited Versus Jagannath AIR 1974 SC 1166 has held that even a temporary workman is
retrenched has right to claim retrenchment compensation. In another decision Ramesh Kumar Versus State of
Haryana (2010) (2) SCC 543 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even a casual employee if has completed 240
days of service in preceding 12 months then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation
in lieu of it in terms of Section 25 F of the ID Act. In the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court it can be
safely held that the arbitrary action on part of respondent in not taking work from workman Surender Kumar Jogi
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is unjust, unfair and illegal and in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
13. In the light of discussions made here in above and in the facts and circumstances at the present case the reference
received from Government of India Ministry of Labour vide Reference No.L-42011/17/2014-IR(DU) dated
08.05.2014 is adjudicated in favour of workman Surender Kumar Jogi and it is held that Surender Kumar Jogi the
workman was appointed directly by the respondent and later on a temporary appointment was issued and his
termination from services of respondent w.e.f. 28.05.2012 was unjust, unfair and illegal in violation of provisions
contained in Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act. The workman Surender Kumar Jogi is entitled for reinstatement
on the same post and respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f.
28.05.2012 with all other consequential benefits.
14. It is therefore,
ORDERED
An award in favor of workman Surender Kumar Jogi is passed hereby declaring the termination of service w.e.f.
28.05.2012 as unjust, unfair and illegal. The workman Surender Kumar Jogi is entitled for reinstatement on the same
post and respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with
all other consequential benefits.
15. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dated: 17-12-2024
B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2294.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मेससड रक्षक जसक् ूररटास (प्राइवेट) जलजमटेड, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक, मेससड इंटरनेिनल सेंटर
फॉर ऑटोमोरटव टेक्नोलॉिी, आईएमटी मानेसर, गुड़गांव, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अिेि िमाड,
कामगार,द्वारा-मिासजचव, मकेंटाइल कमडचारी संघ, अमर नगर, फरीिाबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़,पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 91/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा
ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42011-18-20214-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/2014) 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 Director, M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., Dwarka, New Delhi ;The General Manager, M/s
International Centre for Automative Technology, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, and Shri Ajesh Sharma, Worker,
through- The General Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association, Amar Nagar, Faridabad, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42011-18-20214-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5395
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam,
ID No. 91 /2014
Registered On:-22.05.2014
Ajesh Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma. Ex Workman C/o Sh. Hublal Yadav, General Secretary, Mercantile
Employees Association, H.No.530, Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar, PO-Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003 .
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Director M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., T-5, Plot No.12, Manish Plaza-111, Sector 10, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110075.
2. The General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automative Technology, Plot No.26, Sec 3, HSIDC, IMT
Manesar, Gurgaon-122050.
........Respondents
Counsels for the Parties:
Sh. Shashi Kumar Yadav AR for Workman
None for Management (already ex-parte)
Judgment reserved on 04th December, 2024
Judgment/Award Pronounced on17th December, 2024
JUDGMENT/ AWARD
1. Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/18/2014-IR(DU) dated 06.05.2014, under clause (d) of Sub-
Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through
contractor and thereafter termination of services of Shri Ajesh Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma Ex Workman
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’
2. It may be mentioned that after receipt of above said reference, notice to workman was issued for filing statement
of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses but no such claim was filed by the workman and by
order dated 03.11.2014 the then Presiding Officer of this CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, dismissed the
reference for want of prosecution. However, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 29.02.2016
passed in CWP No.25018 of 2015 was pleased to set aside order dated- 03.11.2014 and directed this Court to decide
the reference on merit and thereafter, the workman Ajesh Sharma filed his claim statement on 22.05.2017.
3. The case of Workman- According to the claim statement, the workman Ajesh Sharma was directly appointed by
M/s Automotive Research Association of India Company as D.G. Operator on 20.08.2002. In 2007 the name of the
company was changed as M/s International Centre for Automotive Technology (I.C.A.T.), Plot No.26, Sector 3,
HSIDC, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. In this company more than one thousand workers are working. The last drawn
salary of the applicant/ workman was Rs.9024/- per month. The work and conduct of the applicant/ workman
remained always satisfactory, he never gave a chance of complaint. It is stated that the respondent/ management had
not given any statutory benefits and legal aid. The respondent/management also got workman’s signature on blank
papers, vouchers and forms on the pretext that these signed papers are required for Pension Scheme. The Respondent/
Management did not permit the applicant/ workman on duty w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by saying that work load was too less
and as soon as the work load would increase he would be called back with continuity of service and full back wages.
But the Respondent/ Management did not call for duty till date and even Respondent/ Management did not pay wages
including over time for the month of May, 2012. The applicant/ workman had continually approached to the
respondent/ management for his duty but the Respondent/ Management gave only promises months after months and
finally they denied. The applicant/ workman had worked for more than 240 days in each years of his service from
20.08.2002 to 27.05.2012 and there is no break in his service during this period. The action of the Respondent/
Management was against the provision of Section 25F, 25N and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated
that the Respondent / Management terminated the services of the applicant-workman without paying him his earned
wages and other dues. The act of the Respondent/ Management of the termination of the services of the applicant/
5396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman is totally illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions laid down in the I.D. Act and against the
principle of natural justice. It has been prayed that the services of the applicant/ workman be ordered to be reinstated
with full back wages and continuity of services alongwith other benefits.
4. The case of Respondent- In response to the notices issued upon respondent a written statement has been filed on
behalf of respondent, but same has been shown purported to be filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. It may be noted
that in the present dispute there is no respondent No.2 arrayed as a party in the claim statement and an objection to
this effect has been raised in the rejoinder/ replication filed on behalf of workman.
The case of respondent which may be stated in brief is that workman was never appointed or employed by
the respondent and there was no employer-employee relationship between the replying respondent and the workman.
According to respondent, names of workman employed are borne on muster rolls and other records of the
management but the name of workman does not appear anywhere in such record. It is further case of respondent that
in absence of any employee-employer relationship question of terminating the service does not arise. It is also stated
that workman has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the certain material facts. No
Industrial Dispute exists between the workman and the replying respondent. According to further case of respondent
the workman was engaged on contract by contractor M/s Rakshak Securities Private Limited under the provisions of
Contract Labour (R&A Act 1970). It has been further stated that said contractor has not been made a party to present
case intentionally in the claim statement filed by workman and therefore the reference is not maintainable. While
giving para wise reply to the claim statement, the respondent has denied that workman was ever appointed and
worked with replying respondent. It is stated that workman was employed on temporary basis and later on he was
employed by the contractor as per the stand taken by contractor in the Conciliation Proceedings the services of
Workman was transferred by the contractor vide letter dated 25.05.2012 but the workman had not joined the place of
transfer. It is also denied that replying respondent did not provide statutory benefits to workman. It is denied by the
respondent that since 28.05.2012 management stopped taking work from the workman and assured that when work
load could increase he will be called back to the service. It has been denied by replying respondent that workman had
ever approached respondent for his duty and that he worked earlier for more than 240 days from 20.08.2002 to
27.05.2012 without any break in the service. It is also case of respondent that there is no violation of any provisions
contained in Section 25 F, 25 N & 25 G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. According to the respondent the
reference is bad in law petitioner is not a workman employed by respondent management and he is not entitled to any
relief.
5. Issue to be adjudicated- As already stated herein above that present industrial dispute case has arisen on a
Reference, the point/issue which requires adjudication in the present case is the question itself referred under Section
10 of the ID Act as-
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive Technology
(ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through contractor and
thereafter termination of services of Shri Ajesh Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma Ex Workman w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is
just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’
6. Evidence of parties- During hearing of the case the workman got examined himself as a witness and several
documents have been brought on the record which are marked as Ex WW-1/1 to Ex WW-1/28. These documents are-
Appointment letter, Salary Slips, appointment as Mali, ID Cards, over night shifts note, employees monthly report,
skill test certificates/ competency test certificates, Employees State Insurance Corporation Form, Employees’
Pension Scheme and Contribution etc. (These documents are not marked in series nature wise but are marked in
haphazard way while recording the evidence of workman).
7. On behalf of management no evidence has been adduced, despite opportunity given and Management was
proceeded ex-parte when it left taking proper step in the present case.
8. Submission of the Parties- It has been submitted on behalf of Workman that Ajesh Sharma had joined service
with respondent on 20.08.2002 and was drawing regular salary of Rs.9024/- when all of sudden without any rhyme
and reason the respondent stopped taking work since 28.05.2012 and he the workman was communicated that his
services were no more required. According to Ld. Counsel the arbitrary removal and termination of workman is in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 M of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to
Ld. Counsel the termination of workman is completely illegal, unfair and against the provisions of Industrial Dispute
Act. It is also argued that in fact after recruiting the workman directly the respondent again placed his employment
through contractor and ultimately terminated arbitrarily. It is also argued that there is certificate which has been
brought on record as Ex.WW-1/28 dated 12.07.2012 issued by HOD (HR) V. Sankaran wherein it is mentioned that
workman Ajesh Sharma is working with respondent since 20.08.2002 till the date as D.G. Operator and getting
monthly salary of Rs.9024/- per month. This document itself is sufficient to show that workman had worked for a
period of about 10 years continuously and he cannot be terminated without following due procedures laid down in
Industrial Dispute Act. It is also argued that during hearing of the present case even an application was filed for
summoning certain records from the office of respondent but those records were not provided which shows that
respondent management has deliberately concealed the documents showing regular service of the workman.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5397
According to Ld. Counsel it is a fit case where an award in favor of workman may be passed by setting aside
termination of services w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by the respondent and directing the respondent to reinstate the workman on
the same terms and conditions which were applicable on the date of termination of services of the workman.
9. None appeared in this case on behalf of Respondent-Management to argue the case against the claim of
workman. It may be mentioned that because of not taking proper steps the respondent-management has already been
proceeded ex-parte.
Findings
10. On the record no written termination order either produced by workman or brought on record by respondent with
written statement which was filed earlier. A perusal of written statement filed on behalf of respondent depicts that
according to respondent there was no employer-employee relationship between respondent and workman and it was
also denied that respondent had ever appointed or employed the workman at its establishment. Name of workman
does not borne under Muster Rolls and as per respondents written statement neither there was any employer-employee
relationship nor question of terminating the service arises. According to case of respondents workman was only a
contract labour employed on temporary basis. However, the uncontroverted/ unrebutted documents which have been
brought on record shows that the stand taken by respondent in its written statements is without any basis. To clarify
my view, I may refer to a document which is Exhibit WW-1/1 which is a letter of temporary appointment dated
23.10.2006 and a certificate dated 12.07.2012 brought on record as Ex.WW-1/28. Although the initial appointment
letter of October, 2006 shows that it was a temporary appointment w.e.f. 01.11.2006 for one year but the certificate
dated 12.07.2012 shows that workman Ajesh Sharma has been in continuous service since 20.08.2002 and was getting
salary of Rs.9024/- per month. The effect of the certificate issued by HOD of the respondent clearly establishes the
fact that the workman was already in service since 20.08.2002 and temporary appointment letter has only been issued
in October, 2006 to deprive workman from his legitimate dues from the respondent. Not only this, even this certificate
of HOD further proves the fact that even temporary appointment continued till 12.07.2012 when this certificate was
issued. Other documents which are on the record also shows that workman was also member of Employees State
Insurance Scheme and there has been also contribution in that scheme. Over-night duty chart report which is Exhibit
WW-1/18 and Ex.WW-1/19 so that workman was working even in month of August 2011, therefore the stand taken
in written statement on behalf of respondent that it was only a contractual and purely temporary employment cannot
be accepted. Whatever evidence oral and documentary brought on record on behalf of workman could not be shaken
or rebutted by management. Although a cross examination of workman was done on behalf of respondent-
Management. In above view of the matter from the appreciation of available documents on the record and analysis of
evidence it can be held that the workman was initially appointed by the respondent and he was working since
20.08.2002 but later on by issuing a temporary appointment letter dated October, 2006 the respondent illegally
attempted to deprive the workman of his legitimate dues. It is not in dispute that the respondent-company is still
functional and therefore, on the pretext of no workload it cannot stop taking work from the workman who served for
about 10 years with it.
11.
Section 25F/25N of the Industrial Dispute Act stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and
according to this Section a workman who had worked for not less than one year in continuation, he can only be
retrenched by employer after fulfilling certain conditions stipulated in that section. For Example workman is entitled
for one month /3 months’ notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu
of such notice wages for the period of that notice. In the present case I have already pointed out that this workman has
worked continuously with respondent for about 10 years and therefore his retrenchment without any notices assigning
reason for the same is certainly in violation of Section 25 F/25 N of the I.D. Act. The Supreme Court of India reported
decision Management, W.B. India Limited Versus Jagannath AIR 1974 SC 1166 has held that even a temporary
workman is retrenched has right to claim retrenchment compensation. In another decision Ramesh Kumar Versus
State of Haryana (2010) (2) SCC 543 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even a casual employee if has
completed 240 days of service in preceding 12 months then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or
compensation in lieu of it in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. In the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court it can be safely held that the arbitrary action on part of respondent in not taking work from workman Ajesh
Sharma w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is unjust, unfair and illegal and in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
12.
In the light of discussions made here in above and in the facts and circumstances at the present case the
reference received from Government of India Ministry of Labour vide Reference No.L-42011/18/2014-IR(DU) dated
06.05.2014 is adjudicated in favor of workman Ajesh Sharma and it is held that Ajesh Sharma the workman was
appointed directly by the respondent and later on a temporary appointment was issued and his termination from
services of respondent w.e.f. 28.05.2012 was unjust, unfair and illegal in violation of provisions contained in Section
25 F/25N of Industrial Dispute Act. The workman Ajesh Sharma is entitled for reinstatement on the same post and
respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with all other
consequential benefits.
13. It is therefore,
5398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDERED
An award in favor of workman Ajesh Sharma is passed hereby declaring the termination of service w.e.f. 28.05.2012
as unjust, unfair and illegal. The workman Ajesh Sharma is entitled for reinstatement on the same post and respondent
is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with all other
consequential benefits.
14. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dated: 17-12-2024
B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2295.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मेससड रक्षक जसक् ूररटास (प्राइवेट) जलजमटेड, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली; मिाप्रबंिक, मेससड इंटरनेिनल सेंटर
फॉर ऑटोमोरटव टेक्नोलॉिी, आईएमटी मानेसर, गुड़गांव, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री भगत ससंि,कामगार,
द्वारा-मिासजचव, मकेंटाइल कमडचारी संघ, अमर नगर, फरीिाबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 92/2014)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42011-19-20214-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2014) 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 Director, M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., Dwarka, New Delhi ;The General Manager, M/s
International Centre for Automative Technology, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, and Shri Bhagat Singh, Worker,
through- The General Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association, Amar Nagar, Faridabad, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42011-19-20214-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam,
ID No.92 /2014
Registered On:- 22.05.2014
Bhagat Singh S/o Sri Bishan Singh, Ex Workman C/o Shri Hublal Yadav, General Secretary, Mercantile
Employees Association, H.No.530, Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar, PO: Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121003.
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Director M/s Rakshak Securities (Pvt) Ltd., T-5, Plot No.12, Manish Plaza-111, Sector 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
2. The General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automative Technology, Plot No.26, Sec 3, HSIDC,
IMT Manesar, Gurgaon-122050.
........Respondents
Counsels for the Parties:
Sh. Shashi Kumar Yadav AR for Workman
None for Management (already ex-parte)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5399
Judgment reserved on 04th December, 2024
Judgment/Award Pronounced on 17th December, 2024
JUDGMENT/ AWARD
1. Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/19/2014-IR(DU) dated 05.05.2014, under clause (d) of Sub-
Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through
contractor and thereafter termination of services of Shri Bhagat Singh S/o Sh. Bishan Singh Ex Workman
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?’
2. It may be mentioned that after receipt of above said reference, notice to workman was issued for filing statement
of claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses but no such claim was filed by the workman and by
order dated 03.11.2014 the then Presiding Officer of this CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, dismissed the
reference for want of prosecution. However, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 29.02.2016
passed in CWP No.25001 of 2015 was pleased to set aside order dated- 03.11.2014 and directed this Court to decide
the reference on merit and thereafter, the workman Bhagat Singh filed his claim statement on 22.05.2017.
3. The case of Workman- According to the claim statement, the workman Bhagat Singh was directly appointed by
M/s Automotive Research Association of India Company as Office Attendant on 17.08.2002. In 2007 the name of the
company was changed as M/s International Centre for Automotive Technology (I.C.A.T.), Plot No.26, Sector 3,
HSIDC, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. In this company more than one thousand workers are working. The last drawn
salary of the applicant/ workman was Rs.8267/- per month. The work and conduct of the applicant/ workman
remained always satisfactory, he never gave a chance of complaint. It is stated that the respondent/ management had
not given any statutory benefits and legal aid. The respondent/management also got workman’s signature on blank
papers, vouchers and forms on the pretext that these signed papers are required for Pension Scheme. The Respondent/
Management did not permit the applicant/ workman on duty w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by saying that work load was too less
and as soon as the work load would increase he would be called back with continuity of service and full back wages.
But the Respondent/ Management did not call for duty till date and even Respondent/ Management did not pay wages
including over time for the month of May, 2012. The applicant/ workman had continually approached to the
respondent/ management for his duty but the Respondent/ Management gave only promises months after months and
finally they denied. The applicant/ workman had worked for more than 240 days in each years of his service from
17.08.2002 to 27.05.2012 and there is no break in his service during this period. The action of the Respondent/
Management was against the provision of Section 25F, 25N and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated
that the Respondent / Management terminated the services of the applicant-workman without paying him his earned
wages and other dues. The act of the Respondent/ Management of the termination of the services of the applicant/
workman is totally illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions laid down in the I.D. Act and against the
principle of natural justice. It has been prayed that the services of the applicant/ workman be ordered to be reinstated
with full back wages and continuity of services alongwith other benefits.
4. The case of Respondent- In response to the notices issued upon respondent a written statement has been filed on
behalf of respondent, but same has been shown purported to be filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. It may be noted
that in the present dispute there is no respondent No.2 arrayed as a party in the claim statement and an objection to
this effect has been raised in the rejoinder/ replication filed on behalf of workman.
5. The case of respondent which may be stated in brief is that workman was never appointed or employed by the
respondent and there was no employer-employee relationship between the replying respondent and the workman.
According to respondent, names of workman employed are borne on muster rolls and other records of the
management but the name of workman does not appear anywhere in such record. It is further case of respondent that
in absence of any employee-employer relationship question of terminating the service does not arise. It is also stated
that workman has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the certain material facts. No
Industrial Dispute exists between the workman and the replying respondent. According to further case of respondent
the workman was engaged on contract by contractor M/s Rakshak Securities Private Limited under the provisions of
Contract Labour (R&A Act 1970). It has been further stated that said contractor has not been made a party to present
case intentionally in the claim statement filed by workman and therefore the reference is not maintainable. While
giving para wise reply to the claim statement, the respondent has denied that workman was ever appointed and
worked with replying respondent. It is stated that workman was employed on temporary basis. It is also denied that
replying respondent did not provide statutory benefits to workman. It is denied by the respondent that since
28.05.2012 management stopped taking work from the workman and assured that when work load could increase he
will be called back to the service. It has been denied by replying respondent that workman had ever approached
respondent for his duty and that he worked earlier for more than 240 days from 17.08.2002 to 27.05.2012 without any
5400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
break in the service. It is also case of respondent that there is no violation of any provisions contained in Section 25 F,
25 N & 25 G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. According to the respondent the reference is bad in law petitioner is
not a workman employed by respondent management and he is not entitled to any relief.
6. Issue to be adjudicated: As already stated herein above that present industrial dispute case has arisen on a
Reference, the point/issue which requires adjudication in the present case is the question itself referred under Section
10 of the ID Act as-
‘‘‘‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s International Centre for Automotive
Technology (ICAT), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon for giving appointment directly and later on deployed through
contractor and thereafter termination of services of Shri Bhagat Singh S/o Sh. Bishan Singh Ex Workman
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?’
7. Evidence of parties: During hearing of the case the workman got examined himself as a witness and several
documents have been brought on the record which are marked as Ex WW-1/1 to Ex WW-1/27. These documents are-
appointment letter, temporary appointment as Mali, Salary Slips, skill test certificates/ competency test certificates,
copy of EPF membership, Employees’ Pension Scheme and Contribution, Income Tax Form 16, I.D. etc. (These
documents are not marked in series nature wise but are marked in haphazard way while recording the evidence of
workman).
8. On behalf of management no evidence has been adduced, despite opportunity given and Management was
proceeded ex-parte when it left taking proper step in the present case.
9. Submission of the Parties- It has been submitted on behalf of Workman that Bhagat Singh had joined service
with respondent on 17.08.2002 and was drawing regular salary of Rs.8267/- when all of sudden without any rhyme
and reason the respondent stopped taking work since 28.05.2012 and he the workman was communicated that his
services were no more required. According to Ld. Counsel the arbitrary removal and termination of workman is in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 M of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to Ld.
Counsel the termination of workman is completely illegal, unfair and against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act.
It is also argued that infact after recruiting the workman directly the respondent again placed his employment through
contractor and ultimately terminated arbitrarily. It is also argued that there is certificate which has been brought on
record as Ex.WW-1/27 dated 28.12.2011 issued by HOD (HR) V. Sankaran wherein it is mentioned that workman
Bhagat Singh is working with respondent since 17.08.2002 till the date as Office Attendant and getting monthly
salary of Rs.8267/- per month. This document itself is sufficient to show that workman had worked for a period of
about 9 years continuously and he cannot be terminated without following due procedures laid down in Industrial
Dispute Act. It is also argued that during hearing of the present case even an application was filed for summoning
certain records from the office of respondent but those records were not provided which shows that respondent
management has deliberately concealed the documents showing regular service of the workman. According to Ld.
Counsel it is a fit case where an award in favor of workman may be passed by setting aside termination of services
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 by the respondent and directing the respondent to reinstate the workman on the same terms and
conditions which were applicable on the date of termination of services of the workman.
10.
None appeared in this case on behalf of Respondent-Management to argue the case against the claim of
workman. It may be mentioned that because of not taking proper steps the respondent-management has already been
proceeded ex-parte.
Findings
11.
On the record no written termination order either produced by workman or brought on record by respondent
with written statement which was filed earlier. A perusal of written statement filed on behalf of respondent depicts
that according to respondent there was no employer-employee relationship between respondent and workman and it
was also denied that respondent had ever appointed or employed the workman at its establishment. Name of workman
does not borne under Muster Rolls and as per respondents written statement neither there was any employer-employee
relationship nor question of terminating the service arises. According to case of respondents workman was only a
contract labour employed on temporary basis. However, the uncontroverted/ unrebutted documents which have been
brought on record shows that the stand taken by respondent in its written statements is without any basis. To clarify
my view, I may refer to a document which is Exhibit WW-1/2 which is a letter of temporary appointment letter dated
23.10.2006 and a certificate dated 28.12.2011 brought on record as Ex.WW-1/27. Although the initial appointment
letter of October, 2006 shows that it was a temporary appointment w.e.f. 01.11.2006 for one year but the certificate
dated 28.12.2011 shows that workman Bhagat Singh has been in service since 17.08.2002 and was getting salary of
Rs.8267/- per month. The effect of the certificate issued by HOD of the respondent clearly establishes the fact that the
workman was already in service since 17.08.2002 and temporary appointment letter has only been issued in October,
2006 only to deprive workman from his legitimate dues from the respondent. Not only this, even this certificate of
HOD further proves the fact that even temporary appointment continued till 28.12.2011 when this certificate was
issued. Other documents which are on the record also shows that workman was also member of Employees State
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5401
Insurance Scheme and there has been also contribution in that scheme. Therefore the stand taken in written statement
on behalf of respondent that it was only a contractual and purely temporary employment cannot be accepted.
Whatever evidence oral and documentary brought on record on behalf of workman could not be shaken or rebutted by
management. Although a cross examination of workman was done on behalf of respondent-Management. In above
view of the matter from the appreciation of available documents on the record and analysis of evidence it can be held
that the workman was initially appointed by the respondent and he was working since 17.08.2002 but later on by
issuing a temporary appointment letter dated December, 2006 the respondent illegally attempted to deprive the
workman of his legitimate dues. It is not in dispute that the respondent-company is still working and therefore, on the
pretext of no workload it cannot stop taking work from the workman who served for about 10 years with it.
12. Section 25F/25N of the Industrial Dispute Act stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and
according to this Section a workman who had worked for not less than one year in continuation, he can only be
retrenched by employer after fulfilling certain conditions stipulated in that section. For Example workman is entitled
for one month notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu of such
notice wages for the period of that notice. In the present case I have already pointed out that this workman has worked
continuously with respondent for about 9 years and therefore his retrenchment without any notices assigning reason
for the same is certainly in violation of Section 25 F. The Supreme Court of India reported decision Management,
W.B. India Limited Versus Jagannath AIR 1974 SC 1166 has held that even a temporary workman is retrenched has
right to claim retrenchment compensation. In another decision Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana (2010) (2)
SCC 543 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even a casual employee if has completed 240 days of service in
preceding 12 months then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms
of Section 25 F of the ID Act. In the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court it can be safely held that the
arbitrary action on part of respondent in not taking work from workman Bhagat Singh w.e.f. 28.05.2012 is unjust,
unfair and illegal and in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
13. In the light of discussions made here in above and in the facts and circumstances at the present case the reference
received from Government of India Ministry of Labour vide Reference No.L-42011/19/2014-IR(DU) dated
05.05.2014 is adjudicated in favor of workman Bhagat Singh and it is held that Bhagat Singh the workman was
appointed directly by the respondent and later on a temporary appointment was issued and his termination from
services of respondent w.e.f. 28.05.2012 was unjust, unfair and illegal in violation of provisions contained in Section
25F/25N of Industrial Dispute Act. The workman Bhagat Singh is entitled for reinstatement on the same post and
respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with all other
consequential benefits.
14. It is therefore,
ORDERED
An award in favor of workman Bhagat Singh is passed hereby declaring the termination of service
w.e.f. 28.05.2012 as unjust, unfair and illegal. The workman Bhagat Singh is entitled for reinstatement on the same
post and respondent is directed to take work and duty from the workman and pay back wages w.e.f. 28.05.2012 with
all other consequential benefits.
15. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dated: 17-12-2024
B. K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2296.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मजससड. इंडस टावर जलजमटेड, पुणे; जनिेिक, मजससड. टीमलीज़ सर्वडसेि जलजमटेड, चचड रोड, पुणे, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, इंडस मोबाइल टावर तकनीकी कमडचारी संग न, औरंगाबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण, औरंगाबाि, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 02/2018, [सीएनआर नं. MHIC20-001094-
2016]) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
31.12.2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40011-137-2017-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
5402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2018, [CNR NO.MHIC20-001094-2016]) of the Industrial
Tribunal,Aurangabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, M/s. Indus Tower Ltd., Pune; The Director, M/s. TeamLease Services Ltd., Church Road, Pune, and
The President,Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana, Aurangabad, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40011-137-2017-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
EXH. O-8
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA,
AT : AURANGABAD.
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 2 OF 2018
[CNR NO.MHIC20-001094-2016]
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN
[1]The Director,
Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd.
E Crore, Office No.2010, 2nd Floor,
Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar, Pune
[2] The Director,
M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office 509, 5th Floor, Nucleus MLL, 1,
Church Road, Pune.
…
FIRST PARTY
AND
The President,
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana
C/o-Narayan V. Ghule, 75/5,
K-Sector, Pawan Nagar,
N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad
[Shri. Annasaheb Balu Kokate,Represented by the Union]
SECOND PARTY
CORAM : S. S. MAUDEKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER.
Advocates : Mr. Y. I Thole,Ld. Advocate for First Party no.1.
Mr.N.R. Gadekar, Ld. Advocate for First Party no.2.
AWARD
[Passed on 20/07/2024]
The Deputy Director as per Order No.L-40011/137/2017 – IR (DU), Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/
Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi dated 15-02-2018 referred the dispute between the parties for
adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the Schedule mentioned therein.
2]
After receipt of the reference, notices were duly served to the parties vide Exh O-4 to O-5. From the record,
it appears that the First party nos.1 & 2 have appeared in the matter through their respective learned advocates. The
second party failed to appear in the matter in spite of service of notice. Hence, fresh notice was served as per Exh.
O-6 & O-7 to the second party . It appears that in spite of receipt of notice, the second party neither appeared nor
filed its statement of claim since 26-02-2018.
3]
Today also,the second party was absent when called at 5.45 p. m. Orders was passed on Exh. O-1 on
26-03-2024, but it seems that the second party is not interested in proceeding with the matter. Hence, it is not proper
to keep it pending. As such, the Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution. Hence, the following Award :-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5403
ORDER
1]
The Reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for want of prosecution.
2]
Copies of the Award be forwarded to the Deputy Director, Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/ Ministry of
Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for its publication.
[S. S. MAUDEKAR , Presiding Officer
Place:Aurangabad
Date : 20/07/2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2297.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मजससड. इंडस टावर जलजमटेड, पुणे; जनिेिक, मजससड. टीमलीज़ सर्वडसेि जलजमटेड, चचड रोड, पुणे, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, इंडस मोबाइल टावर तकनीकी कमडचारी संग न, औरंगाबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण, औरंगाबाि, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 03/2018, [सीएनआर नं.MHIC20-001095-
2016]) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
31.12.2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40011-125-2017-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2018, [CNR NO.MHIC20-001095-2016]) of the Industrial
Tribunal,Aurangabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, M/s. Indus Tower Ltd., Pune ; The Director, M/s. TeamLease Services Ltd., Church Road, Pune,
and The President,Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana, Aurangabad, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40011-125-2017-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
EXH. O-8
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA, AT : AURANGABAD.
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 3 OF 2018
[CNR NO.MHIC20-001095-2016]
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN
[1]The Director,
Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd.
E Crore, Office No.2010, 2nd Floor,
Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar, Pune
[2] The Director,
M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office 509, 5th Floor, Nucleus MLL, 1,
Church Road, Pune.
…
FIRST PARTY
5404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
The President,
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana,
C/o-Narayan V. Ghule, 75/5,
K-Sector, Pawan Nagar,
N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad
[Shri. Hemant Dhandge,Represented by the Union]
…
SECOND PARTY
CORAM : S. S. MAUDEKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER.
Advocates : Mr. Y. I Thole,Ld. Advocate for First Party no.1.
Mr.N.R. Gadekar, Ld. Advocate for First Party no.2.
AWARD
[Passed on 20/07/2024]
The Deputy Director as per Order No.L-40011/125/2017 – IR (DU), Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/
Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi dated 15-02-2018 referred the dispute between the parties for
adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the Schedule mentioned therein.
2]
After receipt of the reference, notices were duly served to the parties vide Exh O-4 to O-5. From the record,
it appears that the First party nos.1 & 2 have appeared in the matter through their respective learned advocates. The
second party failed to appear in the matter in spite of service of notice. Hence, fresh notice was served as per Exh.O-6
& O-7 to the second party . It appears that in spite of receipt of notice, the second party neither appeared nor filed its
statement of claim since 26-02-2018.
3]
Today also,the second party was absent when called at 5.45 p. m. Orders was passed on Exh. O-1 on 26-
03-2024, but it seems that the second party is not interested in proceeding with the matter. Hence, it is not proper to
keep it pending. As such, the Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution. Hence, the following Award :-
ORDER
1]
The Reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for want of prosecution.
2]
Copies of the Award be forwarded to the Deputy Director, Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/ Ministry of
Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for its publication.
S. S. MAUDEKAR, Presiding Officer
Place:Aurangabad
Date : 20/07/2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2298.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मजससड. इंडस टावर जलजमटेड, पुणे; जनिेिक, मजससड. टीमलीज़ सर्वडसेि जलजमटेड, चचड रोड, पुणे, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, इंडस मोबाइल टावर तकनीकी कमडचारी संग न, औरंगाबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण, औरंगाबाि, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 04/2018, [सीएनआर नं. MHIC20-001096-
2016]) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
31.12.2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40011-126-2017-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5405
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2018, [CNR NO.MHIC20-001096-2016]) of the Industrial
Tribunal, Aurangabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, M/s. Indus Tower Ltd., Pune; The Director, M/s. TeamLease Services Ltd., Church Road, Pune, and
The President, Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana, Aurangabad, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40011-126-2017-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
EXH. O-8
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA, AT : AURANGABAD.
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 4 OF 2018
[CNR NO.MHIC20-001096-2016]
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN
[1]The Director,
Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd.
E Crore, Office No.2010, 2nd Floor,
Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar, Pune
[2] The Director,
M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office 509, 5th Floor, Nucleus MLL, 1,
Church Road, Pune.
…
FIRST PARTY
AND
The President,
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana,
C/o-Narayan V. Ghule, 75/5,
K-Sector, Pawan Nagar,
N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad
[Shri. Pravin Jagtap, Represented by the Union]
…
SECOND PARTY
CORAM : S. S. MAUDEKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER.
Advocates : Mr. Y. I Thole,Ld. Advocate for First Party no.1.
Mr.N.R. Gadekar, Ld. Advocate for First Party no. 2.
AWARD
[Passed on 20/07/2024]
The Deputy Director as per Order No.L-40011/126/2017 – IR (DU), Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/
Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi dated 15-02-2018 referred the dispute between the parties for
adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the Schedule mentioned therein.
2]
After receipt of the reference, notices were duly served to the parties vide Exh O-4 to O-5. From the record,
it appears that the First party nos.1 & 2 have appeared in the matter through their respective learned advocates. The
second party failed to appear in the matter in spite of service of notice. Hence, fresh notice was served as per Exh.O-6
& O-7 to the second party . It appears that in spite of receipt of notice, the second party neither appeared nor filed its
statement of claim since 26-02-2018.
5406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3]
Today also,the second party was absent when called at 5.45 p. m. Orders was passed on Exh. O-1
on 26-03-2024, but it seems that the second party is not interested in proceeding with the matter. Hence, it is not
proper to keep it pending. As such, the Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution. Hence, the
following Award :-
ORDER
1]
The Reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for want of prosecution.
2]
Copies of the Award be forwarded to the Deputy Director, Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/ Ministry of
Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for its publication.
S. S. MAUDEKAR , Presiding Officer
Place:Aurangabad
Date : 20/07/2024.
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2299.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, मजससड. इंडस टावर जलजमटेड, पुणे; जनिेिक, मजससड. टीमलीज़ सर्वडसेि जलजमटेड, चचड रोड, पुणे, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, इंडस मोबाइल टावर तकनीकी कमडचारी संग न, औरंगाबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण, औरंगाबाि, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 05/2018, [सीएनआर नं.MHIC20-001097-
2016]) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
31.12.2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40011-121-2017-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2018, [CNR NO.MHIC20-001097-2016]) of the Industrial
Tribunal, Aurangabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, M/s. Indus Tower Ltd., Pune ; The Director, M/s. TeamLease Services Ltd., Church Road, Pune,
and The President, Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana, Aurangabad, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40011-121-2017-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
EXH. O-8
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA, AT : AURANGABAD.
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 5 OF 2018
[CNR NO.MHIC20-001097-2016]
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN
[1]The Director,
Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd.
E Crore, Office No.2010, 2nd Floor,
Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar, Pune
[2] The Director,
M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office 509, 5th Floor, Nucleus MLL, 1,
Church Road, Pune.
…
FIRST PARTY
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5407
AND
The President,
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatana
C/o-Narayan V. Ghule, 75/5,
K-Sector, Pawan Nagar,
N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad
[Shri. Sachin Vasant Pawar,Represented by the Union]
…
SECOND PARTY
CORAM : S. S. MAUDEKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER.
Advocates : Mr. Y. I Thole,Ld. Advocate for First Party no.1.
Mr.N.R. Gadekar, Ld. Advocate for First Party no.2.
AWARD
[Passed on 20/07/2024]
The Deputy Director as per Order No.L-40011/121/2017 – IR (DU), Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/
Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi dated 15-02-2018 referred the dispute between the parties for
adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the Schedule mentioned therein.
2]
After receipt of the reference, notices were duly served to the parties vide Exh O-4 to O-5. From the record,
it appears that the First party nos.1 & 2 have appeared in the matter through their respective learned advocates. The
second party failed to appear in the matter in spite of service of notice. Hence, fresh notice was served as per Exh.O-6
& O-7 to the second party . It appears that in spite of receipt of notice, the second party neither appeared nor filed its
statement of claim since 26-02-2018.
3]
Today also,the second party was absent when called at 5.45 p. m. Orders was passed on Exh. O-1 on 26-
03-2024, but it seems that the second party is not interested in proceeding with the matter. Hence, it is not proper to
keep it pending. As such, the Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution. Hence, the following Award :-
ORDER
1]
The Reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for want of prosecution.
2]
Copies of the Award be forwarded to the Deputy Director, Government of India / Bharat Sarkar/ Ministry of
Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for its publication.
S. S. MAUDEKAR, Presiding Officer
Place:Aurangabad
Date : 20/07/2024.
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2300.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री बनवारी लाल वमाड के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि पुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 15/2016) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल – 17012-04-2016-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 15/2016) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
5408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relation to Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam and Shri Banwari Lal Verma which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-17012-04-2016-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
vuqyXud
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la-& 15@2016
Reference No. L-17012/04/2016-IR (M) Dated: 14.03.2016
Jh cuokjh yky oekZ iq= Jh guqeku jke oekZ] fuoklh& eq-iks fljksgh] <kuh rsrjokyksa dh] rg-& uhe dk Fkkuk] ftyk&
lhdj ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
cuke
1- lhfu;j fMohtuy eSustj] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] thou izdk'k] Hkokuh flag jksM] vEcsMdj lfdZy t;iqj]
jktLFkku 302005
2- 'kk[kk izca/kd] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] 555] okMZ uEcj 3] uhe dk Fkkuk] ftyk& lhdj] jktLFkkuA
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh dq.kky jkor] vfHkHkk"kd & izkFkhZA
% Jh ts- ds- vxzoky] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad %10-10-2024
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 14-03-2016 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“D;k izca/ku Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] uhe dk Fkkuk] lhdj dk deZdkj
Jh cuokjh yky oekZ] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dks fnukad 17-07-1996 ds }kjk ukSdjh ls fudkyk tkuk
U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS?”
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 25-05-2016 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh
la[;k&2 ds ;gkW ikuh fiykus ds fy;s prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa fnukad 23-04-1996 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;kA
izkFkhZ us fnukad 16-07-1996 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA fdarq fnukad 17-07-1996 dks izkFkhZ dks vdkj.k lsokeqDr dj fn;k
x;kA izkFkhZ viuh lsokeqfDr dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F dk ikyu foi{kh }kjk u fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij voS/k
ekurk gSA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk vU; Jfedksa dks HkrhZ fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25 G, o H rFkk fu;e 77] 78 dh vogsyuk dh xbZA izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; }kjk rfeyukMw VfeZusfVM QqyVkbZe VsEijsjh ,y-vkbZ-lh- ,EiykbZt ,slksfl;s’ku cuke ,y-vkbZ-lh- vkWQ
bafM;k ¼ftls vkxs ek= rfeyukMw izdj.k dgk tkosxk½ ds izdj.k esa vkns’k fn;k x;k gS fd ftu Jfedksa us 80
fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS mUgsa fu;fer fd;k tkosA fdarq fu;fer djus ds ctk; izkFkhZ dks lsok eqDr dj
fn;k x;kA foi{khx.k dk ;g d`R; vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl gSA vr% okn izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dh
lsokeqfDr fnukad 17-07-1996 dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujarjrk rFkk foxr osru ifjykHkksa
lfgr iqu% dke ij fy;k tkosA
3- foi{khx.k us fnukad 21-07-2016 dks oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us 19 o"kZ Ik'pkr cukoVh ,oa
>wBk izdj.k izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{kh ls ;g vis{kk ugha dh tkuh pkfg;s fd ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dk
vfHkys[k 19 o"kZ rd la/kkfjr djsA foi{khx.k dh ,d fu'fpr] HkrhZ dh i}fr gSA fu;qfDr i= ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ
dk foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr gksuk Lohdkj ugha gSA 85 fnu dh fu’fpr vof/k ds fy;s fu;qfDr gksus ij] fu;qfDr
fu'fpr vof/k lekIr gksus ij lsok Lor% gh lekIr gks tkrh gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds varxZr ;g
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5409
lsokeqfDr NaVuh ugha gSA /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dks izHkkoh djus ds fy;s vko’;d gS fd lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ 240
fnu izkFkhZ us dk;Z fd;k gksA bl vf/kdj.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj jsQjsal vkns'k dh 'krksZ ls fu/kkZfjr gksrk gSA jsQjsal ls
ijs tkdj vf/kdj.k dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha dj ldrkA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
4- fnukad 02-03-2017 dks izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds oknksRrj ij vfrfjDr dFku djrs gq;s foi{kh ds vfHkopuksa dks
vLohdkj fd;k gSA
5- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ cuokjh yky oekZ dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ W-1 vkSj
izn'kZ W-2] izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
6- foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa dey ikVuh] iz’kklfud vf/kdkjh dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha
fd;k x;kA
7- fnukad 17-09-2024 dks eSaus mHk; i{k ds ekSf[kd rdZ lqusa] miyC/k lk{; dk ifj’khyu fd;k rFkk izLrqr fd;s
x;s U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k ij euu fd;kA
8- izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd ;|fi izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k gS fdarq ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; rfeyukMw izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; us ;g funsZ'k fn;k
gS fd ftu Jfedksa us foi{khx.k ds v/khu 80 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS mUgsa fu;fer dj fn;k tkosA bl
laca/k esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; ds ikfjr fu.kZ; ds mijkar fn;s x;s funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ,sls ;ksX; deZdkjksa dh lwph izfrosnu lfgr ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; dks
iszf"kr dh xbZ FkhA bl lwph esa dze la[;k&460 ij izkFkhZ dk uke ;ksX; deZdkj ds :Ik esa vafdr gSA blfy;s
foi{khx.k ds izn’kZ W&2] i= ds vk/kkj ij] pwafd izkFkhZ us fnukad 23-04-1996 ls 16-07-1996 rd 85 fnu dk;Z
iwjk dj fy;k gSA izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k ds v/khu lsok esa vo’kksf"kr djrs gq;s ¼Absorb½ fu;qfDr nh tkuh pkfg;sA
mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa rfeyukMw VfeZusfVM QqyVkbZe VsEijsjh ,y-vkbZ-lh- ,EiykbZt ,slksfl;s'ku cuke
,y-vkbZ-lh- vkWQ bafM;k flfoy vihy ua- 6950@2009 fu.kZ; frfFk 18-03-2015 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ ftlds lkFk
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds izfrosnu ,oa deZdkjksa dh lwph layXu dh xbZ Fkh] izLrqr
fd;k gSA
9- vfHkHkk’kd foi{khx.k dk ;g rdZ gS fd bl vf/kdj.k dks dsUnz ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fd;s x;s jsQjsal vkns'k dh
'krksZa ls ijs tkdj fdlh fcUnq dk U;k;fu.kZ;u djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA jsQjsal vkns’k esa izkFkhZ dks lsok ls
fudkys tkus dk fcUnq tks fd nkos ds vfHkdFku ds vuqlkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G vkSj H rFkk fu;e 77]
78 dh vuqikyuk u gksus ls lacaf/kr gS] rd gh bl vf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA jsQjsal esa ;g mfYyf[kr
ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dks 85 fnu ds dk;Z djus ds vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k }kjk lsok esa vo'kksf"kr ¼Absorb½ u fd;k
tkuk mfpr gS ;k ughaA blfy;s ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ftls izkFkhZ us vk/kkj cuk;k gS
vf/kdj.k }kjk vuqdj.kh; ugha gSA izkFkhZ us vius lk{; ls 240 fnu dk;Z djuk rFkk mlls dfu"B fdlh O;fDr
dks fu;kstu esa j[kuk izekf.kr gh ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ek= 85 fnu dh fu'pr vof/k ds fy;s dh
xbZ Fkh ftlds volku ij izkFkhZ dh lsok Lor% lekIr gks xbZA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds varxZr
lsokeqfDr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 25 F, G vkSj H dk laj{k.k izkIr ugha gSA
mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukfdar fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;s%&
1- eS- gfj;k.kk LVsV F.C.C.W. LVksj fy- cuke jkefuokl o vU; 2002 ¼94½ FLR 618 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
2- eksgEen vyh cuke LVSV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k AIR 2018 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 2194
3- LVsV vkWQ mRrjk[k.M o vU; cuke Jherh lqjs'korh AIR 2021¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 923A
4- iksVjh etnwj iapk;r cuke n ijQsDV iksVjh daiuh fyfe- AIR 1979 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 1356
10- mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZ ,oa lk{; ij euu ds mijkar bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
1- D;k izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u fd;s
tkus ls lsokeqfDr voS/k gS\
--------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ dks dks lsok eqDr djus ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZ rFkk vU; Jfedksa dks
leku dk;Z gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k\
--------------izkFkhZ
3- D;k rfeyukMw VfeZusfVM QqyVkbZe VsEijsjh ,y-vkbZ-lh- ,EiykbZt ,slksfl;s’ku cuke ,y-vkbZ-lh- vkWQ bafM;k
ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; lqizhe dksVZ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k ds vuqlj.k esa izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk lsok esa vo'kksf"kr
fd;k tkuk v/;isf{kr gS\
--------------izkFkhZ
5410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4- D;k izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ,d fu’fpr vof/k gsrq fd;s tkus ls fu’fpr vof/k ds volku ij izkFkhZ dh lsok Lor%
lekIr gks xbZ\
-------------foi{kh
5- D;k bl vf/kdj.k dks dsUnz ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr jsQjsal vkns’k esa izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk LFkkbZ in ij
vo'kksf"kr ¼Absorb½ u fd;s tkus ds fcUnq dk ijh{k.k djus dk funsZ’k ugha fn;k x;k gS rFkk jsQjsal vkns'k
dh 'krksZ vkSj fuc/kuksa ls ijs U;k;fu.kZ;u djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr ugha gS\
-----------foi{kh
6- vuqrks"k\
11- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fofu’p; bl izdkj gS%&
12- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1 o 4%&
13- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 ds varxZr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk ikyu u fd;s tkus ds vk{ksi ij
lsokeqfDr dh izd`fr dk ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk gS tcfd fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 4 ds varxZr izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ,d
fu'fpr vof/k gsrq fd;s tkus ,oa mDr vof/k ds volku ij lsok Lor% lekIr gks tkus dk rdZ ijhf{kr fd;k
tkuk gSA bl izdkj ;s nksuksa gh fcUnq ijLij varjofyr gSaA blfy;s bu fcUnqvksa ij lk{; ,oa rdksZ ij foospu
,d lkFk fd;k tkuk gh mfpr gSA
14- izkFkhZ us vius eq[; ijh{k.k ¼'kiFk i=½ esa ;g dgk gS fd mls fnukad 23-04-1996 dks HkrhZ fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk
fnukad 16-07-1996 rd dk;Z djus ds mijkar fnukad 17-07-1996 dks foi{kh }kjk mls lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA
foi{kh }kjk lsok ls gVkus ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA fdarq izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ
/kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa ds laca/k esa viuh vufHkKrk O;Dr djrk gSA
15- bl lanHkZ esa ;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus ds fy;s ,d
Jfed }kjk ;g rF; izekf.kr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 B (2) (a) (ii) ds vuqlkj lsok
lekfIr frfFk ls iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa mlus 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA fdarq izkFkhZ Lo;a us vius
vfHkopuksa vkSj lk{; esa ;g rF; of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr ls iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa
240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gksA
16- ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ;ksa eksgEen vyh cuke LVSV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k o vU; rFkk LVsV vkWQ
mRrjk[k.M o vU; cuke Jherh lqjs'korh esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd fu;kstd ds v/khu 240 fnu dk;Z djus
ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus dk fl}hHkkj deZdkj ij gh gSA ;fn deZdkj ;g rF; izekf.kr ugha djrk gS rks
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k mls ns; ugha gksxkA
17- mi;qZDr rF;kred ,oa fof/kd ifjn`’; esa ;g Li"V :Ik ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu
lsokeqfDr ls iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha fd;k gSA blfy;s og vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku tSls laj{k.k dks izkIr
djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
18- blds vfrfjDr foi{kh dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS pawfd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr 23-04-1996 ls 16-07-1996 rd ,d fu'fpr
vof/k ¼85 fnu½ ds fy;s gh dh xbZ Fkh mldh lsok bl vof/k ds volku ij Lor% lekIr gks xbZA bl izdkj
;g lsokeqfDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds varxZr NaVuh dk viokn gSA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa
ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; eS- gfj;k.kk LVsV F.C.C.W. LVksj fy- cuke jkefuokl o vU; esa
ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc fy;k gSA bl fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd tc
lafonk ds v/khu fu;qfDr ,d fu'fpr@fof'"V vof/k ds fy;s gks rc lsok dk mn~s’; vFkok og vof/k iw.kZ gksus
ij deZdkj dh lsok lekfIr] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds varxZr NaVuh ugha gksrh rFkk /kkjk 25 F ds
izko/kkuksa ds vuqikyu dk volj gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA
19- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa izn'kZ W&2] ,y-vkbZ-lh- dk i= fnukad 16-07-1996 Lo;a iznf'kZr fd;k gSA bl i= esa
;g Li"V vafdr gS fd---
“vki dks vkt fnukad 16-07-
D;ksfd vki dks fnukad 23-04-1996 ls vkt fnukad 17-07-1996 dks 85 fnol iw.kZ gks pqds gSA”
;|fi mHk;i{k us izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr i= lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k gS fdarq izkFkhZ us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS
fd izn’kZ W&2] i= esa 85 fnu dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk lgh gSA bl LohdkjksfDr ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks 85 fnu
dh fu’fpr vof/k gsrq foi{kh }kjk lsok esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk Li"V gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds
izko/kkuksa ds varxZr fu'fpr vof/k ds volku ij gksus okyh lsokeqfDr NaVuh dh vioknkRed ifjfLFkfr gSA bl
izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fu’fpr vof/k ds mijkar Lor% gh gks tkus ds dkj.k NaVuh gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrhA
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5411
bl fLFkfr esa foi{khx.k }kjk lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dh vuqikyuk fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj
visf{kr ugha jgrkA vr% fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1 izkFkhZ ds fo:} ,oa fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&4 foi{kh ds i{k esa
fofu'pr fd;s tkrs gSA
20- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&2
21- izkFkhZ cuokjh yky us vius l'kiFk dFku esa dgk gS fd mls gVkus ls iwoZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZ rFkk mls
lsokeqDr djus ds ckn vU; Jfedksa dks HkrhZ fd;k x;k] vkSj u;s Jfedksa ls Hkh ogh dke fy;k tkrk gS tks dke
izkFkhZ djrk FkkA fdarq izfrijh{kk esa og dgrk gS fd mlus mu Jfedksa ds uke ugha fy[ks gS ftUgsa mlds ckn HkrhZ
fd;k x;kA mls lqjs'k lSuh dk uke ekywe gS] mls dc fu;qDr fd;k x;k mls irk ughaA mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ
,d nSfud osru Hkksxh fu'fpr vof/k ds fy;s fu;qDr deZdkj FkkA bl fLFkfr esa foi{khx.k }kjk Jfedksa dh fdlh
ofj"Brk lwph dk la/kkj.k djuk visf{kr ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk mlls dfu"Brj Jfedksa ds uke o vU; fooj.k&;Fkk
fu;qfDr frfFk] in uke vkfn of.kZr gh ugha fd;s x;s gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ ds vfu’fpr dFku ek= tks fdlh
izys[kh; lk{; ls Hkh iq"V ugha gS] fo’oluh; ugha yxrs gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd
foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 G, H ,oa fu;e 77] 78 ds izko/kkuksa dh fdlh izdkj vogsyuk dh gksA vr%
;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
22- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&3 o 5
23- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&3 ds varxZr izkFkhZ dks ;g izekf.kr djuk gS fd ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa
ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk lsok esa vo'kksf"kr@fu;fer ¼Absorb½ fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA
tcfd fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&5 ds varxZr foi{kh dks ;g izekf.kr djuk gS fd pwafd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk izsf'kr
jsQjsal vkns'k esa bl izdkj vo'kksf"kr fd;s tkus okys fcUnq mYysf[kr gh ugha gSa] blfy;s vf/kdj.k dks jsQjsal
vkns'k ls ijs tkdj U;k;fu.kZ;u dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA ;s nksuksa fcUnq ijLij varjofyr gSa] blfy;s bu
nksuksa fcUnqvksa ij rdksZ ,oa fof/k dk foospu ,d lkFk djrs gq;s fofu'fpr fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA
24- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ us ekSf[kd rdZ ds nkSjku izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G o H ds
izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku dks vk/kkj u cukrs gq;s ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; rfeyukMw izdj.k esa ikfjr fof/k
dk mYys[k djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ us fnukad 23-04-1996 ls 16-07-1996 rd 85 fnu foi{kh ds
v/khu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr dj fn;k gS rFkk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ekuuh;
mPPre U;k;ky; dks izsf’kr izfrosnu ds lkFk layXu ;ksX; deZdkjksa dh lwph esa izkFkhZ dk uke dze la[;k&460 ij
vafdr gSa] blfy;s izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds v/khu LFkkbZ in ij fu;fer :Ik ls fu;qDr fd;s tkus gsrq fopkfjr fd;k
tkuk pkfg;sA blds foijhr fo}ku vfHkHkk'kd foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd bl fookn esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk izsf'kr
jsQjsal vkns'k esa fnukad 17-07-1996 dks izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh oS/krk o vkSfpR; ds ijh{k.k ek= dk funsZ’k fn;k
x;k gSA bl vkns'k esa izkFkhZ ds LFkkbZ in ij fu;kstu@vo’kks"k.k ¼Absorbtion½ u fd;s tkus dk fcUnq
U;k;fu.kZ;u dk fo"k; ugha gS] u gh vf/kdj.k dks ,slk funsZ'k fn;k x;k gSA jsQjsal vkns'k esa of.kZr fcUnqvksa ls
fHkUu fdlh fcUnq ds U;k;fu.kZ;u dk vf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa
ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; iksVjh etnwj iapk;r cuke n ijQsDV iksVjh daiuh fyfe- o vU; dk
mYys[k fd;k gSA bl fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ¼4½ ,oa 15 ds varxZr
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds laca/k esa vf/ker izfrikfnr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
jsQjsal vkns'k dh 'krkasZ ,oa fcUnqvksa tks fd fof'k"V :Ik ls U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr gks rFkk mlls tqMs gq;s
ekeyksa ds U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq gh l{ke gSA mu 'krksZ ,oa fcUnqvksa ls ijs vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u dk
{ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA
25- eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ,oa miyC/k lk{; ij euu fd;kA
26- ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; us rfeyukMw izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- ua-&1] ubZ
fnYyh dks iszf"kr fuEukfdar fookn ds U;k;fu.kZ;u ds laca/k esa fof/k izfrikfnr dh gSA
ÞD;k ,y-vkbZ-lh- izca/ku }kjk ,y-vkbZlh-
deZdkjksa dks fnukad 20-05-
¼Absorb½ u djuk U;k;ksfpr gS& ugha
rks deZdkj D;k vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSAß
27- lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh }kjk bl fookn dks U;k;fu.khZr djrs gq;s ,y-vkbZ-lh- }kjk fnukad 20-05-1985
ds Ik'pkr cnyh@vLFkkbZ o va’kdkyhu deZdkjksa dks fuxe lsok esa vo'kksf"kr ¼Absorb½ u djus dks U;k;ksfpr
ugha ekuk Fkk rFkk ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; us rfeyukMw izdj.k okys fookn esa lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- }kjk ikfjr
vf/kfu.kZ; dks fof/kd :Ik ls mfpr ekuk o iq"V fd;k gSA ,y-vkbZ-lh- dks lanfHkZr deZdkjksa dks lsok esa LFkkbZ
inksa ij vo’kksf"kr djus dk vkns’k fn;k gSA fdarq gLrxr fookn esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk jsQjsal vkns'k esa izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 17-07-1996 dks foi{kh }kjk ukSdjh ls fudkys tkus ds d`R; dh oS/krk o vkSfpR; ds fcUnq ij U;k;fu.kZ;u
dk vkns'k fn;k gSA bl jsQjsal vkns’k esa izkFkhZ dks fdlh LFkkbZ in ij foi{kh }kjk vo'kksf"kr ¼Absorb½ u djus
ds fcUnq dh oS/krk dk ijh{k.k fd;s tkus dk funsZ’k lekfgr ugha gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a us Hkh vius lk{; ds 'kiFk i= esa
5412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mldh lsokeqfDr fnukad 17-07-1996 dks ek= vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G vkSj H rFkk fu;e 77] 78 dk
vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij gh voS/k gksuk dgk gSA izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks fdlh LFkkbZ in ij lsok esa
vo'kksf"kr djus gsrq fopkfjr fd;s tkus ,oa inLFkkfir fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k 'kiFk&i= esa ugha ekWxk gSA
28- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G vkSj H ds izko/kkuksa ds lE;d vuqikyu fd;s fcuk Jfed dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus
dk fcUnq rFkk foi{kh ds v/khu 85 fnu dk;Z djus ds vk/kkj ij fdlh in ij vo'kksf"kr ¼Absorb½ u fd;s tkus
ds fcUnq dk ijh{k.k Li"V :Ik ls lqfHkUu rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA iksVjh etnwj iapk;r cuke n ijQsDV iksVjh
daiuh fyfe- o vU; esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr ekxZn'kZu foi{kh ds rdZ dks iq"V djrk gSA bl
vf/kdj.k dks izkFkhZ }kjk 85 fnu dk;Z djus ij foi{kh dh lsok esa vo'kksf’kr u fd;s tkus ds fcUnq ds ijh{k.k dk
{ks=kf/kdkj jsQjsal vkns'k ds ek/;e ls ugha fn;k x;k gSA blfy;s 85 fnu dh lsok ds vk/kkj ij lsok esa
vo'kksf"kr u djus dk fcUnq jsQjsal vkns'k esa lekfgr u gksus ds dkj.k bl vf/kdj.k ds U;k;fu.kZ;u ds
{ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl vf/kdj.k dks jsQjsal vkns'k ds vuqlkj vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk foi{kh
}kjk ikyu u djrs gq;s lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds fcUnq dh oS/krk dk ijh{k.k visf{kr gSA bl foospu ds mijkar eSa
ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; }kjk rfeyukMw izdj.k esa ikfjr fof/k dks llEeku rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds
i{k esa lgk;d ugha ikrk gwWA vr% fcUnq la[;k&3 izkFkhZ ds fo:} ,oa fcUnq la[;k&5 foi{kh ds i{k esa fofu'pr
fd;s tkrs gSA
29- vuqrks"k%&
30- mi;qZDr foospu ds Ik'pkr fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1] 2 o 3 izkFkhZ ds fo:} ,oa fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&4 ,oa 5
foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofu'fpr gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnukad 17-07-1996 vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh
izko/kku ds fo:} ugha ik;h xbZ gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ] foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
31- lanfHkZr fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
32- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh
tkosA
33- U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 10-10-2024 dks lquk;k x;kA
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2301.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससड जबरला कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री उमेि कुमार गौतम के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट
केन्री
सरकार
औद्योजगक
अजिकरण
एवं
श्रम
न् ा ाल ,
िबलपुर,
पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स
न.- सीिीआईटी/एलसी/आर/50/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 29012-38-2018-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. CGIT/LC/R/50/2018) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Birla Corporation Limited and Shri Umesh Kumar Gautam which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-29012-38-2018-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5413
Umesh Kumar Gautam,
S/o Sh. Bhagwandeen Gautam,
R/o Udhvdham Kotar, Tehsil-Kotar,
District – Satna (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
1. The Vice President-HR,
M/s Birla Corporation Limited,
Unit: Satna Cement Works,
Post – Birla Vikas, Satna (MP)-485005
2. The Manager Mines,
M/s Birla Corporation Limited,
Unit: Satna Cement Works,
Post – Birla Vikas, Satna (MP)-485005
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 8th day of November-2024)
As per letter dated 25.10.2018 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-
29012/38/2018-IR(M) dt. 25.10.2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“प्रबंिन वाइस प्रेसीडेंट-एचआर, जबरला कापोरेिन जलजमटेड, ूजनट सतना जिला सतना, मध्
प्रिेि/माइन्स मजनेिर, जवरला कापोरेिन जलजमटेड, ूजनट सतना, मध् प्रिेि श्री उमेि कुमार गौतम आत्मि श्री
भगवानिीन गौतम, भूतपूवड टाईमकीपर, माइन्स टाईम ऑदफस को जन ुजक्त पत्र दिनांक 17.09.2012 के तित
प्रजिक्षु के तौर पर जन ोजित कर उसकी जन ोिन की अवजि सम -सम पर बढ़ाते हु े चार साल सेवा में र ने
के पश्चात उसकी सेवाएं दिनांक 01.10.2016 से समाप्त दक े िाने की का डवािी न् ा ोजचत िज? दि निीं तो,
संबंजित आवेिक दकस अनुतोष के िकिार िज?”
After registering case on the basis of the reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and
filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
According to the Workman, he was appointed by Management as Time-Keeper on 17/09/2012 and was
posted in Satna Cement Works Mines Time-Office at Satna (MP). He worked continuously till 13/10/2016 and was
illegally terminated from services under an oral order of Management which is in violation of Section 25 (F) and 25
(N) of the Act. He was not issued any notice nor was given any compensation on termination of his services by
Management. The Workman has thus prayed that, holding the termination of his services by Management unjust in
law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
Case of Management, in short, is that the Workman was a Learner who was appointed as Apprentice by
Management on 17/09/2012. According to the terms of appointment, this Apprenticeship was for One year which
could be extended further. It is further the case of Management that, his Apprenticeship was extended vide orders
dated 03/10/2013, 06/10/2014 and 01/10/2015 on his request on compassionate grounds to enable him to get more
experience to start a job anywhere else. Hence, being Apprentice is not a Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of
5414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Act. Hence, he is not entitled to protection of Section 25 (F) and 25 (N) of the Act accordingly. Management has
prayed that the reference be answered against the Workman.
Both the sides have filed affidavits as their examination-in-chief and have been cross-examined by their
opposite party.
The Workman side has filed and proved documents Exhibits W-1 to W-4 which are letters of Engagement
of Workman as Apprentice and his extension as Apprentice as well the details regarding his salary slips.
The Management has filed and proved the first appointment letter and letters regarding extension of
Apprenticeship of the Workman up to 2016 which are Exhibits M-1 to M-4.
I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel Shri Praveen Yadav for Workman and Shri R.B. Tiwari for
Management. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of referred arguments, the following issue comes up for determination.
1-Whether, the Workman is a workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of the Act?
2- Whether the disengagement of the workman is retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Act?
Issue No -1 :-
Section 2 (s) which defines Workman is being reproduced as follows :-
(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem
or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him,
functions mainly of a managerial nature.
As it clear from perusal of the aforesaid provisions it does not exclude Apprentice or Trainees from being a
Workman as defined under the Act. Hence, the Workman is held to be a Workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of
the Act.
As regards, the issue regarding the legality of termination of the Workman by Management, it is admitted
between the parties that he worked for 240 days continuously in very year including the year presiding the date of his
termination. Now, the question arises when admittedly the Workman was not issued any notice nor was given any
compensation before termination of his services, will this action of Management be called just and legal?
Issue No -2:-
On this issue, the Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that termination of his services is under a
contract; hence, his case will not be retrenched as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Act. Section 2 (oo) of the act is
being reproduced as follows-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5415
2(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between
the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or 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;
Learned Counsel for Management further submits that there is a scheme for training to Apprentice and for
matters connected there with, which is enforced since 01/04/1993. According to this scheme, Management engages
Apprentices who learn the job as a Trainee and initially the period of Apprenticeship is for one year which could be
extended till 3 year or even up to 4 years on the request of the Candidate on compensation ground frivolously on
humanitarian consideration. The relevant provisions of the scheme referred to by the Learned Counsel for
Management is being reproduced as follows:-
“Apprentice means a Learner who is undergoing Apprenticeship training in the establishment in
pursuance of terms of the engagement letter issued to him under this scheme”.
Conditions of Training:
The training shall ordinarily be for the period mentioned in the schedule but for any kind of job requiring
specialized skills, the period may be even more but the total period may not exceed 4 years. But on request of the
candidate, the period could further be extended on compassionate ground frivolously on humanitarian
consideration.
This is also mentioned in the scheme that an Apprentice undergoing training in the establishment shall be a
trainee and not a Workman. Further, the scheme provides that after completion of training, it shall not be obligatory
on the part of Employer to offer employment to the Apprentice nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the Apprentice
to accept an employment under the Employer.
Section 4 of the Apprentice Act, 1961, requires to be referred here and being reproduced as follows:-
Section 4 Contract of Apprenticeship
1) No person shall be engaged as an Apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in a designated trade
unless such person or, if he is a miner, his guardian has entered into a contract of Apprenticeship with
the employer.
2) The Apprenticeship training shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which the contract of
Apprenticeship has been entered into under sub-section (1).
3) Every contract of Apprenticeship may contain such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the
parties to the contract.
Section 22 is also being reproduced as follows:-
Section 22 – offer an acceptance of employment-
(1) It shall not be obligatory on the part of the Employer to offer any employment to any
Apprentice who has completed the period of his Apprenticeship training in his Establishment,
nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the Apprentice to accept an employment under the
Employer.
5416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The documents relating engagement of the Workman and his extension as engagement established that he
was engaged as an Apprentice and his apprenticeship was extended from time to time total period up to 4 years. It is
in the statement of the Workman that he used to do the work of a Time-Keeper regular period but only this fact that
work of Regular Time-Keeper was taken by Management from him will not grant him status of Regular Employed
Employee he be still be an Apprentice i.e. a Learner.
This is also established that in the Standing Orders as well as in the Training Scheme mentioned as above,
the Management is not under obligation to offer regular appointment to an Apprentice and also that his disengagement
was after expiry of period mentioned in the letter extending his contract of engagement hence, his termination cannot
be held to be retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Act. Accordingly, the Workman will not be entitled
to protection of Section 25 (F) and 25 (N) of the Act consequently the disengagement of the Workman by
Management in the case in hand is held not unjust in law.
On the basis of above discussion, the reference deserves to be answered against the Workman as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of Management Vice President-HR in terminating the services of Workman Umesh
Kumar Gautam from 01/10/2016 just and legal, the Workman is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 08/11/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2302.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री लोट्टापल्ली नागालक्ष्मा ि के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 20/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड – 16025-04-2024-आईआर (एम) -151]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2014) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Lottapalli Nagalaxmaiah which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. Z-16025-04-2024-IR (M)-151]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 10th day of December, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 20/2014
Between:
Sri Lottapalli Nagalaxmaiah,
S/o Guruvulu,
R/o H.No.14-275, New Masid Bazar.
Gurajala Post and Mandal,
Guntur district.
..….Petitioner
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5417
AND
1.
The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Kennedy Road,
Machilipatnam
2.
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
67G, Gurazala,
Guntur District.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri M V L Narsaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri G. Sriram, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Lottapalli Nagalaxmaiah who worked as temporary sub-staff has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Life Insurance Corporation of India seeking for
reinstatement /regularization into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service,
back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
Case is fixed for cross examination of WW1. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not produce the
witness WW1 for cross examination. In the absence of cross examination of witness the chief evidence of the
Petitioner is not relevant and admissible as per rule of evidence. Therefore, in facts and circumstances, the claim of
the Petitioner is not substantiated by any cogent and relevant evidence, hence, ‘No claim’ Award is passed. Petition
is dismissed. Transmit.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th day
of December, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2303.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री के व िनुमान ना क के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 22/2014)
को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024
को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड – 16025-04-2024-आईआर (एम) -152]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
5418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2014) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Kethavath Hanuman Nayak which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. Z-16025-04-2024-IR (M)-152]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 10th day of December, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 22/2014
Between:
Sri Kethavath Hanuma Nayak,
S/o Sankar Nayak,
R/o H.No.1-201, Andhra Bank Lane,
Balaji Nagar, Gurajala Post and Mandal,
Guntur District.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Kennedy Road,
Machilipatnam.
2. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
67G, Gurazala,
Guntur District.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri M V L Narsaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri G. Sriram, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Kethavath Hanuma Nayak who worked as temporary sub-staff has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Life Insurance Corporation of India seeking for
reinstatement /regularization into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service,
back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2. Case is fixed for cross examination of WW1. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not produce the
witness WW1 for cross examination. In the absence of cross examination of witness the chief evidence of the
Petitioner is not relevant and admissible as per rule of evidence. Therefore, in facts and circumstances, the claim of
the Petitioner is not substantiated by any cogent and relevant evidence, hence, ‘No claim’ Award is passed. Petition
is dismissed. Transmit.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th day
of December, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5419
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2304.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ू. वेंकट रमण, मिासजचव, ऑल
इंजड ा नेिनल एम्प्लाइि' फेडरेिन (इंटक) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 21/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 17012-21-2018-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri U. Venkata Ramana, General Secretary,
All India National Life Insurance Employees’ Federation (INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-17012-21-2018-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar,
Presiding Officer
21st day of November, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2019
Between:
Sri U. Venkata Ramana,
General Secretary,
All India National Life Insurance Employees’
Federation (INTUC), Machilipatnam Division,
70530, Gudugupet, Turlapati Vari Street,
Machilipatnam-521001.
-- Petitioner Union(s)
AND
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam
A.P. -521001.
-- Respondent
5420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance:
For the Petitioner
:
Sri Y. Ranjit Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent
: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi by its order No.L-17012/21/2018-
IR(M) dated 10.1.2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication
between the management of LIC of India and their workman, whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the
dispute i.e.,
“Whether the action of management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
Machilipatnam, has committed unfair labour practice prescribed under Item 11 of Part-I of the Fifth Schedule, the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 by instituting disciplinary Procedure under the LIC of India (Staff) regulation, 1960
against Sri U. Venkata Ramana, Higher Grade Assistant and withholding his promotion in sealed cover?
After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No. 21/2019 in this Tribunal and notices were
issued to both the parties and secured their presence.
2. During pendency of proceeding, Petitioner filed memo with a prayer that he wants to withdraw the ID case
for pursuing his writ petition before Hon’ble High Court which at final stage of hearing. Respondent has no
objection. Hence, petition filed by Petitioner to withdraw the ID is allowed. The reference is thus disposed of.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant corrected and signed by me on this the
21st day of November, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2305.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार नई इंजड ा असुरेन्स कंपनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री जवक्रम बिाि के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , चंडीगढ़-1, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 155/2013) को िजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 17012-12-2011-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 155/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to New India Assurance Company Limited and Shri Vikram Bajaj which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-17012-12-2011-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5421
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.155/2013
Registered On: 18.02.2014
Vikram Bajaj S/o Sh. Jas Raj Bajaj, Kailash Nagar, Street No.4, Fazilka Tehsil Fazilka, Distt. Ferozpu r (Punjab).
...........Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Fazilka, Distt. Ferozpur (Punjab).
........Management
Award
Passed On: 16.12.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-17012/12/2011-IR(M) dated 27.01.2014, under clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether Shri Vikram Bajaj S/o Sh. Jas Raj Bajaj has completed 240 days of continuous service in a
year in the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Fazilka? If yes, whether the action
of the said management in terminating the services of Shri Vikram Bajaj w.e.f. 05.11.2010 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. After receipt of above reference claim petition was filed on 02.05.2014. Reply/ Written Statement filed by
Respondent/ Management on 15.09.2014. Evidence of Workman recorded and closed on 04.05.2016. After
recording of evidence of workman, he became absent and left taking proper steps. Ultimately a notice was
sent to workman under registered cover, which was served on 21.11.2024. Despite the service of notice
workman did not turn up.
2. Perused the file and it is found that none is appearing on behalf of workman. Several opportunities have already
been given to the workman but of no use. appears the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is
passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
3. 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, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2306.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससड गुिरात अम्बुिा सीमेंट जलजमटेड; मेससड नीम चंि कांरेक्टर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री संिीव
कुमार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , चंडीगढ़-1, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 01/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड – 16025-04-2024-आईआर (एम) -153]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited; M/s Neem Chand Contractor and Shri Sanjeev
Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. Z-16025-04-2024-IR (M)-153]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
5422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 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.01/2023
Registered On:- 13.04.2023
Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Chand R/o VPO Parnoo, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
General Manager M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd., House Unit Sub-Station No.3 Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki,
District Solan, H.P.
2.
M/s Neem Chand Contractor S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Village Bhurjani, PO Bhrarighat, Tehsil Arki, Distt.
Solan, H.P.
........Respondents
Award
Passed On:-18.12.2024
1. Present Industrial Dispute has arisen on the basis of claim petition filed by workman Sh. Sanjeev Kumar under
Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 wherein a prayer to reinstate the workman with all back
wages with interest @20% per annum and other consequential benefits has been made. As per the claim
petition the workman was appointed in the Month of January, 2010 in the production Branch of Respondent
No.1- the Principal Employer and through respondent No.2- the contractor and he worked there till July,
2021. It was alleged in the claim petition that without giving any notice required under the provisions of
Industrial Dispute Act, he was verbally terminated from the services. It was also stated that respondent did
not pay the salary of Month of July, 2021.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing written statement by
Respondents No.1 & 2.
3. Today on 18.12.2024 photocopy of compromise dated 17.12.2024 entered into between Respondent No.2 M/s
Neem Chand Contractor through its Sole Proprietor Sh. Neem Chand and workman Sh. Sanjeev Kumar has been filed
by Ld. AR for Workman. This compromise is taken on the record. As per compromise the respondent No.2 has been
given fresh appointment to the workman and the workman is agreed to join from 01.04.2025 as Attendant Coal
Tippler at the same rate/ Facility provided to supply workers. It has been further agreed between the parties that
workman shall withdraw the present ID Case No.01/2023 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Vs M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement
and another.
4. It has been urged by Ld. AR. Sh. B.R. Sharma for Workman that since grievance of workman is settled now no
more dispute remains to be decided in the present case and he gave a statement before this Court stating therein that
as instructed by workman he was placing on record the compromise dated 17.12.2024 and upon instruction by the
Workman he is withdrawing the present claim petition as per terms of compromise deed. It is further stated in the
statement recorded today that workman reserves the liberty to revive the present petition before this Tribunal if the
respondent No.2 fails to act in terms of compromise.
5. Considering the statement of Sh. B.R. Sharma AR for Workman and the compromise entered into between
respondent No.2 and Workman, as prayed, present claim petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to revive
the petition if respondent No.2 fails to act in terms of compromise dated 17.12.2024.
6. In view of the above the Industrial Dispute is disposed off in terms of compromise dated 17.12.2024 with a
liberty to the workman to revive the same if need be.
7. Since the Ld. Counsel of Workman has withdrawn the present case, therefore there is no need to proceed in the
case further.
8. 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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5423
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2307.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससड सेसा माइसनंग कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और एम्प्लाइि' ूजन न ऑफ़ सेसा
माइसनंग कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , मुंबई-
2, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 12/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 29011-5-2020-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 12/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Mumbai-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Sesa Mining Corporation Limited and Employees' Union of Sesa Mining Corporation Limited
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-29011-5-2020-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/12 of 2020
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. SESA MINING CORPORATION LTD.
The Director (HR),
M/s. Sesa Mining Corporation Ltd,
Bicholim Iron Ore Mine,Dhabdhaba,
Bicholim, Goa 403504.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
(EMPLOYEES’ UNION OF SESA MINING
CORPORATION LTD.)
The General Secretary,
Employees’ Union of Sesa Mining Corporation,
C/o NileshKarbotkar, Sesa Mining Corporation,
G Dhabdhaba,Bicholim, Goa, 403504.
APPEARANCES:
Party No. 1
:
Mr. Bandodkar
Advocate
Party No. 2
:
Mr. P. Gaonkar
Representative
5424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Camp Goa
(Delivered on 27-11-2024)
1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of
Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-29011/5/2020-IR(M) dated 10.07.2020. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows:
1. “Whether the action of Sesa Mining Corporation Limited not paying the partial arrears as per settlement citing
the closure of mining operations is legal?
2. If it is illegal, what relief the workers eligible and from which date they are eligible?”
2. Read pursis Ex-5, submitted by the counsel for the Second Party. Perused the say given on behalf of the First
Party. Heard both the sides.
It seems that, the present matter has been settled amicably between the parties and the issue concerned in the
Reference has also been settled therefore, the First Party has given no objection for disposal of the Reference in terms
of settlement. The other side has no objection for the disposal of the Reference.
In view of this, the Reference is disposed off as settled. No order as to costs. The proceeding is closed.
Hence, I pass the following Order-
ORDER
i. The Reference is answered in the negative.
ii. The Second Party is not entitled for relief as prayed.
iii. No order as to costs.
iv. The copy of Award be sent to the Government.
Date: 27-11-2024
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2308.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार ए रपोटड ऑ ोररटी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और इंजड न ए रपोटड कामगार ूजन न
(आईएके ू) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली-2, पंचाट
(ररफरेन्स न.- 88/2016 कम्प न. 06/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड – 16025-04-2024-आईआर (एम) -153]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 88/2016 & Comp. No. 06/2017) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to Airports Authority of India and Indian Airport Kamgar Union
(IAKU) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. Z-16025-04-2024-IR (M)-153]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
ID.No. 88/2016
Through-The General Secretary,
Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU),
B-140, Pocket-A, INA Colony,
New Delhi-110023.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5425
Comp. No. 06/2017
Indian Airports Kamgar Union,
Through it’s General Secretary,
B-140, Pocket-A, INA Colony,
New Delhi.
VERSUS
The Chairman,
Airports Authority of India,
Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjang Airport,
New Delhi-110003.
Appearance
For claimant: None
For respondent: Sh. Vaibhav Kalra and Ms. Neha Bhatnagar, Ld. ARs
AWARD
These are the two cases filed by the same workmen against the same respondent. One is the reference sent by
the appropriate government and the other has been filed U/s 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter
refered as an Act). Having common respondent and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for
disposing off their cases.
Now, come to first case i.e. ID No. 88/2016, where the appropriate Government has sent the reference refer
dated 28.11.2016 to this tribunal for adjudication in the following words:
“Whether the action on the part of the management of Airport Authority of India in not framing and
implementation of transfer/posting policy and introduction of Staff Quarter Rules as per the provisions of
AAI Act, 1994, is legal and justified? If not, what relief are the employees entitled to?”
After receiving the said reference, notice was issued to both the parties. Both the parties have appeared.
Claimant/union has filed the claim statement, stating that climant union is a registered Trade Union under the Trade
Unions Act 1926, operating in the establishments of Airports Authority of India (hereinafter called as Authority)
representing more than 5200 workers of AAI throughout the country and has been acting and functioning for the
welfare and interest of the employees of Airports Authority of India. G. A. Rudrappa is General Secretary of the
Claimant Union and authorized to file the present Statement of Claim. Respondent management, Airports Authority
of India, is a Public Sector statutory Autonomous Undertaking created through an Act of Parliament i.e. Airports
Authority of India Act, 1994. Respondent is responsible for creating, developing, upgrading, maintaining and
managing Airports and Air space and navigation and landing parking of aircrafts in India. Management had framed
the Transfer Policy from 01.03.2000 for its employees without following established procedure of law. On
23.05.2003, management had framed the Airports Authority of India (General Condition of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 also without following the established procedure of law. The
Airports Authority of India have been created through Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 by repealing two pre-
existing Acts i.e. International Airports Authority Act, 1971 and National Airports Authority Act, 1985, thereby by
merging two erstwhile Authorities which were called International Airports Division (IAD) and National Airports
Division (NAD). The workmen of these two divisions were being governed by their independent service regulations
and as per section 18(2) of the AAI Act the officers and employees were supposed to be governed by the service
regulations of the AAI. Hence, these employees of IAD and NAD continued to be governed by the service regulations
of erstwhile authorities even after one year as mandated U/s 18(7) of AAI Act. The petitioner union submitted a letter
to the management on 15.04.2014 to frame a legally valid Transfer Policy, stating that there is no legally valid
Transfer Policy framed as mandated under section 42 of the Act. The Petitioner also stated therein that the transfer of
the employees are being made in a very arbitrary and unlawful manner and consequently Industrial disputes are being
raised one after another, resulting in a wastage of resources. Furthermore, it was stated that clause 7 of the Airports
Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration) 2003, provided for the transfer of employees
anywhere in India, though Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration) 2003 is also
neither a legally valid nor a legally valid Transfer Policy of the Respondent and same is pending for adjudication in a
dispute before Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Karkardooma Court Complex, New Delhi. Petitioner
Union also wrote a letter to Respondent on 12.05.2014 citing the glaring issues involving the Transfer Policy of the
Respondent. It was stated that on one hand Respondent had circulated a Transfer Policy vide letter dated 25.11.1999
and on other hand continued to apply pre-merger Transfer Policy of International Airports Authority of India vide
5426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
order dated 26.08.2002. On 12.09.2014, the petitioner union sent a notice of strike to the respondent stating that
respondent is paying no heed to demand of petitioner to frame a legally valid, just and fair Transfer Policy and Staff
Quarter Allotment Rules. Petioner workman submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 8923/2015
in Indian Airports Kamgar Union (Petitioner union) V/s Airports Authority of India & Ors in the writ petition filed by
the petitioner union praying for directions for preventing the respondents from giving effect to the order of transfer of
Sh. G. Venkataswamy, branch Secretary of the petitioner union, order without obtaining permission of Hon’ble
Tribunal, in violation of Section 33 of the I.D Act, 1947, since there was an Industrial Dispute pending before the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal related to the justifiability of the process of transfer adopted by the Transfer
Committee and that too when G. Venkataswamy was a protected workman. It was pronounced by the Hon’ble Madras
High Court in the judgment that the employee was a protected workman, It was pronounced by the Hon'ble Madras
High Court in the Judgment that the employee was a protected workman, and this issue was directly related to the
dispute which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, and therefore, the management was mandatorily required to
seek approval from the Tribunal before effecting the transfer of the employee. Petitioner Union had filed an
application on 15.12.2015 for declaration of its Office Bearers as Protected Workmen for the year 2015-16 and
submitted that they had sent an application to management on 10.03.2015, but the management failed to declare the
office bearers as protected workmen within 15 days of the receipt of the list. Sh. Tej Bahadur, the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, passed order on 15.12.2015 for declaration of 48 office bearers as protected workmen including Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Singh. Petitioner union had sent a notice of Agitation including strike dated 25.05.2016 to management
stating that respondent had transferred 146 workers vide its office order F No. AAI/AT/FS/F-60/2016-EW/1569-1614
dated 20.05.2016 and vide another order No.AAI/RHQ-NR/AT/FS-60/Attachment/ EW/ 2016/1555-1568 dated
20.05.2016 had transferred workers for four months on an attachment basis, and these orders are based on whims and
fancies and indicative of malpractices and were contrary to even illegal Transfer Policy of respondent. He submitted
that there was no provision for posting of any worker on attachment basis to a different establishment located
distantly without payment of TA/DA for the period of attachment, protected workmen were being transferred during
the pendency of conciliation and adjudication proceedings regarding the issue of Transfer Policy in violation of Sectin
33 of the Act. on 20.06.2016 Sh. Yashpal Tyagi, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) sent a letter stating that
conciliation proceedings have taken place regarding the dispute between the management and the petitioner Union In
regard to strike notice dated 23.09.2014, the Hunger Strike from 06.10.2014 and the indefinite strike from 13.10.2014.
it was stated that the dispute pertaining to framing and introduction of legally valid and just Transfer Policy and staff
Quarter Rule in accordance with established procedure of law i.c. as per provision of either as per section 42 of the
Act or Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act remained unresolved and hence the conciliation proceeding ended
in failure on 03.05.2016. Respondent management on 23.06.2016 sent a letter to the ALC (C) stating that regarding
the protected workmen, the Respondent management had requested to the petitioner Union to forward some document
in order to examine the issue regarding declaration of protected workmen for the year 2016-17. Petitioner Union
during the conciliation proceedings on 04.07.2016 produced the Judgementdated 01.12.2015 of the Madras High
court, passed in a similar case for declaration of protected workmen. The petitioner Union contended that the
Respondent management had not responded to their request for declaration of protected workmen within 15 days
from the date of submission of the request, and therefore all the workmen were deemed to be protected workmen as
per list. It was recorded that Respondent management had issued a transfer order naming three of workmen from the
list of protected workmen including Mr. Sanjay Kumar singh-1. Petitioner Union sent a letter dated 26.07.2016 to the
ALC (C) stating inter alia that the list of the office bearers of the Union to be declared protected workmen had been
sent to the Respondent management vide letter dated 10.03.2016 and since the management had raised no objection
within 15 days from the date of receipt of the list, the listed workmen stood automatically recognized as protected
workmen. The Petitioner Union also reaffirmed that a dispute on the issue of protected workmen under Rule 61 (4) of
the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 had been raised and was pending before the ALC (C). Respondent
management had transferred three deemed protected workmen including Sanjay Kumar Singh, Rajwinder Singh and
Lakhbir Singh during pendency of the dispute. Respondent management sent a letter dated 03.08.2016 stating therein
that Sanjay Kumar Singh-1 should be relieved from Varansi with immediate effeet, with the instructions to report to
Amritsar. That on same day the Petitioner Union sent a letter to the Respondent management that any further order
passed for transfer of Sanjay Kumar Singh, otherwise would amount to unfair labour practice under provisions of I.D.
Act, 1947, but, respondent denied to pass any further order for transfer of Sanjay Kumar Singh, submitted that as per
transfer policy only eight workmen were declared as protected workmen and only the workmen from recognized
union were given exemption from transfer and there was no exemption to protect workmen of an unrecognized uion.
Respondent management ought to abide by the Section 33 (3) of the I.D Act, 1947, which prohibits alteration of the
conditions of service of a protected workman during the pending conciliation proceeding. Respondent management
was directed by the conciliation officer to submit its final stand. It has been decided to defer the relieving order dated
03.08.2016 till further orders. Conciliation proceeding was resulted into failure. Hence, he has filed the claim before
this Tribunal with the prayer to direct management to frame proper Transfer Policy and Staff Quarter Rules as per the
provisions of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994.
Respondent has filed the WS. He denied the averment made in his claim statement. He submits that claim
petition is devoid of merit as it raised by un-recognised union of the management. He also submits that claim is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5427
After completion of the pleadings, following issues has been framed vide order dated 09.10.2018 i.e.:-
1. Whether the claim is not legally tenable in view of the various preliminary objections?
2. In terms of the reference.
Now, come to the second case i.e. Composite No. 06/2017 where the workman have stated that management
of authority have attempted to change the condition of service of Office Bearers, of the claimant Union, namely Sh.
Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sr. Supdt. (FS), the Branch Secretary of the claimant Union at Varanasi from Varanasi to
Amritsar, Sh. Rajvinder Singh, Sr. Supdt. (FS), the Organising Secretary at Amritsar from Amritsar and Sh. Lakhbir
Singh, Sr. Supdt. (FS), Branch Vice President, Amritsar, from Amritsar to Dehradun Airport are neither routine
transfer nor on the basis of any exigency.
As per provision of Section 33 of the Act during pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a
Conciliation Officer or a Board or any proceedings before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect
of Industrial Dispute, no employer shall change condition of service without express written permission of the
Authority before which proceedings are pending. Management of Authority is attempting to change the condition of
service of workmen.
After completion of the pleadings of Section 33, following issues has been framed vide order dated
09.10.2018 i.e.:
1. Whether action of the management in transferring the office bearers of the claimant union namely Sanjay Kumar
Singh-1, Rajvinder Singh, Lakhbir Singh From Amritsar to Dehradun and relieving order dated 25.10.2016 of Sh.
Sanjay Kumar Singh-1, amount to unfair labour practice and are in violation of the provisions of the ID Act.
2. If so, to what relief the claimants are entitled to?
These cases are listed for cross-examination of the witness whose affidavit had already been filed, however, since
long, nobody has been appearing on behalf of the claimant to substantiate their claim. Counsel for the respondent had
stated that the Ld. Additional District Judge vide order dated 25.02.2022 had restrained the witness Mr. Rudrappa
from using in any manner the letter head, stamps, seals, logo and the name of the plaintiff union in respect of
business/affairs/activities of the said union. He further submits that since then, neither the AR of the claimant union
has been appearing nor produced any witness.
In view of the facts on record that claimants have not been appearing since then to substantiate their claim. Their
claim has been resulted into failure. Consequent thereto, their claim stand dismissed. Awards are accordingly passed.
Copies of these awards are sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the
ID act 1947. Files are consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.
Date: 20.11.2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2309.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार ए र इंजड ा, आईिीआई ए रपोटड टर्मडनल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री जवश्राम मीना द्वारा आल
इंजड ा सेंरल पीडब्लूडी (एमआरएम) कमडचारी संग न के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली-2, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 90/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती
िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड – 16025-04-2024-आईआर (एम) -154]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 90/2014) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Air India, IGI Airport Terminal and Shri Vishram Meena through All India Central
PWD (MRM) Employees Association which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. Z-16025-04-2024-IR (M)-154]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
5428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. NO. 90/2014
Sh. Vishram Meena and Sh. Moti Lal Meena, S/o Sh. Nanag Ram Meena, (Loader),
Through General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Redg),
House No. 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, Delhi-110032.
Versus
1. The General Manager,
Air India, IGI Airport Terminal No.-2, New Delhi.
Appearance:
For Claimants: Manish Kumar and Sh. Animesh Verma, Ld. ARs with the claimant Sh. Vishram Meena.
Managements: V.P. Gaur, Ld. AR for the management.
AWARD
This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by
Sh. Vishram Meena and 07 others including Sh. Moti Lal Meena for reinstatement in their respective services. Sh.
Moti Lal Meena S/o Sh. Nanak Ram Meena was appointed as a Loader with above management w.e.f. 18.03.1998
and his services were terminated by the management w.e.f. 10.06.1998. They had filed an Industrial Disputes before
the Hon’ble Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi for reinstatement. During the course of hearing on
09.03.2004, the management had agreed to reinstate the services of the workmen subject to availability of sanctioned
posts and the workmen were also given the liberty that if their services are not regularized within the reasonable time,
workmen will be free to approach the competent judiciary for reinstatement of their services. Out of eight workmen
two workman Sh. Ram Lakhan Meena and Sh. Ram Prasad Meena have died and Sh. Gopal Prasad Meena have been
appointed as Teacher under Rajasthan Government, Sh. Shiv Lal Meena have been appointed by Post Office in
Rajasthan, Sh. Goyla Ram Meena have got a govt. job at TJ Airport, Jaipur and Sh. Shiv Charan Meena have also
been appointed as Motor Lorry Driver with Rajasthan Police. Only two workmen Sh. Vishram Meena and Moti Lal
Meena are still unemployed. These two workmen are in regular touch with the management and verbally requesting
them since long for reinstatement of their services but the management is not entertaining them. The workman Sh.
Moti Lal Meena has sent his representation to the management on 28.02.2014 but, no reply has been given by the
management till date. These workmen belong to the poor family and Schedule Tribe. The Junior workman connected
to this case i.e. Sh. Banwari Lal Meena, Chottey Lal Meena, Chutan Lal Meena and Sh. Hem Raj Meena are still
working there. That to employ the junior workmen and terminate the services of senior workman is severe violation
of provisions of the ID Act, 1947 and also comes under the definition of unfair labour practices. The management had
not given any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of their termination. The
workmen have again filed their case before the appropriate authority on 11.06.2014, but, it was resulted into failure.
Hence, they have filed the present claim.
W.S has been filed by the respondent. He denied the averment made in his claim statement. He also
submitted that in the statement of claim prayer mentioned therein is in respect of Sh. Motilal Meena and the same has
also been signed by the same person but, in the contents of this statement claim at various places, Sh. Vishram
Meena’s name is appearing as one of the claimants. The statement of claim has also not been signed by Sh. Vishram
Meena. He has submitted that claims are liable to be dismissed.
After completion of the pleadings, following issues has been framed vide order dated 25.02.2016 i.e.:
1. Whether the workman Sh. Moti Lal Meena is entitled to be reinstated from date of his termination of his
services with full back wages? If so its effect?
2. Whether the workman Sh. Moti Lal Meena had completed 240 days in calendar year during the tenure of
service? If so its effect?
3. Whether there is relationship of workman of the management between the employee and employer? If
so its effect?
4. Whether the workman Moti Lal Meena was casual labour for short period due to exigency of the work
by the management.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5429
5. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
Evidence of WW1 i.e. Sh. Moti Lal Meena and MW1 i.e. Ms. Rachna Aarya have been concluded and their
examination have also been done. Now, the matter is listed for argument.
I have heard the argument on behalf of both the parties at bar. At that time of argument, this tribunal found
that this claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2014, much beyond the period of limitation prescribed
U/s 2-A (3). Before we proceed further, it is necessary to produce the text of section 2-A:
“2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- [(1)] where any
employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any
dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other
workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
(2) Not withstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may,
make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein
after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the
appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or
Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by
the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this act and all the provisions of this act shall
apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the
appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as
specified in sub-section (1).
A perusal of the aforesaid section would go to show that a dispute connected with or arising out of discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of the workman can be directly agitated by workman U/s
2-A of the act and it is not necessary that such disputes should be sponsored by the trade union or a substantial
number of workmen. However, what is required is that workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or
terminated as specified in sub-section (1) of section 2-A can make an application directly to Labour Court or Tribunal
for adjudication of his individual dispute after expiry of 45 days from the date he has made an application to
conciliation officer of appropriate government for conciliation of dispute. Sub-section 3 of section 2-A lay down the
time limit for making such application to Labour Court or the tribunal. It provides that such application to Labour
Court or tribunal shall be made before expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
otherwise termination of services as specified in sub-section-1. This right is available to the workman without any
effect upon remedy available in section 10 of the act.
Here admittedly, workmen had filed their claim in the year 2014 after more than 16 years of their termination
which is beyond the prescribed limit for filing the claim U/s 2(A) of the I.D Act. Hence, claim petition stands
dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification
as required U/s 17 of the I.D Act. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date 23th October, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2310.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससड दिल्ली इंटरनेिनल ए रपोटड प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससड आकांक्षा ग्लोबल लोजिजस्ट्टक्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती ि ावती के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली-2, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 42/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती
िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड – 16025-04-2024-आईआर (एम) -155]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 42/2017) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Delhi International Airport Private Limited; M/s Akanksha Global Logistics
5430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Private Limited and Smt. Dayawati which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. Z-16025-04-2024-IR (M)-155]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 42/2017
Smt. Dayawati, W/o of workman Late Sh. Krishna Sharma,
House No. 190, Village- Rampur, Post-Janola,
Haryana, Gurgaon-1222503.
Versus
1. M/s Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by Sh. I.P. Rao, CEO,
New Udaan Bhawan, IGI Airport Terminal-3,
New Delhi-110037.
2. M/s Akansha Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
(old name-M/s Akansha Enterprises)
represented by Sh. Vinod Kumar Anand, A-2nd Floor, Road No. 6, Near Hotel Landing view NH8,
Mahipalpur Extn. New Delhi-110037.
Appearance:
For Claimant: None
Managements: Sh. Manish Sehrawat, Ld. AR for M-1 i.e. DIAL.
None for management-2.
AWARD
The appropriate government had sent the reference referred dated 11.09.2017 to this tribunal for adjudication
with the following words.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Akansha Global Logistics Private Limited (old name M/s
Akansha Enterprises) in terminating the services of SH. Krishna Sharma S/o Late Panna Lal Sharma
without settling his legal dues viz. wages, leave encashment, bonus, retrenchment compensation notice
pay, gratuity is illegal and unjust? If so, what relief he is entitled to and what directions are necessary in
this regard.”
After receiving the reference, both parties were given notice. On behalf of the claimant, his wife had filed
the claim statement because in between claimant was expired. Wife of the deceased workman in her statement stated
that his husband had been working as an Import Executive with the management no. 1. Deceased workman was
working with sincerity and honesty and never gave a chance to complain. Management-2 has a continuous contract
with Management-1 since the deceased workman was working. Management did not provide any legal facilities as
per the labour laws to the deceased workman. Workman attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, but instead
of giving the retirement benefit, management had taken the advantage and took the work continuously with the
deceased workman. Management-2 had changed his name M/s Akansha Enterprises to M/s Akansha Global Logistics
Pvt. Ltd. Management had stopped the monthly salary of four months i.e. May, June, July and August, 2015 and had
terminated the services of the workman on 19.09.2015 without assigning any reason as such he had made prayer that
the management be directed to pay the earned wages of May 15 to August 15, 2015.
Management-1 had filed the reply denied the employer & employee relationship between the management
and the deceased workman. Present dispute is bad in law. He submits that the claim qua him be dismissed.
Management-2 had been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.04.2019.
After completion of the pleadings, following issues has been framed vide order dated 24.05.2019 i.e.:
1.
Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2.
Whether the termination of the workman by M2 is illegal and unjustified.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5431
3.
Whether the proceeding is maintainable against M1.
4.
To what relief the LRs of the workman is entitled to.
Now, the matter is listed for cross-examination of the workman. Wife of the deceased claimant has not been
appearing for cross-examination since long, inspite of providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the LRs of the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his
claim, it appears that she is not interested to pursue the case of her deceased husband. Claim of the deceased claimant
stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for
notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date 28th October, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2311.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार सजचव, डाक जवभाग, केंरी सजचवाल , नई दिल्ली; डाकघर अिीक्षक, फरीिाबाि मंडल, एनआईटी फरीिाबाि;
पोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर, प्रिान डाकघर बल्लभगढ़, फरीिाबाि; पोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर, डाकघर, गााँव गिपुरी, तिसील और जिला पलवल, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती वीना रानी @ वीना रानी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -2, चंडीगढ़, पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 333/2013)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा
ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40012-101-2013-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 333/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court -II, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Secretary, Department of Posts, Central Secretariat, New Delhi ; The Superintendent of Post
Offices, Faridabad Division, NIT Faridabad; The Postmaster, Head Post Office Ballabgarh, Faridabad; The
Post Master, Post Office, Village Gadpuri, Tehsil and Distt. Palwal, and Smt. Veena Rani @ Veena Rani,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40012-101-2013-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh
(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).
ID No. 333/2013
Registered on:-24.02.2014
Smt. Veena Rani @ Veena Rani W/o Sh. Guru Dutt Sharma, R/o VPO Gadpuri, Tehsil and Distt. Palwal.
----Workman/ Applicant
Versus
1.
Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Posts, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2.
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridabad Division, NIT Faridabad.
3.
The Postmaster, Head Post Office Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
4.
The Post Master, Post Office, Village Gadpuri, Tehsil and Distt. Palwal. ----Respondents/ Managements
Present:-
Sh. Anil Shukla, AR for Workman.
Sh. Alankrit Bhardwaj, AR for Management.
5432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD : 13.12.2024
1.
The present reference has been made by Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram
Mantralaya vide Reference No.L-40012/101/2013 (IR(DU) under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, (hereinafter called as ID Act). The reference is as follow:
“Whether the demand of Smt. Veena Rani @Veena Devi, Ex-BPM (GDS at Gadpuri Post Office, against Supdt.
of Post Offices, Faridabad Division, NIT, Faridabad and other over the issue of termination of her services
w.e.f. 19.05.2011 and requested for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages, is
just, valid and legal? If so, what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the
matter?”
2.
Brief facts as stated by the claimant are that she was in the service of the respondents at their post office situated
in Village Gadpuri, Tehsil and Distt. Palwal as BPM (Clerk) within the area of respondent no.3. The claimant
remained in the employment from 07.05.2010 and worked regularly and continuously till 19.05.2011 and was being
paid wages @5400/- per month and used to do clerical work there. Despite of the fact that she has completed more
than one year of services, she was illegally terminated without giving any reason or any show cause notice in
violation of provisions of ID Act.
3.
Against the illegal termination, the claimant raised issued before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Karnal (hereinafter called as ALC Karnal). However, the matter could not be settled. Hence this reference.
4.
Notice of the application was given to the respondents who filed written statements raising several preliminary
objections, inter alia that this court has no jurisdiction as only competent Court with regard to redressal of grievances
and disabled employees of the Government of India is the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985. On merit, it is stated that the claimant had worked as outsider Gramin Dak Sevak Branch
Postmaster for 3 months from June, 2010 to August, 2010 as a stop-gap arrangement at Gadpuri EDBO due to death
of regular incumbent Smt. Manjula Devi. In September, 2010, Smt. Rekha Rani worked as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch
Postmaster as outsider in place of the applicant. Applicant has not completed 240 days of services as she worked only
from June, 2010 to August, 2010 and was paid wages for that period. She was not employed by the Department and
worked as outsider Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster for a short period. Remaining averments have been denied
and it is prayed that claim of the applicant be dismissed.
5.
In order to prove her case, claimant herself appeared and filed her Affidavit WW1/A along with Annexure Mark
A and Mark B and closed her evidence. Thereafter, respondents have examined Sh. Rajender Kumar as MW1, who
tender his affidavit as MW1/A and document W1 and W2 and thereafter, respondents closed their evidence.
6.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by ld. counsel for both the parties.
7.
There is no dispute about the preposition of law that onus to prove that workman was in the employment of
management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his
employment with the management. Such evidence may be in the form of receipt of salary of wages for 240 days or
record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240
days or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran
Singh(2005) 8 Supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai
Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.
8.
Smt. Veena Rani has stated that she was in service of the respondent in the post office situated at Gadpuri,
Tehsil and District Palwal, as BPM (Clerk). She however, deposed in her affidavit that since 1983, Smt. Manjula Devi
W/o Sh. Dev Sharma, R/o Village Gadpuri has been working as BPM (Clerk) in the post office and whenever Smt.
Manjula Devi did not attend the office due to her illness, she used to work as BPM in place of Smt. Manjula Devi.
After the death of Smt. Manjula Devi on 07.05.2010, she was appointed to work as BPM in her place on regular basis
and she has been working under the control and charge of Superintendent of post offices situated at Faridabad
Division and she worked till 19.05.2011 and her services were terminated on that day by the post master, head post
office in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is also maintained that even the inspection was made by the higher
officials and in their report, they have admitted that the deponent was working with them in September, 2010,
October 2010 and April 2011 and original record is with the department. She worked 240 days without break and no
notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the deponent at the time of termination of
her services. In her cross-examination, she has stated the department has given advertisement for the post and she had
not given application, but her mother-in-law gave application in her name. Appointment letter was not on record, no
interview was conducted for this post.
9.
On the other hand, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, in his
affidavit stated that the applicant had worked from June 2010 to August 2010 as outsider Gramin Dak Sevak Branch
Postmaster. The regular Gramin Dak Sevak are governed by the by the Rules known as Department of Posts, Gramin
Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2011. She worked from June 2010 to August 2010 as a stopgap
arrangement due to death of regular incumbent Smt. Manjula Devi and thereafter, in September 2010, Smt. Rekha
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5433
Rani worked as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster as Outsider in place of the applicant. Therefore, the claim of
the applicant in the present proceedings is totally misconceived. Applicant has not completed 240 days in a year.
Applicant was paid wages for the period she had worked as outsider GDS. However, this witness in his cross
examination has stated that applicant was given Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) in the month of October
2010. He also admitted that name of applicant was mentioned in audit report Ex.W-2.
10.
At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that it was the duty of the workman to prove that she has worked for
240 days preceding the year of his alleged retrenchment/termination. However, in this case, workman has not been
able to prove the same. She claimed that she worked as BPM (Clerk). BPM are certainly falls under the category of
GDS (Rule-3, sub rule D of GDS Rules, which is reproduced as follow:-
“Gramin Dak Sevak” means:-
i.
a Branch Postmaster
ii. an Assistant Branch Postmaster
iii. a Dak Sevak
11. Thus, ABP is GDS falls under the category of GDS and thus she was the GDS. However, applicant in her
pleadings has stated that she was working as ABP (Clerk). Clerks are governed by Central Civil Services Rules,
whereas GDS (ABP) are governed by GDS Rules. Moreover, as per payment made to the workman, she worked From
June 2010 to August 2010 Exhibit W1. She stated in her deposition that she was on regular basis in the department.
However, she has not placed on record any appointment letter and rather in her cross examination, she has stated that
she has not applied in pursuance of the advertisement and was not interviewed.
12. On the other hand, case of respondent is that she was engaged in place of Smt. Manjula Devi as outsider BPM
and Ex.W-1 also proves it. No documentary evidence has been placed on record by the workman. She was an outsider
GDS engaged by the department. In fact, as per procedure when an GDS appointed by the department is unable to
perform his duty then as a stop gap arrangement, a temporary arrangement is made until regular incumbent come on
that post. The substitute appointment is sporadic depending on the period during which the regular is not appointed
whatsoever reason. Thus, it is clear and proved that applicant rendered his services not an employee of management
but as nominee of GDS as mentioned in Ex.W-1. It is also pertinent to mention that as GDS (outsider) is not entitled
for any termination notice as per Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The learned counsel
for the applicant could not place any rule before me that any notice of termination under the GDS Rules was required
before retrenchment by the management of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has also failed to prove that she was
appointed on regular basis as Clerk (BPM), rather applicant was appointed as an outsider GDS as stop gap
arrangement.
13. So far as this contention of the ld. counsel for the workman that record was with the department and the
department has not produced the record and therefore, adverse inference be drawn against the management, the same
is devoid of merit in view of the fact that there are certain rules under which the record can be weeded out. In the
present case, it is case of the department that the applicant was appointed as outsider GDS. Thus there was no
question of retaining record by the department except record of payment of TRCA and the same has been placed on
record by the department as Exhibit W-1.
14. Thus in this way, applicant has failed to prove her case that she worked as Clerk (ABP) on regular basis for
240 days preceding the year of her termination. Moreover, this argument of the ld. counsel for the workman that she
was paid salary in the month of October, 2010, this means that she worked till September 2010 and inference should
be drawn from it that she worked till September 2010 is misconceived as the salary and allowances can be paid later
on also. There is no conclusive evidence placed on record by the applicant regarding her employment as clerk with
the department on regular basis as stated earlier BPM is GDS and even workman was not GDS as she was working in
place of GDS as outsider. In this way, applicant, who was working as GDS (outsider) has failed to prove her case that
she worked as ABP (Clerk). Thus there was no necessity of issuing notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment
compensation by the respondent as provided under Section 25F of the Act.
15. Hence, the reference dated 06.02.2014 is decided against the applicant and she is not entitled for any relief. Let
copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for Publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2312.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार भारती ए रटेल सर्वडसेि जलजमटेड, ए रटेल सेंटर, उद्योग जविार; भारती ए रटेल सर्वडसेि जलजमटेड, बठ ंडा
पंिाब, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मुज्त ार ससंि सजनी,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार
5434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -2,चंडीगढ़,पंचाट(संिभड सं् ा 61/2015)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा
िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 40011-49-2015-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court -II, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Bharit Airtel Services Ltd ., Airtel Central, Udyog Vihar; Bharit Airtel Services Ltd ., Bathinda
Punjab, and Shri Mukhtiar Singh Saini, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-40011-49-2015-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 61/2015
Registered on:- 25.02.2016
Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Saini S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, H.No. 625, Street No.1, Tibba Side, Ram Colony,
Hoshiarpur-146001.
----Applicant
Versus
1. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. Airtel Central, Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV.
2. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. Opposite Sector 48, Rose Garden Complex, Garden Chowk Gonioana Road,
Bathinda, Punjab-151001.
-----Respondents
Present:-
Workman in person along with Sh. S.S. Maini, AR for workman.
Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, AR for Respondent Management.
AWARD
Passed On:-22.10.2024
1. Central Government vide Notification No.L-40011/49/2015 (IR(DU) dated 17.02.2016, under Clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act), has referred
the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“whether the action of the management of Bharti Airtel Services Limited for not granting annual increment
along with arrears from 2009 to the Workman Shri Mukhtiar Singh Saini S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh is legal
and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2. It has been averred by the workman that he worked as skilled worker w.e.f. 20.08.2005 to 19.08.2019 with the
respondent. He was transferred to Delhi in November 2007 and in September 2009 at Bathinda. Workman was
getting salary of Rs.9500/- per month (including conveyance and HRA). Workman worked hard and obediently.
3. In the year 2009, the management removed the job of 96 workmen illegally. After intervention by of Hon’ble
ALC (South Zone), Pushpa Vihar, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi, all the workmen were reinstated with full
backwages with continuity of service. After reinstatement, some workers were transferred outside Delhi and all
were denied promotions incentives, increase in wages including transfer allowance. The workman also denied
annual increment from 2012 onwards.
4. The workman joined workplace at Bhatinda in September 2009 with the salary of Rs.9500/- but was denied
annual increment (on an average of 10-15% per year). The management is doing this with malafide intention and
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5435
ulterior motive to teach the workman a lesson because he had gone to the Hon’ble ALC (South Zone) against
illegal and unjustified termination from service by the management. The other workman, who are working since
2009, are getting wages ranging from Rs.22,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. This is malafide, illegal and violation
of the Act.
5. Workman’s present salary should be Rs.25,000/- per month (with 15% increase from 2009 as in being given
to other workmen having same nature of work). Instead the workman is getting Rs.9500/- (Bank report attached).
The management gave a letter to the workman dated 01.06.2008 explaining breakup of the salary in which Gross
Salary is Rs.10,451/- per month and total cost is Rs.11,355/- per month (01.06.2008 letter is attached).
It is therefore, prayed that the management may be directed to pay the annual increment along with arrears
from 2009 onward to the workman. Management be directed to explain that why the workman is getting Rs.9500/-
per month when office order was given to him to pay Rs.10,451/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2008.
6. The management filed written statement raising objection that application is not maintainable under Section
2A of the Act. It is further stated that as per Section 2A of the Act, dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of individual workmen could have been referred and further the case of claimant is not maintainable
under Section 2K of the Act, which provides that if conditions of service are violated, then the case can be filed by
the aggrieved party through Union. it is therefore maintained that espousal of the present claim through purported
union does not establish any espousal in the eyes of law. It is maintained that none of the employees of the
company member is member of the purported union. The demands raised through claim are unfounded. It is
further stated that the workman has been rated A4 for the years 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13,
2013-14 and A5 in the assessment year 2014-15 (lowest rating procured by an employee based upon annual
assessment). It is submitted that an employee working with the management is awarded with increment based
upon performance and not as a matter of right.
7. It is further stated that the false claim was referred by the Conciliation Officer, New Delhi to the Labour
Court, Delhi. However, the applicant has withdrawn his case from the Court of Sh. Chandra Shekhar, POLC,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and this fact has been concealed by him from the Court.
8. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
9. The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A and has been
cross-examined by the learned authorized representative of management.
10. The management has filed affidavit of Varun Vashisht, Manager, HR, M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., IT Park,
Chandigarh, who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A and has been cross-examined by the learned
authorized representative of workman.
11. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties.
12. In this case, the claim of workman has been espoused by BSNL Contractor Worker Union (AITUC)
(hereinafter called as the Worker Union), in which the workman has claimed that he was entitled for increment,
which has been denied to him. It is settled principle of Law that the dispute, which is capable of adjudication under
Section 10(1) of the Act should be an industrial Dispute coming under Section 2K at the instance of the union or
by an individual workman under Section 2A in the matter of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination of
an individual worker.
13. It is relevant to mention here Section 2k and 2A of the Act, which are reproduced as below:
Section 2k:-
“industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and
employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen,
which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;
Section-2A.
[2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial
dispute:- [1] Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise
terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between
that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute.]
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3]----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
As per Section 2k, it impacts the interests of not just one worker but multiple workers as a class who work in
an industrial enterprise. Individual disputes become collective industrial disputes when community interests are added
to them. Whereas a perusal of Section 2A reveal that individual worker can file industrial dispute when the dispute is
related to his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or arising out of such discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or termination. In the present case, there is no question involved of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or termination of the workman. Hence, the dispute does not fall under the definition of Section 2A.
14.
The question in this case is whether non-giving of increment to Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Saini is illegal. In this
case, no common cause is involved and dispute is only with regard to non-giving of increment to Sh. Mukhtiar Singh
Saini, whereas under Section 2K of the Act, only those disputes, which involved common cause and which are
espoused by Union, can be referred. However, in the present case, only dispute relating to one workman has been
referred by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, which cannot be termed as Industrial Dispute. Individual
Dispute become Industrial Dispute, when it falls under the definition of Section 2A of the Act, when it relate to
dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination of the individual. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Case of Manglam
Publication (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thempy Elpe and Another (2006 LAB IC 1947) while referring to the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Bombay Union of Journalist vs The Hindu, Bombay, 1961 II) LLJ
436 : (AIR 1963 SC 318), has held as follow :-
“The applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to an individual dispute as distinguished from a
dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded, unless the workman as a body or a considerable
section of them make a common cause with the individual workman.”
In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid law referring the case under Section 2K is not
maintainable as in the present case, there is no common cause of worker is involved. In the present case, the
reference is made by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya is
”whether the action of the management of Bharti Airtel Services Limited for not granting annual increment
along with arrears from 2009 to the workman Shri Mukhtiar Singh Saini S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh is illegal and
justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
However, the first para of the reference order dated 18.02.2016 read as follow:
“NO..L-40011/49/2015 (IR(DU)): WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Bharti Airtel Services
Ltd, and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed.”
A perusal of the aforesaid para made it ample clear that the matter has been referred to this court as if there
exist any dispute between Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. and Workmen, word used is ‘Workmen’. Thus emerges
from aforesaid reference if the dispute is between Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. and many workers (workmen).
However, the present dispute relate only to one individual workman, which could not have been referred under
Section 2K of the Act. The reference is thus bad in law. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Bombay Union of Journalist vs The Hindu, Bombay, 1961 II) LLJ 436 : (AIR 1963 SC 318),
has held as under:
“In the present case members of the Union who were not workmen of the employer against whom the
dispute was sought to be raised, seek by supporting the dispute to convert what is prima facie an
individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The principle that the persons who seek to support the
cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute in our view
applies to this class of cases also: person who are not employees of the same employer cannot be
regarded as so interested, that by their support they may convert an individual dispute into an
industrial dispute. The mere support to his cause by the Bombay Union of Journalist cannot therefore
assist the claim of Salivateeswaran so as to convert it into an industrial dispute.”
15.
Further, Delhi Court in the case titled as Management of Messers Hotel Samrat versus Government of NCT
and others, relevant lines of para no.12 are reproduced as under:
“The dispute between an individual workman and the employer can be treated as an industrial dispute
only where the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them, make common cause with the
individual workman and espoused his demand. The question arises how the espousal can be inferred.
Espousal means that the dispute of an individual workman is adapted by union as its own dispute or a
large number of workmen give support to the cause of an individual workman.”
Thus individual reference cannot be termed as industrial dispute and such is not maintainable.
16.
Further in this case, the workman has not placed on record any evidence how he was entitled for increment and
who were the other workmen, whom increments were given, who have been similarly placed.
17.
So far as the stand of the management that since workmen was having lower grade of assessment of his work,
therefore, he was not entitled for any increment. No contrary evidence has been given by workman that he was
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5437
entitled for increment despite being doing poor performance as is told by the witness of the management in his
deposition into the court, wherein he has specifically stated that workman has been rated A4 for the years 2008-2009,
2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and A5 in the assessment year 2014-15 (lowest rating procured by an
employee based upon annual assessment).
18.
Keeping in view the above discussion, the Reference dated 17.02.2016 is held to be not maintainable being not
covered under the Act.
19.
Let copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government as required under Section 17(1) of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2313.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार जनिेिक, केन्री पिु प्रिनन फामड, सूरतगढ़ (रािस्ट् ान), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और , श्री मोती लाल,
कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ि पुर चाट(संिभड सं् ा
आईडी नंबर 30/2008, को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42012-102-2000-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2313.—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. 30/2008), of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director, Central Animal Breeding Farm, Suratgarh (Rajasthan), and Shri Moti Lal, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024,
[No. L-42012-102-2000-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
vuqyXud
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la-& 30@2008
Reference No. L-42012/102/2000-IR (DU) Dated: 07.04.2008
Jh eksrh Ykky iq= Jh cnzh izlkn ;kno] fuoklh& xkWo&iks- Hkxokulj] rglhy& lwjrx<] ftyk& Jh xaxkuuxj ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
cuke
1- funs'kd] dsUnzh; Ik'kq iztuu QkeZ] lwjrx<] ¼jktLFkku½
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh vfuy dqekj 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd & izkFkhZA
% Jh eqds'k dqekj eh.kk] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad %16-10-2024
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 07-04-2008 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
5438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether there exists any justification in raising the dispute after delay of 6 to 7 years by the applicant
and whether the action of the management of the Central cattle Breeding farm, Suratgarh in terminating
the services of Shri Motilal Yadav, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to?”
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 16-04-2010 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr
LFkkbZ ,oa Lohd`r in ds fo:} fnukad 15-01-1986 dks dh xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds fnukad 30-10-
1988 rd Jfed ds in ij nSfud osru ij dk;Zjr jgkA izkFkhZ dks 15-50 :- dh nj ls osru Hkqxrku fd;k
tkrk FkkA foi{kh us fnukad 30-10-1988 dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dks
u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru fn;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ izfrdj fn;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ
lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds varxZr voS/k gSA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B dbZ Jfed foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr
gSA lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZA izkFkhZ us lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ t;iqj ds
le{k ;g fookn izLrqr fd;k ftl ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZA fnukad 07-07-2000 dks leqfpr ljdkj }kjk
nsjh ds dkj.k fookn dks izsf"kr djus ls badkj dj fn;k x;k fdarq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ij fookn
dks Je U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru ifjykHkksa
lfgr iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkosA
3- fnukad 19-10-2010 dks foi{kh us oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s okn ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj fd;kA foi{kh dk dFku gS
fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 24-02-1987 dks lhtuy fu'fpr vof/k ds fof’k"V dk;Z ds fy;s dke ij j[kk x;k FkkA
izkFkhZ dks fdlh LFkkbZ in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;kA fnukad 23-06-1987 dks izkFkhZ dks lwjrx< iqfyl us xkatk
j[kus ds vijk/k esa fxj¶rkj fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ yEcs le; rd iqfyl fgjklr esa jgkA izkFkhZ ds fo:} xaxkuxj
U;k;ky; esa izdj.k pykA mls fnukad 28-01-1999 dks nks'k eqDr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd fnukad
30-10-1988 dks fcuk dkj.k crk;s lsok i`Fkd fd;k gksA iqfyl fgjklr ls NwVus ds ckn izkFkhZ us Lo;a dk;Z ij
vkuk can dj fn;kA fnukad 07-07-1988 ls dsUnz ljdkj us nSfud etnwjksa dh HkrhZ ij jksd yxk nhA izkFkhZ us
foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z dHkh ugha fd;kA foi{kh us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku dk mYya?ku
ugha fd;kA blfy;s izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
4- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ eksrhyky dks ijhf{kr fd;k fdarq dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha fd;kA
5- foi{kh us viuh lk{; esa MW&1 Mk- lUrks"k ,e-] funs’kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj lk{; esa izn’kZ R&1 ls R&4
rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
6- fnukad 26-09-2024 dks eSaus mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds rdZ lqus] miyC/k lk{; ,oa foi{kh dh vksj ls
izLrqr fu.kZ; fgeka'kq dqekj fo|kFkhZ o vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj ¼1997½ 4 SCC 391 esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu
fd;kA
7- izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd foi{kh us fnukad 15-01-1986 dks izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :Ik ls nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds
in ij fu;qDr fd;kA mls 15-50 :- izfrfnu dh nj ls osru Hkh fn;k x;kA fdarq pwafd izkFkhZ] deZpkjh ;wfu;u
dk lnL; gS blfy;s nqHkkZouk iwoZd fnukad 31-10-1988 dks izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :Ik ls lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA
izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr mifLFkfr ,oa osru Hkqxrku dk vfHkys[k foi{kh ds vf/kiR; esa gS ysfdu foi{kh us ;g vfHkys[k
tkucw> dj izLrqr ugha fd;kA ;fn foi{kh bl vfHkys[k dks izLrqr djrs rks ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk fd izkFkhZ us
foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA tgkW rd fookn dks foyEc ls izLrqr djus dk iz'u gS izkFkhZ
us lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ t;iqj ds le{k viuk fookn izLrqr fd;k Fkk ysfdu leqfpr ljdkj }kjk
fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq ugha Hkstk x;kA blfy;s izkFkhZ us ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk
izLrqr dh vkSj mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqlkj dsUnz ljdkj us fookn dks izsf"kr fd;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ
foyEc dk nks"kh ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad
04-03-2008 dh QksVks izfr vkt voyksdukFkZ izLrqr dh xbZA
8- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ LoPN gkFkksa ls lHkh rF;ksa dks vf/kdj.k ds le{k ugha yk;k gS]
mlus ;g rF; tkucw> dj Nqik;k fd voS/k xkatk vkf/kiR; esa j[kus ds vijk/k esa mls lwjrx< iqfyl us
fxj¶rkj fd;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 23-06-1987 ls og iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa jgkA iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa jgus ds dkj.k gh
izkFkhZ LosPNk ls dk;kZy; ugha vk;k vkSj feF;k rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij 6&7 lky foyEc ls ;g fookn izLrqr fd;kA
izkFkhZ dks lhtuy dk;Z ds fy;s ,d fu’fpr vof/k gsrq fnukad 24-02-1987 dks 3 ekg ds fy;s j[kk x;k FkkA
foi{kh foHkkx ,d dsUnz ljdkj dk foHkkx gS tgkW fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy;s lafof/kd fu;e cus gq;s gSA blfy;s foi{kh
foHkkx dks m|ksx ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj dfFkr lsokeqfDr NaVuh ugha gSA izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds
izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fgeka'kq dqekj fo|kFkhZ o
vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/ker dk voyEc fy;k gSA
9- eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ,oa lk{; ij fopkj fd;kA bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
1- D;k izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk fnukad 15-01-1986 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k rFkk
fnukad 31-10-1988 dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk ekSf[kd :Ik ls lsok
eqDr dj fn;s tkus ls lsokeqfDr voS/k gS\
------------izkFkhZ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5439
2- D;k foi{kh laLFkku m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk vkSj gLrxr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gS\
-----------foi{kh
3- vuqrks"k\
10- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fofu'p; bl izdkj gS%&
11- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1
12- bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ eksrh yky us vius vfHkopuksa dks iqujko`Rr djrs gq;s fnukad 15-01-1986 dks mldh
fu;qfDr foi{kh ds v/khu LFkkbZ in ij gksuk vkSj fnukad 31-10-1988 dks mls vdkj.k lsokeqDr dj nSuk dgk gSA
vius izfrijh{k.k esa eksrh yky us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 23 twu 1987] dks xaxkuxj dh iqfyl us mls xkatk
j[kus ds tqeZ esa fxj¶rkj fd;k Fkk rFkk og yxHkx 8 fnu iqfyl dh fgjklr esa jgk FkkA mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ
,d vksj rks 15-01-1986 ls 30-10-1988 rd yxkrkj foi{kh ds v/khu fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds dk;Z djus dk
dFku nkos esa djrk gS vkSj nwljh vkSj bu rF;ksa dks Nqikrs gq;s lk{; dk 'kiFk&i= Hkh izLrqr djrk gSA fdarq
izfrijh{kk esa og eku ysrk gS fd 23 twu 1987] dks mls iqfyl us voS/k xkatk j[kus ds vfHk;ksx esa fxj¶rkj
fd;k Fkk vkSj og 8 fnu fgjklr esa Hkh jgkA izkFkhZ dh bl LohdkjksfDr ds dkj.k fnukad 15-01-1986 ls 30-10-
1988 rd fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds izkFkhZ }kjk dk;Z djus dk rF; feF;k izekf.kr gks tkrk gSA ;g Li"V gS fd
izkFkhZ LoPN gkFkksa ls lHkh rF;ksa dk o.kZu djrs gq;s vf/kdj.k ds le{k vuqrks"k izkIr djus ugha vk;k gS oju~
lkjoku rF;ksa dks mlus LosPN;k Nqik;k gSA
13- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls u rks dksbZ fu;qfDr i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] u gh lsokeqfDr dk vkns’kA vius izfrijh{k.k esa
izkFkhZ ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd fnukad 24-02-1987 dks foi{kh foHkkx us mls 3 ekg dh vof/k ds fy;s lhtuy
etnwj ds :Ik esa j[kk FkkA og Li"V :Ik ls Lohdkj djrk gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkjfEHkd :Ik esa mldh fu;qfDr
12 :- nSfud etnwjh dh nj ls 89 fnuksa ds fy;s dh xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ dh bl LohdkjksfDr dks foi{kh lk{kh
Mk- lUrks"k ,e-] ds dFkuksa ls iqf"V feyrh gS ftlesa lk{kh us dgk gS fd izkFkhZ eksrhyky dks lhtuy dk;ksZ ds
fy;s vko';drk ds vuq:Ik vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik esa j[kk FkkA izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr i= izn’kZ R&1] tks fd izkFkhZ
}kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s vkosnu izi= ij gh fy[kk x;k gS] ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks 24-12-1987 ls 12 :- izfrfnu
etnwjh ij j[kk tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA
14- lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh }kjk] izkFkhZ }kjk okafNr izys[kksa dks izLrqr u djuk vkSfPr; iw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA
fnukad 22-03-2013 dks vf/kdj.k }kjk izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr mifLFkfr ,oa Hkqxrku dk vfHkys[k] foi{kh dks izLrqr djus
dk vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj ;g Hkh dgk x;k Fkk fd vknsf’kr vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus dh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr
vf/kdkjh dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k tkosA bl vkns’k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 19-12-2013 dks Mk- vkj-ih-
JhokLro] funs’kd dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;g vfHkys[k vR;f/kd iqjkuk gksus ds
dkj.k [kkstus ;ksX; ugha gSA lhtuy Jfed dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugh cukbZ tkrhA okafNr vfHkys[k 3 o"kZ dh
vof/k ds ckn u"V dj fn;k tkrk gSA l’kiFk fd;s x;s bu dFkuksa ,oa izkFkhZ dh lsokof/k ek= 89 fnu gksus ds
vk/kkj ij foi{kh ds fo:} dksbZ izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;s tkus dk U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj ugha gSA
15- lk{; ds bl foospu ls izkFkhZ dk fnukad 15-01-1986 dks fu;qDr fd;k tkuk vkSj 30-10-1988 rd yxkrkj
dk;Zjr jgus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha gks ik;k gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a dh LohdkjksfDr ls 24-02-1987 ls 23 twu 1987] rd
dk;Z djuk gh izekf.kr gksrk gS tks fd ek= 4 ekg dh vof/k gSA bl vof/k ds ckn izkFkhZ iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa pyk
x;k vkSj ogkW ls mueqDr gksus ds Ik’pkr iqu% foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha fd;k gSA bl foospu ds
mijkar izkFkhZ dk foi{kh ds v/khu dfFkr lsokeqfDr frfFk ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls
vf/kd dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS vkSj
izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA vr% ;g
fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
16- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&2
17- bl fcUnq ds varxZr vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk rdZ gS fd foi{kh laLFkku Hkkjr ljdkj ds d`f"kZ ,oa i’kq ikyu ea=ky;
dk v/khuLFk dk;kZy; gS ftldk dk;Z i’kqvksa ds iztuu ,oa mUur uLy ds cNMsa ,oa lkaMks dk mRiknu djuk
gSA ;g ,d oSKkfud ,oa rduhdh vk/kkfjr foHkkx gSA blfy;s m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrkA foi{kh dh vksj
izLrqr ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fgeka’kq dqekj fo|kFkhZ o vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd Þljdkj dk izR;sd foHkkx m|ksx ugha ekuk tk ldrk tc fu;qfDrvksa dk
fofu;eu lafof/kd fu;eksa ds }kjk fd;k tkrk gks rks m|ksx dh vo/kkj.kk bl lhek rd vioftZr dh tk ldrh
gSA izkFkhZ deZdkj fu;eksa ds v/khu dk;Z ij ugha j[ks x;s vkSj vko’;drk vuq:Ik nSfud osru ij j[ks x;sA ,slh
fLFkfr esa mudk lsok ls i`Fkddj.k NaVuh ughas ekuk tk ldrkAÞ foi{kh }kjk ;g rks dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh
laLFkku dk mn~s’; mUur uLy ds i’kqvksa dk iztuu vkSj mRiknu djuk gS fdarq ;g ugha dgk gS fd bl izdkj
ds mRiknu vkSj iztuu izfdz;k ls foi{kh laLFkku dksbZ vk; vftZr u djrk gksA ;fn foi{kh }kjk dksbZ fu;fer
dk;Z ykHkktZu gsrq fd;k tkrk gks rks ,slk laLFkku m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk ls vioftZr ugha gksrkA ekuuh; loksZPp
5440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky; us Hkh ;gh ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd izR;sd ljdkjh foHkkx dks m|ksx ugha ekuk tk ldrk] fdarq bl
ekxZn’kZu esa ;g laHkkouk Hkh varfuZfgr gS fd ljdkjh foHkkx dks muds dk;Z dh izd`fr] O;olk; vkSj ykHk vftZr
djus dh fLFkfr esa m|ksx ekuk Hkh tk ldrk gSA bl foospu ds mijkar ;g fcUnq foi{kh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k
tkrk gSA
18- vuqrks"k%&
19- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1 ds v/khu ;g fu'd"kZ izkIr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr oLrqr% NaVuh ugha gSA vkSj
og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a vius iqfyl
vfHkj{kk esa jgus ds lkjoku rF; dks Nqikdj vf/kdj.k ds le{k okn ysdj mifLFkr gqvkA izkFkhZ ds bl d`R; dh
vf/kdj.k HkRlZuk djrk gSA
20- tgkW rd izkFkhZ }kjk ;g fookn 6&7 o"kZ mijkar izLrqr fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS] ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ;ksa
dh ,d J`a[kyk esa ;g ekxZn’kZu fn;k gS fd vkS|ksfxd fooknksa ij ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku izofrZr ugha gksrs
gSA yEcs le; rd fookn dk izLrqr u djuk] izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ vuqrks"k fn;s tkrs le; fopkfjr fd;k tk
ldrk gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks foxr osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk vFkok ns; gksuk lekfgr gks ldrk gSA
21- pwafd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkuk voS/k izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ] foi{kh ls dksbZ
vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
22- lanfHkZr fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
23- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh
tkosA
24- U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 16-10-2024 dks lquk;k x;kA
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2314.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंि जनिेिक, दिल्ली मेरो रेल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, बारा ंभा रोड, नई दिल्ली; प्रबंि जनिेिक, न् ूजविन
कमर्िड ल एंड एस्ट्कॉट्सड सर्वडसेि, जसकंिरपुर, गुड़गांव, िरर ाणा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और (आई.डी. सं् ा
111/2019 श्री मोिम्मि आफताब आलम, कामगार, आई.डी. सं् ा 112/2019 श्री मोिम्मि जनसार आलम, कामगार ,
आई.डी. सं् ा 113/2019श्री भरत िेव, कामगार, आई.डी. सं् ा 114/2019 श्रीमती पूनम कुमार, कामगार,) के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 111 to
114 of 2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-223-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111 to 114 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi; The Managing Director, Nuvision Commercial & Escorts Services, Sikanderpur, Gurgaon,
Haryana, and, (I.D. NO. 111/2019 Shri Mohd. Aftab Alam,Worker, I.D. No. 112/2019 Shri Mohd. Nisar Alam,
Worker, I.D. No. 113/2019 Shri Bharat Dev, Worker, I.D. No. 114/2019 Smt. Poonam Kumar, Worker,) which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-223-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5441
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. NO. 111/2019
Mohd. Aftab Alam, S/o Mohd. Nayeemuddin,
Correspondence Address:-F-625, 25Foota Road, Khadda Colony,
Jaitpur Extn. Part-II, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.
Permanent Address:- Village-Madanpur (Shampur)
P.S. Haveli Khadakpur, District-Munger, Bihar,
I.D. No. 112/2019
Mohd. Nisar Alam, S/o Sh. Mohd. Gulab,
Correspondence Address:- F-231, Sahin Bagh, Jamia Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
Permanent Address:- R/o Vishunpur Margi, Pirol Urf Rasulpur Shamshuddin, District- Vaishali, Bihar.
I.D. No. 113/2019
Sh. Bharat Dev, S/o Late Sh. Tarani Tanti,
Correspondence Address: A-152/8, Gagan Vihar, Meethapur,
Jaitpur, New Delhi-110044.
Permanent Address:- Village-Madanpur (Shampur)
P.S. Haveli Khadakpur, District-Munger, Bihar,
I.D. No. 114/2019
Smt. Poonam Kumar, W/o Late Sh. Varun Kumar Shah,
R/o WZ- 851, Naryana Village, Ring Road,
New Delhi-110028.
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Managing Director,
Nuvision Commercial & Escorts Services,
S.C.O. No. 16, 17, 18, Shiv Narayan Complex, Sikanderpur,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Appearance:
For Claimants: None
For Managements: Sh. Nitesh Sharma, Ld. AR with Sh. Akhilesh (LWI) for M-1 i.e. DMRC.
None for M-2.
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose of these four applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act
(here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having
the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. All the
four workmen claim to be employed by the management-2 as TOM (Ticket Operation Machine) Operators for
management-1 at the last drawn salary of Rs. 10,000/- since 2013 respectively. They have been doing their duty with
diligently and honestly and did not give any chance to the management for any complaint. Management had deprived
them of various legal benefits i.e. PF, ESI, Leave Wages, Bonus etc. They have several times approached the
management orally and requested for giving the said benefits, but the management did not pay any heed. Works
performed by the workmen are perennial in nature is not an intermittent or of causal nature. It is further the case of the
5442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman that management-1 first terminated the contract of management-2 and again grants him fresh contract w.e.f.
17.11.2017. Management-2 had issued the notice of termination of these workmen on 06.10.2017 as such they have
made prayer that the order of termination by management-2 be declared as illegal and they be reinstated with full back
wages.
Respondent-1 had filed the WS and denied the relationship of employer and employee between the
management and the workmen. They stated that claimants were employee of independent contractor M/s Nuvision
Commercial & Escort Services. ESI, EPF facilities have been given by them. Hence he submits that no industrial
dispute exists between management-1 and management-2. Management-2 never appears in the present cases.
In the absence of the claimants, vide order dated 01.03.2023 following issues has been framed in all the claim
petitions. Issues are indentical in all the cases i.e.-
1. Whether the proceedings are maintainable?
2. Whether they exists employer and employee relationship of between the M1 and the claimants?
3. Whether the services of the claimants were illegally terminated and from which managements?
4. To what relief to workmen are entitled to, from whom, and from which date?
Now, the matters are listed for workmen evidence. They are required to file their affidavits. Despite,
providing a number of opportunities, workmen have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims.
In these circumstances, when the claimants are not interested in pursuing the claims. Their claim stands
dismissed. Awards are passed accordingly. Copies of these awards are filed in each of the file. A copy of this award is
sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. Files are consigned
to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date 12th September, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2315.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री
सरकार नई दिल्ली नगर जनगम (एन.डी.एम.सी.), एन.डी.एम.सी. भवन, नई दिल्ली; आर.के. िजन एंड संस िॉजस्ट्पटजलटी
सर्वडसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री भरत, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट
केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 50 of 2020) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-224-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50 of 2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to New Delhi Municipal Corporation (N.D.M.C.),NDMC Bhawan, New Delhi ; R.K. Jain & Sons
Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ; and, Shri Bharat, Worker,) which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-224-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. NO. 50/2020
Sh. Bharat, Sh. Kishan Lal,
R/o N-671, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083.
Versus
1. New Delhi Municipal Corporation (N.D.M.C.),
NDMC Bhawan, Jantar Mantar, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5443
2. R.K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.,
96, Bhagat Singh Market, Near Gole Market,
New Delhi-110001.
AWARD
This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by
the claimant for his illegal termination. Claim of the claimant is that he was working with the management since last
one year at the post of Safai Karamchari at the last drawn salary of Rs. 13,500/- p.m. He has been doing his duty with
diligently and honestly and did not give any chance to the management for any complaint. Management-2 appointed
the workman to work under management-1. Management have not released the full wages in the account of workman
from July, 2018 to 2019, when the workman demanded the same from the management on 01.02.2019 then the
management illegally sent the letter of absent on 08.02.2019 through postal service and the workman had received the
same on 28.02.2019. He replied the said letter to the management but the management neither considered the reply
nor allowed to join in service under the management. Management had held up the balance salary from July 2018 to
January 2019 and not released the same with intentionally and deliberately and terminated the services of the
workman without given any prior notice and without any cause and reason. Hence, he filed the present claim with the
prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages. From his illegal termination by the management, he is unemployed.
Respondent-1 had filed his written statement. Management-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
17.05.2022. Management-1 denies the averment made in his claim statement. He submits that claim is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
After completions of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 29.11.2022 i.e.:
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the claimant and management-1.
3. Whether the claimant service was illegally terminated by management-2.
4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.
Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. He is required to file his affidavit. Despite, providing a
number of opportunities, workman has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim.
In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in pursuing his claim. His claim stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required
under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date 25th September, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2316.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार आ ुक्त, उत्तरी दिल्ली नगर जनगम,जसजवक सेंटर, िवािर लाल नेिप मागड, नई दिल्ली; सुपीरर र
जसक् ोररटीि,जडफेंस कॉलोनी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और आईडी नम्बर। 245/2019, श्री भोला
ना ािव, कामगार,श्री समर बिािुर ािव, कामगार,श्री दिनेि कुमार, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभड सं् ा 245 of 2019) को िजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 31.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-225-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024
S.O. 2316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 245 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre, Jwahar Lal Nehru Marg,
5444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi ; Superior Securities, Defence Colony, New Delhi ; and, ID.No. 245/2019, Shri Bhola Nath Yadav,
Worker, Shri Samar Bhadur Yadav, Worker, Shri Dinesh Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.12.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-225-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
ID.No. 245/2019
1.
Sh. Bhola Nath Yadav, S/o Sh. Ram Pal Yadav,
R/o B-272, Near Usha Mata Mandir, Daya Basti,
Sarai Rohilla, Onkar Nagar, Delhi-110035.
2.
Sh. Samar Bhadur Yadav, S/o Sh. Ram Dhani Yadav,
R/o B-272, T-Huts, RPF Line, Daya Basti,
Baljit Nagar, Onkar Nagar, North West, Delhi-110035.
3.
Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Sh. Puran Chand,
R/o House No. K-32, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi-110052.
VERSUS
1.
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre, Jwahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002.
2.
Superior Securities,
A-308, 02nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024.
AWARD
This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by
the claimants. Claimants had stated in the claim statement that they had been working with the respondent as a
Security Guard since 01.04.02024 at the last drawn wages Rs. 9,180/- each per month They had been doing their work
with diligently with the management. During service tenure, respondents did not give them appointment letter, ESI
and P.F. benefit, earned leave, casual leave and annual bonus. They also did not give to the workmen any overtime
wages for working on holiday. Respondents took the work from workman Samar Bahadur in night shift in February,
2016 at Samuday Bhawan-11, Wazirpur Village, Delhi-110052 but they did not pay wages to the workman for that
month. The Security Supervisor Rajender fed up with the illegal deduction of Rs. 3,180/- per month where the
workmen registered oral complaint with higher authorities who also threatened them to terminate from their job.
Workmen demanded legal benefit orally due to which the respondents with held their wages for the month of January,
2017. The workmen then through Union sent a complaint dated 06.03.2019 to the local police but no action was
taken. A complaint for payment of outstanding wages were send through the Union to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), but no necessary action have been taken. For that action, workmen had been terminated on
01.04.2017 with the reply that the contract with MCD has expired/completed. After the termination, when the
workmen suddenly asked to the respondent-1 to pay their outstanding wages and issue further deployment orders.
Neither the workmen have been given their outstanding wages nor issued any deployment orders. They had sent the
demand letter dated 07.08.2017 to the respondents but, no reply was given by the respondents. They have gone to the
conciliation officer, but no result was yielded. Hence, they have filed the present claim. They are unemployed since
the date of termination from their services.
Management-1 & 2 have not been appearing since long. They have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
12.01.2023.
Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte evidence of the workmen. Claimants have not been appearing since
long. They have not brought any evidence i.e. documents and oral to substantiate their claim, inspite of providing a
number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claim, it
appears that they are not interested to pursue the case. This tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant
award. No dispute award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for
notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.
Date: 14/08/2024
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5445
नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2317.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिक, िापूरिी पल्लून िी एंड कंपनी प्रा. जलजमटेड, बारा ंभा रोड, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री सुनील मंडल एवं 3 अन् , कामगार, द्वारा -दिल्ली का ाडल एवं प्रजतष्ठान कमडचारी संघ, राउि एवेन् ू, नई दिल्ली,
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभड
सं् ा 48/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
सा 26.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42011-312-2022-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2024
S.O. 2317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court–I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Manager, Shapoorji Palloon Ji & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and Shri Sunil Mandal &
3 others, Worker, through-Delhi Offices & Establishment Employees Union, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.11.2024.
[No. L-42011-312-2022-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 48/2023
Sh. Sunil Mandal & 3 others,
Rept. By Delhi Offices & Establishment Employees Union,
B.T.R. Bhawan, 13-A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi-110002.
Workman…
Versus
The Manager,
Shapoorji Palloon Ji & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
7th Floor, Kunchanjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
Management…
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/312/2022 (IR(DU)) dated 13.01.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether demands raised by Delhi Offices and Establishment Emplopyees Union, New Delhi
dated 10.08.2021 i.r.o. Shri Sunil Mandal and 3 others (enclosed) against the management of Shapoorji
Palloon Ji and Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for reinstatement and payment for two months salary of May and
June, 2021, are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs as sought vide letter under reference the
disputant entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the manner?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the fact that
5446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against the
management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent
to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Date: 07.11.2024
नई दिल्ली, 6 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2318.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -सि- अजतररक्त। जिला. एवं सत्र न् ा ाल , गोिावरी ानी ds iapkV
(पिचान la[;k. 11/2023) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22013-01-2025-आईआर (सी एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th January, 2025
S.O. 2318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 11 / 2023) of the INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
06/01/2025.
[No. L-22013-01-2025-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,
CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.
TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024.
I.D.No. 11 of 2023
Between:-
G.Anil Kumar, S/o.Raju, Age:33 years, E.C.No.2920874, Ex-General Mazdoor, IK. 1A-Incline, C/o. S.Sanjay
Kumar, Advocate, H.No.19-1-103/4, Markendeya Colony, Godavarikhani-505209, District: Peddapalli, (Telangana
State).
…Petitioner/Workman
AND
1.
The Superintendent of Mines, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, IK 1A-Incline, SRP Area, Srirampur,
District: Macherial (T.S).
2.
The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur Area, Srirampur, District:
Mancherial (T.S).
3.
The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, P.O:Kothagudem, District:
Badradri Kothagudem (T.S).
...Respondents/Management
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the
Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over
for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5447
AWARD
This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act, 1947 praying to set aside the dismissal order Ref.
dt.01.12.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’-company to reinstate the petitioner into
service with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits and full back wages.
2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
2(a).
The petitioner was provided dependant employment as Badli Filler by the respondents company during the
year, 2009 and he was promoted as General Mazdoor during the year, 2016. Evere since his appointment the
petitioner discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors without any adverse remarks and put-in
more than 100-musters per year. He sustained fractures to his right Iliac Crest in the Mine Accident while on duty
during July, 2010 and he sustained injuries in the mine while on duty during March, 2012. He was imparted
treatment in the SCCL Area Hospitals, Main Hospital-Kothagudem and referral Hospitals from the year 2012
onwards. Due to strenuous work in the underground mine and frequent treatment at SCCL Hospitals, the petitioner’s
health was badly deteriorated from the year 2016. The musters put-in by the petitioner are submitted here under:-
1.
Musters of 2013
(168) musters
2.
Musters of 2014
(205) musters
3.
Musters of 2015
(196) musters
4.
Musters of 2016
(126) musters
5.
Musters of 2017
(95) musters
2(b). The petitioner suffered from serious ill-health and inspite of taking treatment in the SCCL hospitals, his health
condition was not improved and he suffered from “Hiatus Hernia, neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I bleed,
sinus bradycardia with pain abdomen, Fatigue”, from 2017 to 2021. He was imparted prolonged treatment in the
respondent’s company Hospitals and referral Hospitals at Hyderabad and Vishakapatnam. The respondents have
imparted treatment to the petitioner in company Area Hospitals and referred him to main hospital, Kothagudem for
examination by the General Surgeon and General Physician vide letter dt. 04.05.2019. He was examined and found
that he is a case of persistent sinus Brady Cardia large hiatus hernia. He was referred to PACE HOSPITAL,
Hyderabad for post prandial epigastrities pain+retrosternal pain by the Gastroenterologist and Herpetologist. The
Gastroenterologist advised surgery and cardiologist advised Electro-Physiological study for persistent Brady Cardia
and there was drop in blood pressure.
2(c). For the absenteeism during the year 2019, stoppage of (1) increment with cumulative effect which is due on
01.03.2022 was awarded by Ref. dt.14.09.2021; and within few months, R-2 dismissed him from service by Ref.
dt.01.11.2021/01.12.2021, under the pretext of absenteeism during the year, 2020. It shows that respondents have bent
upon to dismiss the petitioner from service, unjustly. He underwent prolonged treatment in the SCCL Hospitals of
RKP, SRP, RGM, Main Hospital Kothagudem, SCCL referral Hospitals and other Hospitals. But, without considering
the true facts, chronic ill-health suffered by the petitioner and medical treatment imparted to him, the Respondent
No.2 issued charge sheet dt.20.01.2021 alleging absenteeism from duty during 2020:-
“25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond
sanctioned leave”.
There is no deliberate absenteeism on the part of petitioner, there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not
attending to duties regularly during the charge sheet periods. The respondent’s company admittedly imparted
treatment to the petitioner in the SCCL Area Hospital and referred him to several Super Specialty Hospitals at
Hyderabad, for better treatment and management, due to “Hiatus Hernia, neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I
bleed, Sinus Brady Cardia with pain abdomen, Fatigue”. He was imparted prolonged treatment since 2017 very
frequently by the respondent’s company, but, without considering the facts, the Respondent No.2 dismissed the
petitioner from service by order dt.01-12-2021.
2(d). The petitioner suffered from severe ill-health, “Hiatus Hernia, neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I bleed,
Sinus Brady Cardia with pain abdomen, Fatigue”. He was imparted treatment in the SCCL Area Hospitals, SRP and
Ramagundam Area. But, since his health condition was not improved, the respondents sent to the petitioner to
“Refferal Hospitals”, Hyderabad during the years 2017 to 2021, through reference letters dt. 10.07.2018, 17.04.2019,
11.05.2019, 21.05.2019, 22.05.2019 and 0.09.2019. He was imparted frequent treatment by the SCCL Hospitals and
he was compelled to take treatment in the medlife hospital, vishakapatnam.
2(e).
Formal domestic enquiry was conducted while the petitioner was undergoing treatment and the enquiry
officer did not properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence in favour of the petitioner. The findings of the
Enquiry Officer are very cryptic and he gave his vague findings, which are quite biased and perverse. The respondent
No.2 required the petitioner to make representation on the findings report of the Enquiry Officer by letter
dt.30.04.2021 by RPAD. As he was undergoing prolonged treatment in the hospitals at Hyderabad and
Vishakhapatnam, he could not receive the same and not submitted any representation. The Respondent No.2
dismissed him from service straight away, without issuing any prior Show Cause Notice proposing the capital
5448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred appeal dt.03.01.2022 and moved from pillar to post before
respondents, but there is no response from the company and he was not taken to duty. His health condition badly
deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period and there is sufficient and
reasonable cause for the petitioner for not attending to duties during charge sheet period and it cannot be termed as
misconduct.
2(f).
Further, imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner without any prior show
cause notice proposing the said capital punishment is against the settled Law and contrary to the principles of natural
justice. The extremely harsh punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which
amounts to his economic death. Ever since his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of employment and could
not secure any other alternative job inspite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other
source of livelihood. Therefore, he prays to set aside the dismissal order passed by the Respondent No.2 and to direct
the Respondents’-Company to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, all consequential attendant
benefits and full back wages.
3. On the other side the Respondents/Management filed counter by admitting the employment of the
Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents’-Company, inter-alia, contended that since the coal mining industry is a
central subject the appropriate Government for the Respondents/Management is Central Government, which
established CGIT at Hyderabad for adjudication of Industrial Disputes and the Petitioner ought to have approached
the said Tribunal for redressal of grievance. But, the petitioner conveniently avoided filing his petition before the
Tribunal established by the Central Government and hence it is not maintainable before this Tribunal and the same
may be dismissed on this ground alone and the maintainability dispute may be decided by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
3(a). The petitioner was initially appointed as Badli Filler on 15.07.2009 under compassionate/Dependant
employment scheme as his father Sri G.Raju expired while in service. The petitioner worked as General Mazdoor
under R-1 and he being an underground employee, is expected to put-in minimum 190 Musters in a calendar year. But
he was not regular to his duties and in no year he had put in the required 190 musters from his appointment to till his
dismissal from service. The petitioner is a chronic absentee and failed to improve his attendance even after issuing 5
charge sheets and finally the respondents’ company was constrained to dismiss him from service for his misconduct
in the year duly following the principles of natural justice.
3(b). During the period from January 2020 to December 2020, the petitioner has put in “00” musters. As the above is
misconduct, he was issued charge sheet dt.20.01.2021 and relevant clause of the Standing Order reads as under:
“25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond
sanctioned leave”.
The charge sheet sent to his address, but as it was returned undelivered the same was published in Mana Telangana
Telugu News Paper dt.04.04.2021 to attend the enquiry on 27.04.2021. He did not attend the enquiry, as such,
exparte enquiry was conducted, charge was proved against the petitioner and a copy of enquiry report was sent to his
residential address. As the same returned undelivered the same was published in Namaste Telangana News Paper
dt.05.06.2021 to submit his written representation within seven days from the date of publication. As the petitioner
has not submitted any explanation against the findings of Enquiry Officer, the respondents’ company was constrained
to dismiss the petitioner from service with immediate effect from 01.12.2021 and no appeal was received was
received by the respondent and the petitioner is put to strict proof of his appeal dt.31.01.2022.
3(c). The Respondent Company is providing Medical facilities as In and Out patients to its employees and their
dependants through its hospitals and if required the patients will be referred to specialized/ Corporate Hospitals for
further treatment/diagnosis. The company has agreement with chain of hospitals to provide medical treatment to its
employees. The petitioner was also extended medical facilities by the Respondent Company for the injuries sustained
by him in the year, 2010 and further the petitioner being a case of Haemotemesis + Haematochezia was referred to
CMO, Kothagudem vide referred letter dt.07.09.2018 by Dy.CMO, AH, RKP for treatment and for fitness for duty.
Further, he was referred to Kamineni Hospital vide letter dt.17.04.2019 and CMO, KGM on 04.05.2019 and there
after the petitioner not reported his sick report in Company’s Hospitals during the entire absenteeism period which is
against the principles of the company.
3(d). The Respondent Company employs more than 43,600 persons and the production results will depend upon the
overall attendance and performance of every individual. If anyone remains absent without prior sanction of leave or
without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void,
which at times is very difficult to fill-up with substitute, and there will be no proper planning and already planned
schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. For that reason every time the company inform its workers to
intimate prior to the unit in-charge so that they may arrange substitute and failing to inform will result in to
production and burden on the other employees.
3(e). The Petitioner was given number of opportunities to correct himself and to be regular to his duties by imposing
minor penalties such as issued suspension of 10 days by order dt.19.11.2019, stoppage of one increment by order
dt.14.09.2021, warning letters dt.05.06.2013 and 20.02.2016. But, the Petitioner has failed to improve his attendance
and resorted to unauthorizedly absent for duty during the calendar years 2020. The company gave many opportunities
to the petitioner with hope that he may change and attend his duties. Even after giving opportunities to improve his
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5449
attendance, the petitioner continued his absenteeism continuously and there is no improvement in the attendance. The
petitioner’s misconduct compelled the Respondent/Management to impose the penalty of dismissal which cannot be
termed as unjust. The Respondent/ Management cannot be held responsible for the alleged debts and unemployment
and the other allegations of the petition are denied and hence the Respondents prayed to dismiss the petition, without
granting any relief to the petitioner.
4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got examined himself as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W-1 to
Ex.W-63 on his behalf. On the other side, the Respondents’-Company got examined Kukkala Paul Srujan, Sr.P.O as
RW-1 and got marked Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-23 on its behalf.
5. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner/Workman as well as learned Standing Counsel for the
Respondents’/Company, besides written arguments.
6.
Here, on the point of jurisdiction, it is well settled law that in a Judgment reported in 1997 (III) LLJ
(Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa Vs. Cotton Corporation of India, their Lordships of the Division Bench of the
Hon’ble High Court have held that the Tribunal constituted by Statement Government has jurisdiction over
the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the workmen of SCCL,
though the appropriate Govt. is Central Govt., As such, the petitioner/workman herein need not raise the
Industrial Dispute compulsorily before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad alone, as
contended by the Respondents in the counter and the petitioner is entitled to file I.D before this Tribunal as
well. Hence, this Tribunal has got every jurisdiction to adjudicate this case as per the above settled law.
Further in view of the above settled law, the learned counsel for the Respondents’ Company did not raise any
dispute across the Bench with regard to jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain this matter.
7. Now the points for consideration are:-
1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents is held valid or not?
2. Whether the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved basing on evidence or not?
3. Whether the dismissal order dt.01.12.2021 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back wages?
If not to what relief is the worker entitled to?”
8. From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’ Company, these are the admitted facts that the
petitioner/workman worked as Badli-Filler and General Mazdoor (Underground) in the Respondents’-Company and
he was dismissed from service vide Ref dt.01.11.2021/01.12.2021. Now coming to the documentary evidence of both
sides, on behalf of the Respondents’/Company, Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-23 were marked, wherein, Ex.M-1 is attested copy of
warning
letter
issued
to
the
petitioner
for
a
charge
sheet
Lr.No.
IK.IA/2012/R.08/1935
vide
Lr.No.SRP/PER/13/008/1284. Ex.M-2 is attested copy of Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner vide Lr.No. IK.
IA/2013/R.08/767. Ex.M-3 is attested copy of show cause notice to the petitioner vide Lr.No. SRP/PER/13.008/3328
and Ex.M-4 is attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No.IK. IA/ 2015/R10/2874. Ex.M-5 is
attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No. IK.IA/2018/R.08/1032 and Ex.M-6 is attested copy of
enquiry notice to the petitioner vide Lr.No.IK.IA/2018/ R10/1114. Ex.M-7 is attested copy of enquiry proceedings
and Ex.M-8 is attested copy of application by the petitioner. Ex.M-9 is attested copy of enquiry report and enquiry
proceedings. Ex.M-10 is attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No.SRP/ IK.1A/2019/R.08/364 and
Ex.M-11 is attested copy of disciplinary action against petitioner vide SRP/IK.1A/2019/R.07/5876. Ex.M-12 is
attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No. SRP/IK.1A/2020/R.08/897 and Ex.M-13 is attested copy
of publication of show cause notice in Telugu daily vide SRP/IK.IA/ 2020/R.08/897. Ex.M-14 is attested copy of
enquiry proceedings and Ex.M-15 is attested copy of show cause notice to the petitioner vide SRP/IK.
1A/R.08/2020/5349.Ex.M-16 is attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No.SRP/IK.1A/2021/
R.08/344. Ex.M-17 is attested copy of publication of show cause notice in Telugu daily vide
SRP/IK.IA/2020/R.08/897. Ex.M-18 is attested copy of enquiry proceedings and Ex.M-19 is Attested copy of
publication of show cause notice in telugu daily vide SRP/IK.1A/ 2020/R.08/897. Ex.M-20 is attested copy of
disciplinary action against petitioner by stoppage of one increment vide SRP/PER/ 13.008/6106. Ex.M-21 is attested
copy of dismissal order of the petitioner vide Lr.No.SRP/PER/13008/7615, Ex.M-22 is attested copy of name removal
letter of the petitioner vide Lr.No.SRP/IK.IA/ 2021/PO1/5685 and Ex.M-23 is Authorization letter.
8(a). On the other side, the petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 to W-63 on his behalf, wherein, Ex.W-1 is the SCCL letter
showing mine accident met by the petitioner causing him serious injury. Ex.W-2 is the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad
Medical record of petitioner and Ex.W-3 is the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad OP Card of Petitioner. Ex.W-4 is the
NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad Medical report of Petitioner and Ex.W-5 is the SCCL Area Hospital medical prescription
of petitioner for his right ILIAC CREST injury in mine accident. Ex.W-6 is the SCCL Area Hospital medical
prescription of petitioner for his right ILIAC CREST injury in mine accident. Ex.W-7 is the SCCL Area Hospital
medical prescription and Ex.W-8 is the SCCL hospital treatment for injury to index finger while working in mine.
Ex.W-9 is the SCCL hospital treatment for injury to index finger while working in mine. Ex.W-10 to Ex.W-12 are the
SCCL Area Hospital medical prescriptions of the petitioner and Ex.W-13 is the SCCL Area Hospital reference letter
to main hospital, Kothagudem, Senior Ortho Surgeon. Ex.W-14 is the SCCL Main Hospital Discharge Card imparting
5450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
treatment and Ex.W-15 is the SCCL Physiotherapy treatment card. Ex.W-16 is the SCCL Area medical prescription
for right ILIAC CREST pain and Ex.W-17 is the SCCL Area Hospital Fit Certificate imparting treatment and
petitioner allowed to duty. Ex.W-18 is the SCCL reference letter to Deccan Hospital, Hyderabad for MRI LS Spine
and Ex.W-19 is the SCCL main hospital treatment imparted and petitioner advised fit only after one week by area
hospital. Ex.W-20 is the SCCL area hospital treatment medical prescription, Ex.W-21 is the SCCL hospital medical
treatment imparted for two days and Ex.W-22 is the SCCL area hospital fit certificate imparting treatment and
petitioner allowed to duty. Ex.W-23 is the SCCL hospital discharge card, Ex.W-25 is the SCCL area hospital fit
certificate imparting treatment and Ex.W-26 is the SCCL area hospital, RKP (SRP) medical prescription of the
petitioner. Ex.W-27 is the SCCL area hospital, RKP (SRP) medical prescription of the petitioner and Ex.W-28 is the
SCCL reference letter to the Deccan hospital, Hyderabad for imparting treatment to the petitioner. Ex.W-29 is the
SCCL area hospital reference letter to SCCL area hospital, GDK for G.I. bleeding of the petitioner, Ex.W-30 is the
SCCL reference letter to the Deccan hospital, Hyderabad for imparting treatment to the petitioner and Ex.W-31 is the
Discharge Summary by Deccan hospital, Hyderabad showing ill-health suffered by petitioner. Ex.W-32 is the SCCL
reference letter to main hospital, Kothagudem and Ex.W-33 is the SCCL area hospital, RKP (SRP) medical
prescription of the petitioner. Ex.W-34 is the SCCL reference letter to Kamineni Hospitals, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
Ex.W-35 is the Medical history of petitioner, endoscopy report, Colour Doppler, X-ray report, US report and CT
report of petitioner by Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad 5 papers and Ex.W-36 is the CT report of petitioner by
Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.W-37 is the Clinical reports of petitioner by Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad 16
papers and Ex.W-38 is the Discharge Summary of Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.W-39 is the Certificate of
Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad and Ex.W-40 is the Medical prescription of petitioner by Kamineni hospital,
Hyderabad. Ex.W-41 is the SCCL reference letter to the main hospital, Kothagudem regarding treatment and fitness
for duty and Ex.W-42 is the SCCL reference letter to PACE hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.W-43 is the Discharge Summary
of petitioner by PACE hospital, Hyderabad and Ex.W-44 is the SCCL reference letter to Vinrinchi hospital,
Hyderabad for further evaluation. Ex.W-45 is the SCCL reference letter to Vinrinchi Hospital, Hyderabad for further
evaluation and Ex.W-46 is the SCCL reference letter to Sunshine hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.W-47 is the MRI Cervical
Spine of Sunshine hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.W-48 is the Medical prescription by sunshine hospital, Hyderabad and
Ex.W-49 is the MRI Brain of the petitioner by sun shine hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.W-50 is the SCCL Area Hospital,
Medical prescription, Ex.W-51 is the Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of the Petitioner and
Ex.W-52 is the Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of Petitioner, Ex.W-53 is the Medlife
Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of Petitioner, Ex.W-54 is the Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam
Medical Prescriptions of Petitioner. Ex.W-55 is Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical prescriptions of
Petitioner. Ex.W-56 is the Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of Petitioner, Ex.W-57 is the
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of Petitioner and Ex.W-58 and Ex.W-59 is the Medlife
Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of Petitioner. Ex.W-60 is the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and
Ex.W-61 is the O/c of Demand Letter of the petitioner by RPAD and Ack of the Respondent No.2. Ex.W-62 is the
Medical OP (Male) Registration of petitioner with O.P.No. 57076493724 at SCCL Dispensary and Ex.W-63 is the
Reference form for treatment of petitioner forwarded from the time. The above documents of both sides are not in
much dispute by either side.
9. Here, the learned counsel for the respondents’-company has strenuously argued that the petitioner was appointed as
Badli Filler on 15.07.2009 under compassionate/Dependant employment and he being an underground employee is
expected to put minimum 190 Musters in a calendar year, but, he was not regular to his duties. The Respondent
Company employs more than 43,600 persons and the production results will depend upon the overall attendance and
performance of every individual. If anyone remains absent without prior sanction of leave or without any justified
cause, the work to be performed gets effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times is very
difficult to fill-up with substitute, and there will be no proper planning and already planned schedules get suddenly
disturbed without prior notice. For that reason every time the company inform its workers to intimate prior to the unit
in-charge so that they may arrange substitute and failing to inform will result in to production and burden on the other
employees.
9(a). The learned standing counsel for the respondents’-company further argued that during the period from January
to December 2020, the petitioner has put in “00” musters. As the above act amounted to misconduct under Company
Standing Orders No. 25.25 & 25.31, he was issued charge sheet dt.20-01-2021 for absenteeism for the year 2020
and sent to his address. As it was returned undelivered, the same was published in Mana Telangana Telugu News
Paper dt.04.04.2021 to attend the enquiry on 27.04.2021. As the petitioner did not attend the enquiry, exparte enquiry
was conducted and the charge was amply proved against the petitioner during enquiry. Further, the petitioner has not
submitted any explanation against the findings of Enquiry Officer and hence, the respondents’ company was
constrained to dismiss him from service with immediate effect from 01.12.2021.
9(b). The learned counsel for the Respondents’ Company further argued that the company is providing Medical
facilities as to its employees and their dependants through its hospitals, and if required the patients will be referred to
specialized Corporate Hospitals for further treatment and diagnosis. The petitioner was also extended medical
facilities by the Respondent Company for the injuries sustained by him in the year, 2010 and further the petitioner
being a case of Haemotemesis + Haematochezia was referred to CMO, Kothagudem vide referred letter dt.07.09.2018
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5451
by Dy.CMO, AH, RKP for treatment and for fitness for duty. Further, he was referred to Kamineni Hospital vide
letter dt.17.04.2019 and CMO, KGM on 04.05.2019 and thereafter petitioner not reported his sick report in
Company’s Hospitals. He was given number of opportunities to correct himself and to be regular to his duties by
imposing minor penalties, with hope that he may reform himself and attend his duties. Even after giving opportunities
to improve his attendance, the petitioner continued his absenteeism and there is no improvement in the attendance.
Hence, the respondents’ company was constrained to impose capital punishment and dismissed from service vide
office order dt.01.12.2021, which is justified. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition, without granting any relief to
the petitioner/workman.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the Petitioner/Workman was appointed
was appointed during the year 2009 as Badli-Filler under dependant employment quota. He put-in more than (100)
required musters per year and was promoted as General Mazdoor; but, due to fractures sustained by him in the mine
accident, frequent treatment was imparted in the SCCL Hospitals. His health was not improved and he suffered from
“Hiatus Hernia, neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I bleed, Sinus Bradycardia with pain abdomen, Fatigue”,
from 2017 to 2021, for which he was imparted prolonged medical treatment in the Company’s Hospitals and referral
Hospitals. He was referred to Main Hospital, Kothagudem for examination by the General Surgeon & General
Physician vide Letter dt.04.05.2019. He was examined and found that he is a case of persistent sinus Brady Cardia
large hiatus hernia and he was referred to PACE HOSPITAL, Hyderabad for post prandial epigastrities pain +
retrosternal pain by the Gastroenterologist & Herpetologist. The Gastroenterologist advised Surgery and the
Cardiologist advised Electro-physiological study for persistent Brady Cardia and there was drop in the Blood
Pressure.
10(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner put-in (95) musters in 2017 inspite of
taking treatment. But, punishment of 10-days suspension without wages imposed by Ref. dt.19-11-2019. That under
the pretext of absenteeism in 2019, stoppage of (1) increment with cumulative effect which is due on 01.03.2022 was
awarded on 14-09-2021. Within few months, the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service vide Ref. dt. 01-
12-2021, alleging absenteeism during the year 2020. There is no deliberate absenteeism on the part of the petitioner
and there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not attending to duties regularly during the charge sheet periods.
The respondents company admittedly imparted treatment to the petitioner in the SCCL Area Hospital and referred
him to several Super Specialty Hospitals at Hyderabad, for better treatment and management, due to “Hiatus Hernia,
neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I bleed, Sinus Brady cardiac with pain abdomen, Fatigue”. He was
imparted treatment in the SCCL Area Hospitals, SRP & Ramagundam Area. Further, the respondents’ company sent
the petitioner to “Referral Hospitals” during the years 2017 to 2021, through reference letters dt.10.07.2018,
17.04.2019, 11.05.2019, 21.05.2019, 22.05.2019 and 03.09.2019. As he was undergoing prolonged treatment in the
Hospitals, he could not participate in the enquiry; and the enquiry officer did not properly appreciate the facts and ill-
health suffered by the petitioner and he gave his vague findings. The petitioner’s health condition was badly
deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period and there is sufficient and
reasonable cause for the petitioner for not attending to duties during charge sheet period.
10(b). The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman further argued that imposing the capital punishment of
dismissal from service without any prior show cause notice is against the principles of natural justice. The extremely
harsh punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which amounts to economic death
of the petitioner. Ever since his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any
other alternative job in spite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other source of
livelihood to feed his family members. Therefore, he prayed to allow the petition with full back wages, as prayed for.
POINT No.1:
11. In this matter, initially the petitioner/workman denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report. But on
04.03.2024, the learned counsel for petitioner filed Memo U/Sec.11-A of I.D Act by accepting the procedure of
domestic enquiry to be fair and valid. Hence, there is no dispute that the Enquiry Officer has followed the principles
of natural justice. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the facts of the case and the findings
are not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion with regard to
finding guilty or not based on evidence. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.
POINT No.2 & 3:
12. In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as Respondents/corporation as well as in view of the
rival arguments of their respective counsel now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the
petitioner was dismissed from service by Ref. dt.01.12.2021 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was absent from
duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause during the year 2020. From a perusal of the record, it shows that
Charge Sheet dt.20.01.2021 was issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-16. It is evident from the charge
sheet that the petitioner absented to duties during the year 2020 and further he put in 196 muster during the year 2015,
126 musters during the year 2016, 95 musters during the year 2017, ‘45’ musters during the year 2018 and 08 musters
during the year 2019. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry proceedings are marked as Ex.M-18. Further,
a perusal of Ex.M-18 proceedings of enquiry shows that the Petitioner/Workman failed to participate in the domestic
enquiry and remained absent and it is evident that the petitioner absented to duty during the year 2020 without
5452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
sanctioned leave. Further, the 7 days notice was published in Telugu Daily paper dt.05.06.2021 which is marked as
Ex.M-19. The dismissal order is marked as Ex.M-21 and name removal letter is marked as Ex.M-22.
13. Apart from the above, the petitioner/workman submitted the SCCL Hospital medical prescriptions, SCCL
reference letters, NIMS Hospital, Kamineni Hospital, Virinchi Hospital and MEDLIFE Hospital medical documents
which are marked as Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-63 wherein it shows that he was imparted prolonged treatment for “Hiatus
Hernia, neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I bleed, Sinus Brady cardia with pain abdomen, Fatigue”. Further,
it shows that he was imparted treatment in the SCCL Area Hospitals, SRP & Ramagundam Area and respondents’
company through reference letters dt.10.07.2018, 17.04.2019, 11.05.2019, 21.05.2019, 22.05.2019, 03.09.2019 and
06.06.2021 sent the petitioner to “Referral Hospitals” viz., NIMS, Kamineni, Virinchi and MEDLIFE Hospitals at
Hyderabad during the years 2017 to 2021. Several medical documents submitted by the petitioner were issued by the
SCCL Hospitals, Kamineni and other Hospitals, which prima-facie show that the petitioner suffused from ill-health
and that he was imparted prolonged treatment during the year 2017 to 2021. The petitioner explained that due to ill-
health and family problems, he absented to duties during the charge sheet year of 2020 and prayed to consider his
case sympathetically. However, respondents/ company dismissed the petitioner/workman from service by Proc.
dt.01.12.2021 which is marked as Ex.M-21. Thus, it is evident from the enquiry proceedings under Ex.M-18 as well
as the material on record, that the petitioner had not put in minimum required musters of 190 during the year 2020 for
which he submitted that due to ill-health he was unable to perform duty regularly during the charge sheet period and
submitted medical prescriptions and reports, which are marked as Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-63.
14. Further, Sri Kukkala Paul Srujan, Senior Personnel Officer who was examined before this Court by the
Respondents’ Company as MW-1, clearly deposed that: “The petitioner was extended medical facilities by the
Respondent Company for the injuries sustained by him and further the petitioner being a case of Haemotemesis +
Haematochezia was referred to CMO, Kothagudem vide reference letter dt.07.09.2018 by the Dy.CMO, AH., RKP for
treatment and for fitness for duty. Further, he was referred to Kamineni Hospital vide letter dt.17.04.2019 & CMO,
KGM on 04.05.2019. .. The petitioner was also extended medical facilities by this Respondent Company for the
ailments which he was suffering for. MW-1 further admitted during his cross-examination that: “It is true that the
petitioner met with Mine Accident. It is true our company’s responsibility to provide the medical treatment to the
petitioner. The petitioner was referred to the referral hospitals. Later, without obtaining referral letter from mine, the
petitioner underwent treatment in other hospitals.”
15. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence adduced before this Tribunal, it is evident that the
petitioner/workman suffered from ill-health and he was imparted treatment during the charge sheets period and hence
the defense put-forth by him appears to be plausible. However, it is clear that the petitioner has not attended to duties
during the charge sheet year of 2020 and the charge was amply proved against him basing on record.
15(a). Here, it is clearly evident from the record that the petitioner did not apply for sanction of any leave as per the
Company’s Standing Orders. Further, he did not obtain any prior sanction of leave during the charge sheet period and
admittedly he was habitually absent to his duties as mentioned in the charge sheet. He did not choose to
attend/participate in the enquiry proceedings inspite of giving ample opportunity and exparte enquiry was conducted.
Under these circumstances, though the petitioner took treatment for his ailment, his case comes under mitigating
circumstance.
15(b). Therefore, it can be said that the respondents/company has no axe to grind against the petitioner. Hence, this
Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the charge leveled against the petitioner/ workman is proved and misconduct of
the workman is established basing on the evidence and the findings of enquiry officer are not perverse. But at the
same time, much gravity cannot be attributed to the petitioner since his ill-health and treatment imparted by SCCL
and other referral hospitals is supported by the oral and documentary evidence produced before this Tribunal, which
shows that there is reasonable cause for the petitioner’s absence during the charge sheets period.
16. Here, learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2009
as a dependant of his deceased father who died while in service and put in more than 100 musters for four years from
2013 to 2016. The petitioner submitted the referral letters dt.10.07.2018, 17.04.2019, 11.05.2019, 21.05.2019,
22.05.2019 and 03.09.2019 issued by Company Hospitals, wherein, it shows that the respondents’ company referred
the petitioner to “Referal Hospitals”, Hyderabad, through the above reference letters for imparting treatment to him. It
appears from the medical documents submitted by the petitioner that he was suffering from:
““Hiatus Hernia, neck pain, tingling of right lower limb, G.I bleed, Sinus Brady cardia with pain abdomen,
Fatigue” and that the petitioner being a case of Haemotemesis + Haematochezia, he was referred to CMO,
Kothagudem vide referred letter dt.07.09.2018 by Dy.CMO, AH, RKP for treatment and for fitness for duty.
Further, he was referred to Kamineni Hospital vide letter dt.17.04.2019 and CMO, KGM on 04.05.2019”
The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner hails from a very poor family, he has got no other livelihood
and facing untold financial problems, and prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act. Here, in support of his
above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following citations:-
1)
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN AIR 1988 SC 303 – Between: Scooter India
Ltd, Labour Court, Lucknow & ors:
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5453
In this case, the Labour Court while holding that enquiry had conformed to statutory prescriptions and principles
of natural justice, yet held that order of termination was not justified and ordered for reinstating employee
with 75% back wages. Wide powers are vested in Labour Court or Tribunal. Labour Court can temper justice
with mercy and give an opportunity to an erring workman to reform himself. Order of Labour Court granting
relief of reinstatement with 75% back wages was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2)
HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN W.A. No.1101/2008 and W.P.No.7671 of 2000, dt.07.04.2009
D.B. Judgment:
In this case, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service and half-of back wages. The
Hon’ble High Court held that since the petitioner remained unemployed from the date of removal, modified
the award of Labour Court by granting full back wages.
3)
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dt.24-08-2009 in Civil Appeal No.5762 of 2009, Between: Coal India
Ltd. & Anr Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudari and others.
4)
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dt.14-05-2009 Between: Jagadish Singh Vs. Punjab Engineering
College and others.
In the above cited Judgments, their Lordships have observed that that the punishment should be in commensurate
with the gravity of charges and it should not be shockingly disproportionate. Further, this Tribunal is adhering to the
ratio laid down by their Lordships as applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, to the extent of reinstatement
only.
16(a). Further, this Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220
(DB), wherein their lordships observed that:
“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted
keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the
Constitution. The Labour Court is conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A. The Industrial Court
conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A of the Act for granting appropriate relief”.
17. Here, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a case rendered on 04.05.1994, Between: Management
of Glaxo India Ltd., Vs. State of Assam and 3 others categorically observed that “a Labour Court is required to settle
a dispute according to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and law without attaching
undue importance to legal technicalities”.
18. Therefore, in view of the above decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case, if we come to quantum of
sentence it is settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised U/Sec.11-A is available only on the existence of
certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to shock the conscience of
the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past
conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. A perusal of record shows
that the petitioner suffered from ill-health and submitted several medical documents in support of the treatment
imparted to him by SCCL Hospitals and other referral hospitals. Further, the petitioner submitted that he hails from a
very poor family and has got no other livelihood and facing untold financial problems, hence prayed to consider the
case U/Sec.11-A of I.D., Act. The petitioner is out of employment since 2021 and there is reasonable and sufficient
cause for his absence to duties during charge sheets period, as the ill-health suffered by the petitioner is substantiated
by the oral and documentary evidence adduced before this Tribunal. In view of the above mitigating circumstances of
the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the
respondents’/company against the petitioner deserves to be modified since the disciplinary authority cannot be
permitted to act arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight between David and Goliath
as in the present case on hand. Moreover, facts of this case attracts the proverbial saying “Every saint has a past and
every sinner has a future” and Biblical proverbs “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights
of all who are destitute” and “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Further, “Heavens
would not have fallen if one more opportunity is given for the petitioner by giving reinstatement”.
19. This Tribunal has perused, analyzed and meditated upon the case on hand, the case laws and principles of law
referred above. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the principle of “temper
justice with mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the extreme
punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and shocks the conscience of this Tribunal and hence, it
deserves to be modified appropriately. However, since the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved, the relief is
to be moulded by this Tribunal appropriately and considering the mitigating circumstances discussed supra, the
petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service only. But, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, any
attendant benefits and any continuity of service during the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to till date
and it shall be treated as “Not on duty” for all purposes, which would be a deterrent punishment to the petitioner.
However, the past service rendered by the petitioner shall be protected for all purposes. Hence, the punishment of
dismissal from service imposed by the Respondents’ Company is hereby modified. Accordingly, the Point No. 2 & 3
are answered.
5454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order dt.01.12.2021 under Ex.M-21 passed
by the Respondent No.2 is hereby modified. The respondents’/company is directed to reinstate the petitioner into
service only, but, without any attendant benefits, without any back wages and without any continuity of service during
the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to till date and it shall be treated as “Not on duty” for all
purposes. However, the past service rendered by the petitioner shall be protected for all purposes and the petitioner is
entitled to the salary only from the date of publication this Award. Copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of December,
2024.
Dr. T. SRINIVASA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN:-
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
WW-1: Gorremutchu Anil Kumar
MW-1: Kukkala Paul Srujan.
Petitioner/Workman
Senior Personnel Officer
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR WORKMAN:-
Ex.W-1
Dt.
01.10.2010
SCCL letter showing mine accident met by the petitioner causing
from serious injury.
Ex.W-2
Dt.
04.12.2010
NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad Medical record of petitioner.
Ex.W-3
Dt.
04.12.2010
NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, OP Card of Petitioner.
Ex.W-4
Dt.
04.12.2020
NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad Medical report of Petitioner.
Ex.W-5
Dt.
17.01.2021
SCCL Area Hospital medical prescription of petitioner for his
right ILIAC CREST injury in mine accident.
Ex.W-6
Dt.
17.06.2021
SCCL Area Hospital medical prescription of petitioner for his
right ILIAC CREST injury in mine accident.
Ex.W-7
Dt.
02.03.2012
SCCL Area Hospital medical prescription.
Ex.W-8
Dt.
02.03.2012
SCCL hospital treatment for injury to index finger while working
in mine.
Ex.W-9
Dt.
02.03.2012
SCCL hospital treatment for injury to index finger while working
in mine.
Ex.W-10
Dt.
03.03.2012
SCCL Area Hospital medical prescription.
Ex.W-11
Dt.
19.05.2012 to
28.05.2012
SCCL hospital medical prescriptions.
Ex.W-12
Dt.
29.05.2012 to
10.07.2012
SCCL Area Hospital medical prescription of the petitioner.
Ex.W-13
Dt.
15.06.2012
SCCL Area Hospital reference letter to main hospital,
Kothagudem Senior Ortho Surgeon.
Ex.W-14
Dt.
18.06.2012 to
25.06.2012
SCCL Main Hospital Discharge Card imparting treatment.
Ex.W-15
Dt.
22.06.2012
SCCL Physiotherapy treatment card.
Ex.W-16
Dt.
17.07.2012
SCCL Area medical prescription for right ILIAC CREST pain.
Ex.W-17
Dt.
13.06.2012 to
23.07.2012
SCCL Area Hospital Fit Certificate imparting treatment and
petitioner allowed to duty.
Ex.W-18
Dt.
20.05.2013
SCCL reference letter to Deccan Hospital, Hyderabad for MRI
LS Spine.
Ex.W-19
Dt.
11.07.2013
SCCL main hospital treatment imparted and petitioner advised fit
only after one week by area hospital.
Ex.W-20
Dt.
06.03.2014
SCCL area hospital treatment medical prescription.
Ex.W-21
Dt.
24.07.2014
SCCL hospital medical treatment imparted for two days.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5455
Ex.W-22
Dt.
24.07.2014 to
29.07.2014
SCCL area hospital fit certificate imparting treatment and
petitioner allowed to duty.
Ex.W-23
Dt.
10.10.2017
SCCL hospital discharge card.
Ex.W-24
Dt.
09.10.2014 to
12.10.2017
SCCL area hospital fit certificate imparting treatment.
Ex.W-25
Dt.
16.05.2019
SCCL area hospital, RKP (SRP) medical prescription of the
petitioner.
Ex.W-26
Dt.
16.05.2019
SCCL area hospital, RKP (SRP) medical prescription of the
petitioner.
Ex.W-27
Dt.
09.06.2018
SCCL reference letter to the Deccan hospital, Hyderabad for
imparting treatment to the petitioner.
Ex.W-28
Dt.
14.06.2018
SCCL area hospital reference letter to SCCL area hospital, GDK
for G.I. bleeding of the petitioner.
Ex.W-29
Dt.
10.07.2018
SCCL reference letter to the Deccan hospital, Hyderabad for
imparting treatment to the petitioner.
Ex.W-30
Dt.
-
Discharge Summary by Deccan hospital, hyderabad 3 papers
showing ill health suffered by petitioner.
Ex.W-31
Dt.
07.09.2018
SCCL reference letter to main hospital, kothagudem.
Ex.W-32
Dt.
06.12.2018
SCCL area hospital, RKP (SRP) medical prescription of the
petitioner.
Ex.W-33
Dt.
17.04.2019
SCCL reference letter to Kamineni Hospitals, L.B. Nagar,
Hyderabad.
Ex.W34
Dt.
17.04.2024
Medical history of petitioner, endoscopy report, colour doppler,
X-ray report, US report and CT report of petitioner by Kamineni
hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W35
Dt.
18.04.2019
CT report of petitioner by kamineni hospital, hyderabad.
Ex.W36
Dt.
17.04.2019
Clinical reports of petitioner by Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W37
Dt.
20.04.2019
Discharge Summary of Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W-38
Dt.
24.04.2019
Certificate of Kamineni hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W-39
Dt.
-
Medical prescription of petitioner by Kamineni hospital,
Hyderabad 3 papers.
Ex.W-40
Dt.
04.05.2019
SCCL reference letter to the main hospital, kothagudem
regarding treatment and fitness for duty.
Ex.W-41
Dt.
11.05.2019
SCCL reference letter to PACE hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W-42
Dt.
20.05.2019
Discharge Summary of Petitioner by the PACE hospital,
Hyderabad.
Ex.W-43
Dt.
21.05.2019
SCCL reference letter to vinrinchi hospital, Hyderabad for further
evaluation.
Ex.W-44
Dt.
22.05.2019
SCCL reference letter to vinrinchi hospital, Hyderabad for further
evaluation.
Ex.W-45
Dt.
03.09.2019
SCCLp reference letter to Sunshine hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W-46
Dt.
12.09.2019
MRI Cervical Spine of Sunshine hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.W-47
Dt.
12.09.2019 to
17.09.2019
Medical prescription by sunshine hospital, hyderabad.
Ex.W-48
Dt.
17.09.2019
MRI Brain of the petitioner by sun shine hospital, hyderabad.
Ex.W-49
Dt.
18.11.2019
SCCL Area Hospital, Medical prescription.
Ex.W-50
Dt.
05.01.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
5456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W-51
Dt.
05.02.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-52
Dt.
08.04.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-53
Dt.
10.04.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-54
Dt.
11.04.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-55
Dt.
16.04.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-56
Dt.
06.06.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-57
Dt.
02.08.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-58
Dt.
09.10.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-59
Dt.
22.11.2020
Medlife Hospital, Vishakapatnam Medical Prescriptions of
Petitioner.
Ex.W-60
Dt.
03.01.2024
Appeal preferred by the petitioner.
Ex.W-61
Dt.
06.03.2023
O/c of Demand letter of the petitioner by RPAD and Ack of R-2.
Ex.W-62
Dt.
31.05.2021
Medical OP (Male) Registration of petitioner with O.P.No.
57076493724 at SCCL Disp-4.
Ex.W-63
Dt.
06.06.2021
Reference Form for treatment of petitioner forwarded from the
time.
FOR MANAGEMENT:
Ex.M-1
Dt.
01.03.2013
Attested Copy of warning letter issued to the petitioner in
view
of
Charge
Sheet
vide
Lr.No.
SRP/PER/13/008/1284.
Ex.M-2
Dt.
20.03.2013
Attested Copy of Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner
Vide Lr.No.IK. IA/2013/R.08/767.
Ex.M-3
Dt.
05/06.05.2013
Attested copy of show cause notice to the petitioner vide
Lr.No. SRP/PER/13.008/3328.
Ex.M-4
Dt.
24.09.2015
Attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner Vide
Lr.No.IK. IA/2015/R10/2874.
Ex.M-5
Dt.
24.03.2018
Attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide
Vide Lr.No.IK. IA/2018/R.08/1032.
Ex.M-6
Dt.
19.03.2018
Attested copy of Enquiry notice to the petitioner.
Ex.M-7
Dt.
04.04.2018
Attested copy of enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-8
Dt.
04.04.2018
Attested copy of application by the petitioner.
Ex.M-9
Dt.
06.04.2018
Attested copy of enquiry report and enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-10
Dt.
28.01.2019
Attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide
Lr.No. SRP/IK. IA/2019/R.08/364.
Ex.M-11
Dt.
19.11.2019
Attested copy of disciplinary action against petitioner
vide SRP/IK. IA/2019/R.07/5876.
Ex.M-12
Dt.
20.02.2020
Attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide
Lr.No. SRP/IK.IA/2020/R.08/897
Ex.M-13
Dt.
12.10.2020
Attested copy of publication of show cause notice in
telugu daily vide SRP/IK.IA/2020/R.08 / 897.
Ex.M-14
Dt.
21.10.2020
Attested copy of enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-15
Dt.
30.11.2020
Attested copy of show cause notice to the petitioner vide
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5457
SRP/IK.IA/R.08/2020/5349.
Ex.M-16
Dt.
20.01.2021
Attested copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide
Lr.No. SRP/IK.IA/2021/R.08/344
Ex.M-17
Dt.
28.01.2021
Attested copy of publication of show cause notice in
Telugu daily vide SRP/IK.IA/2020/R. 08/897.
Ex.M-18
Dt.
27.04.2021
Attested copy of enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-19
Dt.
05.06.2021
Attested copy of publication of show cause notice in
telugu daily vide SRP/IK.IA/2020/ R.08 / 897.
Ex.M-20
Dt.
18/14.09.2021
Attested copy of disciplinary action against petitioner i.e.,
stoppage of one increment vide SRP/PER/13.008/6106.
Ex.M-21
Dt.
01.11/12.2021
Attested copy of dismissal order of petitioner vide Lr.No.
SRP/ PER/13008/7615.
Ex.W-22
Dt.
03.12.2021
Attested copy of name removal letter of petitioner vide
Lr.No. SRP/IK.IA/2021/PO1/5685.
Ex.W-23
Dt.
05.09.2024
Authorization letter.
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2319.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी-आर/127/2012+) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012-138-2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/127/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/12/2024.
[No. L-22012-138-2012-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/127/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
The General Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Qtr. No. M/91, Vikas Nagar, Post- Kusmunda
District-Korba, Chattisgarh.
Workman
Vs
1. The General Manager,
SECL Kusmunda Area, Post-Kusmunda,
District-Korba, Chattisgarh.
5458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The General Manger (P&A)
SECL H.Q., Sipat Road, Bilalspur,
Chattisgarh.
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 08th day of November-2024)
As per letter dated 05/11/2012 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-22012/138/2012-IR (CM-II) dt. 05/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether, the action of the management of (i) the General Manager, Kusmunda Area of SECL
Kusmunda, District Korba (CG) as well as the General Manager (P&A), SECL H.Q. Bilaspur (CG) is not
correction the date of birth of Sh. Laxmi Prasad Yadav, Shovel Operator on the basis of the Matriculation
Certificate at the time of the appointment as per I.I. No. 76 of NCWA was legal, proper and justified?
What relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date?”
Case of the workman, as taken in his statement of claim, is mainly that he was first appointed as a Driver on
04/04/1985 and has submitted his Matriculation Certificate issued in 1980 by the Board of Secondary Education
Madhya Pradesh containing his date of birth recorded as 10/11/1960. He also produced his Driving License
containing date of his birth as 10/11/1960 at the time of his first appointment. The Medical Officer assessed his age 25
years as on 31.03.1985 at the time of his Initial Medical Examination under Rule 29 of Mines Rules, 1955 whereas he
was only 24 year 4 months and 21 days. In the Form B register, prepared by the Management at the time of his first
appointment, as date of birth was recorded as 01/01/1960 which was against the documents and even the medical
examination report. In the Form-A filed by the Workman for the Coal Mines Provident Fund as date of birth re-
correctly recorded as 10.11.1960 and was duly recorded by Colliery Manager the competent Authority. Even in his
service excerpts issued by management on 13.09.1987, as date of birth was correctly recorded also as Educational
Qualification was mentioned as Matriculation passed. The Management, ignoring the date of his birth as mentioned
above in the records, forcibly Superannuated the workman on the basis of his date of birth mention in Form B
registered which was against law, unjust and arbitrary, the workman has thus requested that holding the action of
management in Superannuating him on the basis of his date of Birth 01.01.1960, against law, unjust and arbitrary the
Workman be entitled to be deemed in service and superannuated on the basis of his correct date of birth 10.11.1960.
And also be held entitled to all service as well post retrial benefits.
Management has taken a case that the Workman did not produce any documents with regard to his age and
date of Birth at the time of his first appointment and declared his date of birth as 01.01.1960 which was mention in the
form B register, counter signed by the workman. He was transferred thereafter to other colliery where his Form-B was
prepared the same date of birth 01.01.1960 was mentioned in the Form-B prepared in different Colliery consequent to
his transfer. In the year 1987, service exhibits of the Workman were issued mentioning his date of birth 01.01.1960
but he never raised objection with respect to the entry of the date of workman in the service Exhibits mentioned
10.11.1960, management has pleaded that it was the workman who had manipulated the entry. Thus, according to the
management, its action in superannuating the workman taking his date of birth as 01.01.1960 is just legal and proper.
The workman has filed his rejoinder were in he is mainly retreated his case.
In evidence, the workman filed his petition regarding raising disputes before ALC, reply of management on
rejoinder of the workman before ALC and other reply of the management before the ALC failure of conciliation
report, all admitted by management and marked Ex. W-1 to W-8. The workman further filed copy of his Matriculation
Certificate and has proved.
Management filed and proved copy of service register of the workman and copies of Form-B, Form PS-3 and
PS-4 service extract which are exhibit M 1 to M 7.
The workman Laxmi Prasad has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief he has been crossed examined
by the management. Management has filed the affidavits of its witness Rohit Shrivastava which has been cross
examined by the workman side.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Shri Subodh Agrawal for Workman and Shri Neeraj Kewat for
workman. The workman side has filed written argument. I have gone through the written arguments and the record as
well.
From the perusal of evidence of the management witness, documents, it is evident that the dispute regarding
correction of date of birth of the Workman raised by him before the management, was considered and his date of birth
was revised as 31.03.1960 by management. In the light of fact, the Sole issue for determination remains the following.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5459
“Whether the action of management in revising the dated of birth of the workman Laxmi Prasad
Yadav from 01.01.1960 to 31.03.1960 is correct in law and fact ?”
Not disputed is a fact that the workman was first appointed as driver, secondly, he would have his driving
license and at last he would not have illiterate at the time he applied for the post and was selected. Case of
management and its witness is that it was the workman himself who disclosed his date of birth as 01.01.1960 at the
time of his first appointment when a Monitory Form No.-B was being prepared. It is further the case of management
that the workman deed advocated the entries by putting his signatures on firm bill. Be rectifying the date of birth of
the workman, management itself accepts that his date of birth 01.01.1960 recorded by management in their records
was in fact not correct. And that is why the management entered in the dispute regarding date of birth of the
workman.
The Implementation Institutions No. 76 (II76) issued under National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-III)
provide the procedure to deal with age and date of birth disputes of the workman.
There is on record, order of management dated 10.02.2016 which is an office order which goes to disclose
that in the light of letter No. 1074 dated 29.09.2015, the comments note no. 916 dated 01.08.2015 & the letter of
Deputy General Manager (Personnel), letter No. 8030 dated 03.10.2015, the date of birth of the workman Laxmi
Prasad Yadav is changed to 31.03.1960 as recommended by Competent Authority. Management has not filed the basis
of the recommendation by the Competent Authority. The management witness has stated in his affidavit as his
examination in chief that to resolve the age dispute, the Competent Authority constituted a Committee under his order
No. 661 dated 07.02.2015, who examined the case in the light of I.I. 76 and NCWA-III and submitted its report in
which the workman had declared his age/ D.O.B. 25 years as on 31.03.1985 and treated the date of birth 31.03.1960
recorded in I.M.E. from-O treated as correct.
According to the I.I. 76,, in case of appointees who had passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the
date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same shall not be altered in
any circumstances.
Hence, the Committee constituted was under obligation in law to consider the date of birth of the workman
recorded in his matriculation certificate as conclusive. It has to be kept in mind that the workman was appointed as
driver, naturally he would have produced his driving license which contains date of birth of the licensee.
In the light of the above discussion, the action of management/ age determination committee in ignoring the
date of birth of the workman recorded in his matriculation certificate is held against law and unjustified.
Consequently, the action of management in superannuating the workman on the basis of his date of birth other than
that recorded in his matriculation certificate i.e. 10.11.1960 is also held against law and the workman is held entitled
to be deemed in service till the date of his superannuation on the basis of his date of birth 10.11.1960 and is further
held entitled to all the consequential in service and post retiral benefits.
Accordingly, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of management/ age determination committee in ignoring the date of birth of the
workman recorded in his matriculation certificate against law and unjustified, the action of management in
superannuating the workman on the basis of his date of birth other than that recorded in his matriculation certificate
i.e. 10.11.1960 is also held against law and the workman is held entitled to be deemed in service till the date of his
superannuation on the basis of his date of birth 10.11.1960 and is further held entitled to all the consequential in
service and post retiral benefits. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 08/11/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2320.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 04/2022) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012-19-2022-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
5460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference. I.D. No. 04/2022 of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/12/2024.
[No. L-22012-19-2022-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 04 OF 2022
PARTIES: Ranjit Kumar Mahato
(dependant son of Ram Chandra Mahato)
Vs.
Management of Modern Satgram Colliery of ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
26.11.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/19/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 24.02.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Modern Satgram Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Modern Satgram
Colliery (under Satgram Area) in delaying / denying the Employment claim of Shri Ranjit Kumar Mahato,
dependent son of Late Ram Chandra Mahato, Ex-Surface Looseman, UM No. 373979 is just and legal? If
not, to what relief Shri Ranjit Kumar Mahato is entitled to? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/19/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 24.02.2022 from the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 04 of 2022 was registered on 14.03.2022
/ 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2. Written statement was filed by the President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress on 10.08.2022 on behalf of Ranjit
Kumar Mahato. Brief fact of the case as disclosed in the written statement is that Ram Chandra Mahato worked
as a Looseman at Modern Satgram Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to
as ECL) as a permanent employee bearing UM No. 373979. He died in herness on 28.10.1994. According to the
provision of Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement – V (hereinafter referred to as NCWA-V) one dependant
of the workman, who died while in service is entitled to employment. Accordingly, Ranjit Kumar Mahato, dependant
son of Ram Chandra Mahato applied for his employment under ECL but the management did not accept the request.
Initially on the plea that his father was dismissed from the service of the company on the charge of unauthorized
absence. Ram Chandra Mahato was suffering from Tuberculosis and was admitted at Tuberculosis Hospital, Searsole
which was informed to the management of the colliery and there was no communication to the workman before his
death about dismissal. The Competent Authority of ECL, on intervention by the union treated Ram Chandra Mahato
to be in the roll of the company at the time of death and processed the proposal for employment of his dependant son.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5461
After proper screening at colliery and Area level, medical examination was held by the Initial Medical Examination
(hereinafter referred to as IME) Board, which found the dependant son fit for employment. The General Manager of
Area recommended the proposal for employment and sent the same to the Eastern Coalfields Limited Headquarters.
Some queries were made regarding discrepancies in the name of the applicant. The management of the colliery after
completing verification and all formalities again forwarded the proposal for employment to the ECL Headquarters.
Some clarifications were sought by the ECL Headquarters through letter bearing no. Ref: ECL/CMD/C-
6B/EMPL/WD-2230/11/387 dated 05.08.2011, which was replied by the dependant son. It is the contention by the
union that till date the management of ECL has not taken any final decision on the prayer for employment and no
communication was made to him. It is urged that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the management and the
dependant son is suffering due to delay and inaction of the management. The union has prayed for providing
employment to the dependant son and all other consequential benefits which he is entitled to.
3. In support of its case the union has examined Ranjit Kumar Mahato as Workman Witness – 1 and Smt. Siya
Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Mahato as Workman Witness – 2. Documents produced have been admitted in evidence
as follows:
(i) Copy of the Death Certificate of Ram Chandra Mahato has been marked as Exhibit W-1.
(ii) Copy of the Service Record Excerpt of Ram Chandra Mahato, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii) Copy of the Application dated 13.12.1994 submitted by the wife of Ram Chandra Mahato for
providing employment to the dependant son, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv) Copy of the Application dated 31.10.1994 submitted by the wife of Ram Chandra Mahato, claiming
employment and other benefits, as Exhibit W-4.
(v) Copy of the Letter 13.05.1997 issued by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager of Satgram Area addressed
to the Agent, Jemehari Colliery, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi) Copy of the Letter dated 27.09.1997 informing Ranjit Kumar Mahato to appear before the Area
Medical Officer, Satgram Area, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii) Copy of the Letter dated 31.03.1998 issued by the Manager, Jemehari (R) Colliery, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii) Copy of Letter dated 24/28.04.1998 issued by the Deputy Personnel Manager, Satgram Area,
relating to some discrepancies in the name of the applicant in the school certificates, as
Exhibit W-8.
(ix) Copy of the Letter dated 05.08.2011 issued by the Manager (Personnel)/Empl. WD addressed to the
Chief Manager (Personnel) proposing a discreet screening and resubmission of all documents in
the form of a Note Sheet along with reports of two men committee and police verification has
been produced as Exhibit W-9.
(x) Copy of letter dated 17.12.2011 issued by Senior Manager (Personnel) seeking submission of some
documents like Voter Identity Card and Ration Card, as Exhibit W-10.
(xi) Copy of letter dated 07.03.2011 proposing IME of some dependents for providing employment, as
Exhibit W-11.
(xii) Copy of the Application dated 13.09.2018 addressed to Sr. Manager (Personnel) requesting the
status of employment proceeding, as Exhibit W-12.
(xiii) Copy of the letter dated 05.11.2018 issued by Sr. Manager (Personnel), Jemehari Colliery regarding
submission of clarification, documents and employment file of Ranjit Kumar Mahato, as Exhibit
W-13.
(xiv) Copies of the Applications dated 21.11.2019, 04.03.2021 and 26.10.2022, submitted by Ranjit
Kumar Mahato from time to time as reminder for providing employment have been collectively
marked as Exhibit W-14.
(xv) Copy of the Aadhaar Card of Ranjit Kumar, as Exhibit W-15.
(xvi) Copy of the Voter Identity Card, as Exhibit W-16.
(xvii) Copy of BPL card of the year 2010 of Siya Devi, as Exhibit W-17.
4. In course of cross-examination of Ranjit Kumar Mahato (WW-1) deposed in the School Final Certificate that his
father’s name appears as Ram Chandra Singh and in the Service Record the name of the deceased employee appeared
as Ram Chandra Mahato and his son’s name appeared as Ranjit Kumar Mahato. The witness further admitted that
after submission of his application for providing employment, the management of ECL wanted to know his actual
name and asked for other documents like Voter Identity Card and Aadhaar Card where his name appeared as Ranjit
5462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Kumar and not Ranjit Kumar Mahato. The witness stated that he is unaware if Sia Devi and other lady by the name of
Lakshmi Devi laid claim over Gratuity amount in respect of Ram Chandra Mahato. The witness also denied the
suggestion that his name is Ranjit Kumar and not Ranjit Kumar Mahato. It is pertinent to note that the witness
claimed to have complied the direction of the management in their letter dated 17.12.2011 by submitting all
documents. However, no such copy of reply has been placed before the Tribunal.
5. In course of cross-examination of Sia Devi (WW-2) denied that the name of Ranjit Kumar, son of Ram Chandra
Singh appears in Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti Certificate and Ranjit Kumar Mahato, son of Ram Chandra Mahato
and Ranjit Kumar, son of Ram Chandra Singh are different persons.
6. The management contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on 01.11.2022. The specific
case of the management as disclosed in their written statement is that Ram Chandra Mahato was absenting from duty
from 28.01.1994 and he was chargesheeted. Subsequently, a Domestic Enquiry was held and he was dismissed from
service w.e.f. 25/26.10.1994. Meanwhile, it was reported that the concerned employee expired on 28.10.1994, before
communication of the order of dismissal. Waiving the order of dismissal, the Competent Authority was pleased to
process the claim for employment of the dependant son. Ranjit Kumar Mahato submitted an application claiming
employment against the death of his father on 25.06.1997 after lapse of approximate three years. Necessary
formalities were complied at Colliery and Area level, IME of the claimant was held and the proposal for
employment was forwarded to the ECL Headquarters for scrutiny and approval of the Competent Authority. The
employment proposal was returned to Satgram Area Office due to some irregularity and discrepancies observed at
ECL Headquarters. There was mismatch in the name of the claimant in the application and his educational
certificates. The question of genuineness of relationship cropped up. Fresh declaration of witness and Indemnity Bond
were sought for. Police verification was done at his native place. Explanation was sought for regarding reasons for
delay in submitting the application. Letter bearing Ref. No. ECL/CMD/C-6B/EMPL/WD-2230/11/387 dated
05.08.2011 was issued by the Manager (Personnel)/Empl. WD, ECL Headquarters, returning the proposal for
employment, pointing out some discrepancies and sought for clarification as well as necessary documents. The unit
management issued a letter dated 17.12.2011 to Ranjit Kumar Mahato @ Ranjit Kumar, seeking clarification about
the discrepancies pointed out by the ECL Headquarters and advised him to submit relevant documents. It is the case
of the management that instead of forwarding necessary documents the claimant initiated the Industrial Dispute
before this Tribunal. It is contended that the management committed no illegality or impropriety in denying the
proposal for employment and the Industrial Dispute is fit to be dismissed.
7. In support of their case management examined Mr. Amit Kumar, Manager (Personnel) as Management
Witness – 1. Affidavit-in-chief has been filed wherein it is stated that Ranjit Kumar Mahato, son of Ram Chandra
Mahato submitted application for claim of employment on 25.06.1997, claiming employment after lapse of three
years from the death of the employee. The proposal for employment was returned to Satgram Area Office due to some
irregularities and discrepancies over mismatch in the name of the claimant in his educational certificate and
genuineness of relationship. Further particulars and explanations were sought for from the claimant but Ranjit Kumar
Mahato, the claimant neither submitted the requisite documents nor sent any information. The management produced
copies of letter dated 05.08.2011, which is marked as Exhibit M-1 and letter dated 30.11.2011 / 17.12.2011 addressed
to Ranjit Kumar Mahato asking him to submit certain documents as Exhibit M-2.
8. In course of cross-examination the management witness denied that Siya Devi submitted applications on
13.12.1994 and 31.10.1994, seeking employment for her son Ranjit Kumar Mahato. The witness admitted that IME
and screening of Ranjit Kumar Mahato were held. He also admitted that some queries were made but the concerned
applicant did not comply the same. The witness admitted letter dated 05.11.2018 issued by the Senior Manager
(Personnel), Jemehari Colliery addressed to the Senior Manager (Personnel)/IC, Satgram Area, whereby clarification
and documents along with original file were forwarded to the Area for needful action. The witness admitted that no
communication was made to the person regarding the reason for refusal of the proposal for employment.
9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative arguing the case on behalf of the dependant son of Ram Chandra
Mahato submitted that the workman died in harness on 28.10.1994 at the age of 49 years, leaving behind his wife,
three sons and one daughter. The Service Record Excerpt has been produced as Exhibit W-2. It is submitted by the
union representative that immediately after the death of the workman, Siya Devi submitted two applications dated
13.12.1994 and 31.10.1994, claiming employment for her elder son, Ranjit Kumar Mahato produced as Exhibit W-3
and W-4. The employment process was initiated on the basis of letter dated 13.05.1997 (Exhibit W-5). Thereafter,
Ranjit Kumar Mahato was referred to Satgram Area Hospital by letter dated 27.09.1997 (Exhibit W-6) for his medical
examination. The management issued a letter dated 31.03.1998 addressed to Ranjit Kumar Mahato asking him to
produce his original educational certificate before Mr. T. B. Raju, Deputy Personnel Manager, Satgram Area. Copy of
the letter has been produced as Exhibit W-7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued that in the school certificate the name of
Ranjit Kumar Mahato was recorded as Ranjit Kumar and the name of his father was recorded as Ram Chandra Singh.
Due to discrepancies the management issued a letter bearing Ref. No. SAT/PER/EMPL/6026/98/4037 dated
24/28.04.1998 (Exhibit W-8) to the Agent, Jemehari (R) Colliery, seeking clarification and re-examination of
relationship and to send a report. Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued that the dependant son has submitted all his documents
before the management for dispelling the doubt regarding the identity but till date no employment has been provided
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5463
to the dependant son. Referring to Exhibit W-13 a letter dated 05.11.2018 issued by the Senior Manager
(Personnel)/IC, Satgram Area, it is submitted that clarification and documents along with original file of Ranjit
Kumar Mahato were sent for necessary action. The claimant waited for several years, issued reminder to the
management for his employment, the same have been marked as Exhibit W-14 collectively. It is urged that even after
satisfying necessary queries and producing documents there is inordinate delay on the part of the management for not
finalizing the claim for employment.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management drew my attention to Exhibit M-1, a letter dated
05.08.2011, issued by the Manager (Personnel)/Empl. WD, addressed to the Chief Manager (Personnel), Satgram
Area, wherein it is stated that in the educational certificate which has been enclosed in the file name of the candidate
has been recorded as Ranjit Kumar, son of Ram Chandra Singh but the claimant submitted his application as Ranjit
Kumar Mahato, son of Ram Chandra Mahato. It is argued that such discrepancy could not be reconciled by the
claimant. The claimant was therefore requested to submit some documents as stated in letter dated 30.11.2011 /
17.12.2011 (Exhibit M-2), but till date no such compliance has been made.
11.
Considered the argument advanced by the union representative and learned advocate for the management, in the
back drop of the facts and circumstances of this case. The rights and liabilities in respect of the Industrial Dispute
arose on the death of an employee in harness and a claim made by the dependant son for employment. According to
the provisions in Clause 9.3.2. of NCWA-V, one dependant of the workman, who died while in service is entitled to
employment. The conditions for employment laid down in Clause 9.3.4 is that the dependants to be considered for
employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years on the date of
submitting his claim for employment. In the instant case the union has produced copies of two letters as Exhibit W-2
and W-3, purportedly submitted in the year 1994, claiming employment for Ranjit Kumar Mahato. Management has
denied receipt of the letters. However, it is admitted that the first application was submitted by the claimant in the
year 1997, nearly three years after the death of the workman. Be that as it may, it appears from Exhibit W-5, a letter
dated 13.05.1997 that after several discussion with union regarding employment to the dependant of the ex-workman,
the General Manager (Personnel), ECL, Sanctoria had advised to process the employment proposal of the dependant
of Ram Chandra Mahato, who expired on 28.10.1994. This decision on the part of management of ECL amounts to
waiver of delay on the part of the claimant in filing the application. It is gathered from Exhibit W-6 and W-7 that the
process of employment was initiated and the claimant was referred for his medical examination at Sanctoria Area
Hospital and was asked to produce original school certificate. Thereafter, some discrepancies arose regarding the
name of the claimant which appeared as Ranjit Kumar in his school certificate and his father’s name appeared as Ram
Chandra Singh instead of Ram Chandra Mahato. In course of evidence the School Certificate has not been produced
for consideration. It looms large from such record is that there was some error and discrepancy in the name of the
claimant appearing in the Service of Ram Chandra Mahato and School Certificate of the claimant. From examination-
in-chief of Management Witness -1, it appears in paragraph – 7 that the employment proposal was returned back to
Satgram Area Office several times due to some irregularities / discrepancies found during scrutiny at ECL
Headquarters and due to mismatch in the name of the claimant, appearing in the educational certificates. In order to
ascertain the identity of the claimant, the management had sought for Police Verification Report from his native place
but did not come out fairly consider the report, which was submitted by the police. There is no specific case of the
management that Police Verification Report is not correct or Ranjit Kumar and Ranjit Kumar Mahato are not the
same person or the claimant is not the son of Ram Chandra Mahato. The management of the ECL is therefore duty
bound to consider the identity of the petitioner claimant and genuineness of the relationship between the claimant and
the deceased employee without any further delay and conclusively determine the right to employment as per NCWA.
In my considered view, though there has been substantial delay in finalizing the process for employment, it appears
from letter dated 05.11.2018 (Exhibit W-13) that the management has misplaced the file of Ranjit Kumar Mahato,
sometime in the year 2012. The delay is therefore attributable to the inaction and negligence on the part of the
management and the dependant son cannot suffer due to inaction and negligence of the management. The
management is duty bound to comply the terms of NCWA instead of delaying the process to frustrate the claim for
employment. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly decided in favour of the union on contest against Management.
The management of ECL is directed to consider the proposal for employment of Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar
Mahato within a period of two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of the union and against the management of
Modern Satgram Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The management of employer company
is directed to process the prayer for employment within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award
and inform the finality of the decision to Ranjit Kumar Mahato, the claimant within fifteen (15) days. Let an award be
drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
5464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2321.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 10/2020) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22012-3-2020-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference. I.D. No. 10/2020 of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/12/2024.
[No. L-22012-3-2020-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 10 OF 2020
PARTIES: Jiban Kumar Jyoti
Vs.
Management of Central Kajora Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Jiban Kumar Jyoti (in person).
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
29.11.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/3/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Central Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the demand of Koyala Khadan Shramik Congress (INTTUC), Burdwan to regularize service of Sri
Jiban Kumar Jyoti, SDL Operator, as Pump Operator in Central Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s.
E.C.Ltd. after a mine accident is appropriate and justified? If yes, to what relief Sri Jiban Kumar Jyoti, SDL
Operator is entitled to? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/3/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 from the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 10 of 2020 was registered on 24.02.2020
and Notice were issued 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.
2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up
today for appearance and evidence of workman witness. On call Jiban Kumar Jyoti, aggrieved workman, who sought
for regularization of service as Pump Operator in Central Kajora colliery, has appeared and submitted that on
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5465
28.08.2024 he filed an application before this Tribunal, praying for passing a No Dispute Award on the ground that
due to personal reasons he does not want to proceed further and want to withdraw the same. Copy of application for
withdrawing the Reference case has been served upon the learned advocate for the management.
3. After registration of this case, parties filed their respective written statements and the case was fixed up for
evidence. At this stage workman filed the instant application to withdraw the referred Industrial Dispute which was
raised at his instance. Considered the same. Prayer is allowed. Industrial Dispute raised by Jiban Kumar Jyoti for his
regularization as Pump Operator in Central Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited is
allowed to be withdrawn. Industrial Dispute is accordingly disposed of and a No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. The Reference case is withdrawn. 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, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2322.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभड सं् ा 02/2018) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@12@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल – 22013-01-2025-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference. I.D. No. 02/2018 of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/12/2024.
[No. L-22013-01-2025-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
APPLICATION NO. 02 OF 2018
PARTIES: Akash Gantait
(represented by Koyala Mazdoor Congress)
Vs.
Management of Parbelia Colliery of ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, President, Advocate.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
20.11.2024
5466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been raised by Koyala Mazdoor Congress, a recognized trade union on failure of
conciliation proceeding under section 2A if the Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Asansol. The concerned union filed an application under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 2010 along with a certificate u/s 12(4) of I.D. Act dated 15.05.2017 issued by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol from the purpose of enabling the union to approach the CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol for adjudication of the dispute.
2. The union filed their Application on 05.03.2018 on the basis of which the instant case has been registered. Fact of
case in nutshell is that Akash Gantait, UG Loader bearing U.M. No. 124245 was a permanent employee at Parabelia
Colliery, ECL. Due to serious illness, he could not attend duty. After he was declared medically fit, he went to join his
duty but the management of the company issued Charge Sheet against him and after a domestic enquiry dismissed
him from the service of the company on 11.07.2016. It is the case of the workman that he submitted medical
certificate in support of his illness, but the management did not consider his case and dismissed him from service
ignoring the principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that the alleged misconduct of absence from duty was
beyond his control as he was suffering from illness and the punishment imposed against him is disproportionate to his
alleged misconduct. The workman prayed for his reinstatement in service and payment of back wages.
3. Management of the Parabelia Colliery contested the case by filing their written statement on 01.11.2021 through
the Chief Manager (Mining), Parabelia Collliery. The specific case of the management is that the workman was
charge sheeted for his unauthorized absence from duty from 18.09.2014 to 01.04.2015. The workman failed to submit
any satisfactory reply to the Charge Sheet. As a result, a domestic enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer and the
workman participated in the enquiry along with co-worker. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report and the charge
framed against the workman was proved beyond any doubt. Management inter alia stated that the attendance of the
workman in the preceding three years was very poor. Akash Gantait attended his duty for 72 days in 2012, 31 days in
2013 and 47 days in 2014. After completion of the enquiry, a second Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman
by the General Manager, Sodepur Area dated 07/09.01.2016 through registered post and the ex-workman submitted
his reply to second Show Cause Notice which was again found unsatisfactory. After careful consideration of the
Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceedings and other relevant papers, the competent authority dismissed the workman from
service by letter dated 09/11.07.2016. According to the management, the ex-workman did not send any information
about his illness. It is urged that there was no illegality on the part of the management in dismissing the charged
employee from service. It is asserted that the management lost their confidence in the ex-workman and there is no
scope for his reinstatement in service. It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement nor payment of
back wages and the Application is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleading of both parties, the following issue was framed:
ISSUE
1. “Whether dismissal of Akash Gantait, Ex-Loader, UM No. 124245 by the management of Parbelia colliery is
legally tenable and justified? If not, what relief the workman/dependent of workman is entitled to?”
5. In order to substantiate their case, the union examined Akash Gantait as WW-1. Affidavit-in-chief of Akash
Gantait was filed on 26.09.2022. It is stated by the workman that Charge Sheet No. 396 dated 02.04.2015 was issued
to him for unauthorized and habitual absence from duty wherein it was stated that he was absent from duty from
18.09.2014 to 01.04.2015. He further stated that he was unable to attend his duty due to illness and same was
informed to the management from time to time through his letter dated 18.09.2014, 15.10.2014, 11.12.2014,
23.01.2015, 18.02.2015, 25.07.2015 and 22.06.2015 along with medical certificates. The workman admitted that a
second Show Cause Notice was issued to him and he submitted his reply on 18.03.2016. According to him, apart from
Charge Sheet No. 396, he was never charge sheeted on earlier occasion and was not cautioned for his absence. It is
stated that his wife died in the year 2001 and sometimes he absented from his duty to attend his five years old child.
In his evidence-in-chief, the workman witness stated that he was suffering from typhoid during his absence from duty
but was unable to state if any test for diagnosis of Typhoid was conducted or not. The medical certificate issued by
Dr. M.P. Burnwal and Dr. S.K. Pattanayak, homeopathic doctors has been marked as Exhibit W-6 and Exhibit W-6/1.
Copies of six letters for intimation to the management have been marked as Exhibit W-7 to Exhibit W-7/5. The
workman admitted that he was absent for five years and in the course of cross-examination, the witness deposed that
the Charge Sheet was issued to him for his absence from duty from 18.09.2014 till 01.04.2015. When asked about the
number of days he attended duty in the year 2012, he did not deny that he attended only on 72 days and went ahead to
admit that he attended duty only on 31 days in 2013 and 47 days in 2014. The witness volunteered that he was absent
for most of the time to look after his 10 months old daughter as his wife had passed away at the relevant time. It is
also gathered from his cross-examination that he had not informed the management that he was absent from duty in
order to look after his new born child as his wife had died. No document is produced to show that he communicated
to the management about reason of his absence i.e. taking care of his minor child. The witness participated in the
departmental enquiry but did not examine any doctor who treated him.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5467
6. The workman has produced the following documents in support of his case:
(i) Copy of Charge Sheet dated 02.04.2015 is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii) Reply submitted by the workman on the right side of the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii) Copy of second Show Cause Notice dated 07/09.01.2016, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv) Copy of reply against second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit W-4.
(v) Further reply to the second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi) Copy of medical certificates issued by Dr. M.P. Burnwal and Dr. S.K. Pattanayak, as Exhibit W-6 and
Exhibit W-6/1 respectively.
(vii) Copy of letter issued by the workman intimating his illness, as Exhibit W-7 to Exhibit W-7/5.
7. Mr. Chinmoy Senapati, management witness filed his affidavit-in-chief on 30.01.2023 and has been examined as
MW-1. In his affidavit-in-chief, he statedthat the workman was charge sheeted on 02.04.2015 by the management for
his unauthorized absence from duty from 18.09.2014 and that he was a habitual absentee and for this act of
misconduct a departmental enquiry was initiated. The workman participated in the enquiry. Reasonable opportunity
was given to the workman to defend himself following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after
conclusion of his Enquiry Proceeding submitted his Enquiry Report, holding the workman guilty of charge. A second
Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman and he submitted his reply against the findings. The management
found no extenuating circumstances for absence of the workman from duty on proper grounds and dismissed him
from service. In course of his evidence, the management produced following documents:
(i) A copy Charge Sheet dated 02.04.2015 is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii) Reply submitted by the workman on the right side of the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii) Copy of letter dated 04.09.2015 appointing the Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv) Notice of Enquiry dated 09.09.2015, as Exhibit M-4.
(v) Copy of Enquiry Proceeding in four pages is collectively marked as Exhibit M-5.
(vi) Copy of Enquiry Report and findings, as Exhibit M-6.
(vii) Copy of second Show Cause Notice dated 07/09.01.2016, as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Reply to the second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit M-8.
(ix) Further reply to the second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit M-9.
(x) Order of dismissal dated 09/11.07.2016 issued by the General Manager as Exhibit M-10.
8. It his cross-examination, the management witness deposed that on earlier occasions Charge Sheet was issued to
the workman for his absence from duty for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. The witness further deposed that no
settlement could be reached for reinstatement of the workman and denied the suggestion that the enquiry was not
conducted in a proper manner or that dismissal of the workman was illegal and unjust.
9. The short question for consideration is whether the dismissal of the workman from service was just and proper
and what relief the workman is entitled to?
10. Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, learned advocate advancing the argument on behalf of the union submitted that the
workman Akash Gantait expired on 25.06.2023 and his legal heirs namely Jharna Gantait, Paltan Gantait and Rikta
Gantait have been substituted in his place and are representing the interest of the deceased workman. It is argued that
the workman is not guilty of unauthorized absence as he had kept the management informed about the reason of his
absence. It is submitted that the workman was suffering from various ailments like typhoid and jaundice for which he
was unable to attend his duty. It is contended that the workman cannot be responsible for his illness which was
beyond his control. Learned advocate drew my attention to Exhibit W-6 and Exhibit W-6/1, Medical Certificates
issued by Dr. S.K. Pattanayak dated 15.02.2015 and the one issued by Dr. M.P. Burnwal dated 04.08.2015. Learned
advocate referred to the Report of the Enquiry Proceeding (Exhibit M-5) and argued that the management witness did
not produce the copy of any earlier Charge Sheet or Enquiry Proceeding to prove that the workman was a habitual
absentee in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the Medical
Certificates issued by the doctors which would prove that the workman was under their medical treatment during the
period of his absence. It is argued that punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and the same not
being tenable under law is liable to be set aside. Learned advocate argued that since the workman has expired during
pendency of the Industrial Dispute, his legal heirs are entitled to the reliefs of back wages.
11. Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL strongly contended that the charges of habitual
absence and unauthorized absence have been well established against the charged person based upon evidence
5468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
adduced by the management representatives who have not been cross-examined by the workman or his representative.
It is submitted that in the Domestic Enquiry the workman examined himself but he has not been able to produce any
prescription from the doctor. Learned advocate referred to the statement of Akash Gantait where he deposed before
the Enquiry Officer that he has been absenting from from his duty with effect from 18.09.2014 due to his illness. He
stated that he was suffering from typhoid, blood dysentery and other ailments. He produced the medical certificate
dated 04.08.2015 and 15.02.2015. He also deposed that he was mentally disturbed due to his family problems.
Learned advocate argued that the workman in his application before the Tribunal did not disclose the nature of his
illness or doctors from whom he received treatment. In his affidavit-in-chief, the workman also did not disclose the
nature of his illness but stated that due to the death of his wife, he had to look after his five years old child for which
he absented from duty. In respect of the two medical documents filed on behalf of the workman, it is submitted that
the purported certificate issued by Dr. M.P. Burnwal dated 04.08.2015 (Exhibit W-6) and Dr. S.K. Pattanayak dated
15.02.2015 (Exhibit W-6/1) are fabricated documents. In the Exhibit W-6/1, it has been certified that the workman
was suffering from respiratory cough for which he was under his treatment from 17.09.2014 to 15.02.2015. It is
argued that the said certificate neither bears the signature of patient nor his LTI has been identified by the doctor.
Referring to Exhibit W-6, learned advocate argued that even in the said certificate, neither the signature nor LTI of the
patient was identified and the workman was said to be suffering from typhoid and jaundice from 17.03.2015 to
14.08.2016. It is argued that the workman did not examine the doctors to verify the truth in the certificates and has
failed to produce any prescription during his long period of illness. It is argued that the certificates are false. Learned
advocate argued that the Enquiry Officer provided ample opportunity to the workman to defend his case and the
principle of natural justice were observed by the Enquiry Officer. It is urged that the misconduct of habitual absence
have been proved beyond doubt and this has disrupted the work of the management and they have lost confidence in
the workman and all procedures for dismissal of the workman were complied. It is further argued that the workman
has not rendered any service since his dismissal and he is not entitled to any back wage.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates of the respected parties and considering the
pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties. The workman was admittedly absented from his duty from
18.09.2014 till issuance of Charge Sheet on 02.04.2015. He neither disclose the nature of his ailment in the
Application filed nor in his affidavit–in–chief. For the first time in his evidence-in-chief, he stated that he was
suffering from typhoid but was unable to state if any test was conducted to diagnose the disease. In course of his
cross-examination, the workman admitted that he attended his duty for 31 days in 2013 and 47 days in 2014.
Therefore, the charge of habitual absence from duty stands proved by the management. The witness volunteered in his
cross-examination that he was absent in order to take care of his minor daughter after the death of his wife. In
paragraph 10 of his affidavit-in-chief, the workman stated that his wife Santa Gantait died in the year 2001. Therefore,
the statement of remaining absent from duty for taking care of his minor daughter is absolutely false. The medical
certificate (Exhibit W-6) produced by the workman is dated 04.08.2015 and the Charge Sheet was issued on
02.04.2015. This implies that the medical certificate was procured by the workman for meeting the charge relating to
his long absence from 18.09.2014. No medical document or medical prescription for the period from 18.09.2014 has
been produced by the workman to establish his claim of suffering from illness. The medical certificates (Exhibit W-6
and W-6/1) are not trustworthy as they do not bear the signature of the patient and were issued to suit the purpose of
the absenting workman. Some letters have been produced by the workman as Exhibit W-7 to Exhibit W-7/5 to prove
that he had been informing the management of Parbelia Colliery of his absence due to illness from time to time. In all
his applications, he has stated that he was suffering from hepatitis but he has not stated anything about his suffering
from jaundice or typhoid. Therefore, the letters said to have been submitted by the workman are not consistent with
the two medical certificates (Exhibit W-6 and Exhibit W-6/1). I am unable to place reliance upon the documents
produced as medical certificates and letters disclosing the reason of absence of the workman from duty.
13. On perusal of the Enquiry Proceeding (Exhibit M-5) I find that Indradeo Paswan, MW-1 produced Form ‘G’
and ‘H’ register and stated that in the preceding three years, the workman’s attendance was 31 days in 2013, 47 days
in 2014 and Nil in 2015. The MW-1 was not cross-examined by the charged employee. The billing register was
produced by Ajit Kabi, MW-2 who stated that no wage bill was paid to the workman. Subir Sinha, MW-3 who
produced the Sick Register admitted that no sick wages was given to Akash Gantait. The evidence of management
witness remained unchallenged. Akash Gantait in his evidence stated that he was suffering from typhoid, blood
dysentery and other illness. In none of the letters purportedly submitted before the management (Exhibit W-7 to
Wxhibit W-7/5), the workman mentioned his suffering from illness like typhoid or blood dysentery. Considering all
these materials in this reference case it appears that the workman has not been able to rebut the findings of the
Enquiry Officer. A second Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman (Exhibit M-7). The workman submitted his
reply to second Show Cause Notice (Exhibit M-8 and Exhibit M-9) where he has stated that he was absent due to
serious illness. The competent authority having considered all materials has dismissed the workman from his service
with effect from 11.07.2016. The Enquiry Proceeding has been held in a fair manner observing the principle of
natural justice. I therefore find no extenuating circumstance in favour of dismissed workman and there is nothing on
record to show that the Enquiry Proceeding or order of dismissal of the workman was arbitrary or unjust. The
management had extended opportunities to the workman and had accommodated his previous absences but the same
continued unabated. The purpose and object of employment was disrupted and the management appears to have lost
confidence in the workman. The workman has expired during pendency of this Industrial Dispute. There is no
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5469
material in his favour to interfere with the order of dismissal. Accordingly, the legal heirs are not entitled to get any
relief in this case. The Industrial Dispute raised by the union on behalf of the workman is accordingly dismissed on
contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Application under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 2A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act,
2010 is dismissed on contest. The order of dismissal of Akash Gantait impugned in this Application calls for no
interference. Let an Award be drawn up in light of the above findings. 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, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2323.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार परर ोिना जनिेिक, भारती राष्ट्री रािमागड प्राजिकरण,परर ोिना का ाडन्व न इकाई, न ापल्ली, इकाई -
VIII, भुवनेश्वर (उड़ीसा); प्रमु , मेससड जसम्प्लेक्स इन्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड, नौिट, सिर, कटक, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जन ोिकों और श्री मनोरंिन मिाराणा एवं 26 अन् ,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण, ,oa Je U;k;ky;] भुवनेश्वर पंचाट (संिभड सं् ा 17/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 07.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42012-200-2018-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Nayapalli, Unit – VIII,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa); The Head, M/s. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Nauhat, Sadar, Cuttack, and
Shri Manoranjan Maharana & 26 Others,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 07.01.2025.
[No. L-42012-200-2018-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 17/2019
Date of Passing Order – 30th September, 2024
Between:
1. The Head, M/s. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd.,
At. Nauhat, Po. Telengapentha, P.S. Sadar, Cuttack,
Dist. Cuttack – 754 001.
2. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
5470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Project Implementation Unit, 1st Floor, SETU Bhawan,
Nayapalli, Unit – VIII, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 012.
…
1st Party-Managements.
(And)
Sri ManoranjanMaharana& 26 Others,
At. Nachhipur, Badheisahi, P.O. Telengapentha,
P.S. Sadar, Cuttack, Dist. Cuttack – 754 001.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Managements.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the Deputy Director to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour New Delhi vide order No. L-42012/200/2018 – IR(DU), dated 31.01.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the
following schedule:-
“Whether the demand of Sh. ManoranjanMaharana& 16 others (list Attached) with period of employment)
who have rendered around 04 years or more of service and were terminated by the management of
M/s. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Contractor of National Highway Authority of India w.e.f. 29.05.2018 for
retrenchment compensation as per provisions of law is legally tenable and justified? If not, to what relief the
said workmen are entitled?”
2. In the reference order, the Deputy Director, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi commanded the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to each one of the
opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3. Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-workman.
4. On receipt of the above reference, notices were sent to the 2nd Party-Workman on 05.04.2019, 11.06.2019,
29.08.2019, 22.11.2019, 24.02.2020 and lastly on dated 05.09.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of
claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Workman, referred to above, was received back nor was it
observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Workman. Despite service
of the notice, the 2nd Party-Workman opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its
behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5. Since the 2nd Party-Workman has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6. In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7. Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2324.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
प्रबंिक, टाइम्स जसक् ोररटी सर्वडसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, न ापल्ली, ोरिा, भुवनेश्वर, ओजडिा,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जन ोिकों और श्री जप्र ब्रत लेंका, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण ,,oa Je U;k;ky;] भुवनेश्वर पंचाट(संिभड सं् ा 44/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 07.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-174-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5471
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Manager, Times Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Nayapalli, Khordha, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, and Shri Priyabrata
Lenka, Worker,which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.01.2025.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-174-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 44/2018
Date of Passing Order – 30th August, 2024
Between :-
Manager, Times Security Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. N-5/496, IRC Village, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar – 751 015, Dist. Khordha, Odisha.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
PriyabrataLenka, S/o. RajkishroreLenka,
R/o. Village, Gothada, Po/Ps. Naugaonhat,
Dist. Jagatsinghpur, Pin 754 113, Odisha.
…
Applicant-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the Applicant-Workman.
ORDER
This is an application of applicant-workman filed under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
(herein-after referred as an “Act”).
The case of the applicant-workman as per his statement of claim is that he was working as Security
Supervisor under the Management. All of a sudden and without any reason he was not provided his duty by the 1st
Party-Management for which the Union representing the workman has given a representation to the Chief Operational
Manager, TMILL, Paradip with a request to provide duty to the workman, but his representation was not considered
and he was terminated from service by the Management. He was being paid less minimum wages than the wages paid
to the employees working for similar work at the same work place. Further the 1st Party-Management is always
irregular in making payment of his salary in every month. Such action of the management is an unfair labour practice.
He approached the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Paradip, but no result was yielded. Hence he has filed the
present claim petition.
3. The 1st Party-Management has not appearedinspite of notice being issued to it, as such order of exparte against
the Management was passed on 20.11.2018.
4. Applicant-workman is asked to prove his case and in order to prove his case he has filed his own affidavit
evidence on dated 13.03.2019. There after the 2nd party-workman remained absent in all the dates. However, despite
providing a number of opportunities, applicant-workman has not turned up to prove his claim. As the applicant-
workman has not turned up for proving his case, his claim stands dismissed.
5. Award is passed accordingly.
6. A copy of this Award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the
I.D. Act, 1947. File is consigned to record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
5472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2325.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
जनिेिक, पूवी क्षेत्र के जलए िल प्रौद्योजगकी केंर, चंरिे रपुर, भुवनेश्वर (उड़ीसा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री िंकर सजन साहू,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण, ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] भुवनेश्वर पंचाट(संिभड सं् ा 83/2008) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 07.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल – 42012-62-2008-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar (Orissa), and
Shri Shankar San Sahu, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 07.01.2025.
[No. L-42012-62-2008 -IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 83/2008
Date of Passing Award – 30th September, 2024
Between :-
The Director,
Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar (Orissa).
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
Sri Shankar San Sahu,
At./Po. Batto, Via Sainkul, Keonjhar.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
Mr. Subrat Mishra,
…
For the 1st Party-
Advocate.
Management.
Mr. Amar Sahoo,
Advocate.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-42012/62/2008 – IR(DU), dated 26.11.2008 under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a
dispute, under the following schedule:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5473
“Whether the action of the management of Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region, Bhubaneswar in
terminating the services of Shri Sankar San Sahu, Field Assistant w.e.f. 24/05/2004 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the 2nd party-workman as per his statement of claim is as follows:-
That, he was engaged initially as a Store Keeper in the month of March, 1990 and worked under Farm
Manager WTCER, which is under the administrative control of Director WTCER. He continued to work on the said
post till 13th January, 1993 and after that he was forced to work on job contract basis by the Management till his
termination/retrenchment from the said job in the month of March, 2003. In the mean-time he had submitted
representation before the Management for his regularization of his service on various occasions since 1993 but the
Management did not consider his case. After that he had filed an application before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 09.08.2002. Subsequently a conciliation proceeding between him and the
Management was taken up in which it was agreed by both the parties to close the matter. However, the Management
instead of giving him regular appointment as agreed in the conciliation proceeding dated 18.12.2002,terminated him
from his job after three months of conciliation proceedings and subsequently the workman had filed an application
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar for redressal of his grievance. A fresh conciliation
proceeding was initiated in which both the parties agreed and the Management agreed to re-engage him with effect
from 24.05.2004, but the Management had neither engaged him nor submitted any compliance report. Thereafter he
filed Writ Petition No. 11187/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and the said case was disposed of on
11.12.2007 with direction to approach the proper forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequently he filed
application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and conciliation proceeding initiated
ended in failure and subsequently this reference was made. He had worked since 1990 to 2002 under the 1st Party-
Management, but without any notice his service was terminated, so the action of the 1st Party-Management was
arbitrary, malafide and without any application of mind.
A prayer has been made to answer the reference in his favour.
3. On the other hand it is the case of the 1st Party-Management is as follows:-
That, the 1st Party-Management is not an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, so the provisions of the I.D. Act cannot be extended to the present case. The concerned workman does not come
under the definition of “workman” as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so he is not entitled for any relief
in this case. The concerned workman had worked for some time in the year 1990 on daily wage basis, but never
continued after 16.12.1990, so the alleged termination of workman by the Management on 13.01.1993 and again in
March, 2003 is baseless and false as he had never worked under the administrative control of the WTCER after 16th
September, 1990. The workman had never rendered continuous service under the management of WTCER since 1990
and continued till 13.01.1993 as a Store Keeper. Initially Farm operation of the management started in the year 1998
and some persons had been engaged on daily wage basis at different points of time as per requirement, but at
the later stage the contract system was introduced with effect from 16.12.1990. The concern workman while working
as a contract worker had approached Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 09.08.2002 and
during the conciliation proceeding the workman had agreed to approach the labour contractor for his engagement. The
Management had never agreed during the conciliation proceeding to provide regular appointment to the workman and
the Management had never re-engaged the workman for the year 2002, so the allegation on termination after three
months of the conciliation proceedings is false and baseless.
The 1st Party-Management has prayed that the statement of claim of the 2nd party-workman may be dismissed as
he is not entitled for any relief.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues are settled for just and proper adjudication of the
dispute.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Water Technology Centre for Eastern region,
Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Sankar SanSahoo, Field Assistant w.e.f. 24.05.2004
is legal & justified?
2. If not what relief the workman is entitled to?
5. In this case the concerned workman has examined only one witness. He is the disputant himself. He has proved
the following documents which are marked as exhibits:-
Ext.-1 is the copy of the letter dated 31.12.2002 issued by the A.L.C©, Bhubaneswar.
Ext.-2 is the copy of the orders of A.L.C©, Bhubaneswar dated 09.08.2002, 02.09.2002, 30.09.2002,
22.11.2002 and 18.12.2002.
5474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.-3 is the copy of the letter dated 03.06.2002 of A.L.C©, Bhubaneswar.
Ext.-4 is the copy of the letter dated 04.12.1990 issued by the A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar along with its
enclosure.
Ext.-5 is the copy of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa passed in W.P.(C) 11451/2005.
6. On the other-hand the 1st Party-Management has examined only one witness. He is M.W. No. 1Dr.Pothula
Srinivasa. He has proved the following documents which are marked as exhibits.
Ext.-A series are the photocopies of the acquaintance/attendance rolls filed by the management for the period
1988 to 1990 except the period from 12.11.1989 to 22.04.1990.
Ext.-B is the copy of the ICAR’s letter dated 19.09.1990.
Ext.-C series are the copies of the registration Certificate dated 04.12.1990 and letter dated 04.12.1990 and
letter dated 04.12.1990 of the A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar.
Ext.-D is the copy of the specimen of copy of an agreement made by one labour contractor Sri Arun Kumar
Baral.
Ext.-E series are the specimen copies showing marking of attendance of the contract labourers and payment
by the labour contractors and bills.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. I
7. The Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss first of all Issue No. 1 as it is the most important issue in this reference
case.
It is the case of the 2nd party-workman that, he was working under the establishment of the WTCER as a
Store Keeper from March, 1990 and he continued till 13.01.1993 but he was subsequently forced to work on job
contract basis till his termination in the month of March, 2003.On the other it is the case of the 1st Party-Management
that the concerned workman had worked for some-time in the year 1990 on daily age basis, but never continued after
16.12.1990. It is the further case of the 1st Party-Management that after 16.12.1990 the disputant workman never
worked under the administrative control of WTCER in as much as the Management has never forced him to work on
contract basis at any point of time. It is also the case of the 1st Party-Management that the disputant-workman had
never rendered continuous service under WTCER since March, 1990 to 13.01.1993 as a Store Keeper. However, it
has been admitted by the 1st Party-Management that the 2nd party-workman while working as a contract worker had
approached Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 09.08.2002 and a conciliation proceeding
was initiated in which it was decided that the disputant workman to approach the labour contractor for his
engagement.
8. Now the Tribunal will examine the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties in the light of the pleadings
of the case.
The W.W.-1 Shri Sankarsan Sahoo in his evidence has categorically deposed that he was engaged as a Store
Keeper in the establishment of the Management and he joined his duties on 21.03.1990. He has also deposed that he
continued to discharge his duties as a Store Keeper till 13.01.1993 on temporary basis, but on 14.01.1993, the Farm
Manager compelled him to work as on job contract basis. He has also stated that he had worked for continuous period
of 13 years and he was retrenched on 31.03.2003 by the Farm Manager. He has also stated that his prayer for
regularization was not considered and on his application a conciliation proceeding was started which was settled
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), but the Management instead of regularizing him, terminated him
from service on 31.03.2003. He has proved Ext.-1 which is the copy of the letter dated 31.12.2002 issued by the
A.L.C(C), Bhubaneswar, Ext.-2 which are the copies of the orders of A.L.C©, Bhubaneswar dated 09.08.2002,
02.09.2002, 30.09.2002, 22.11.2002 and 18.12.2002, Ext.-3 which is the copy of the letter dated 03.06.2002 of
A.L.C©, Bhubaneswar, Ext.-4 which is the copy of the letter dated 04.12.1990 issued by the A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar
along with its enclosure, Ext.-5 which is the copy of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa passed in W.P.(C)
11451/2005.
In the cross examination he has deposed that he was removed from service in the year May, 2004, but he did
not recollect the exact date of his removal. He has also deposed that he was not issued any appointment letter and he
has engaged on verbal order of the Director of the Management as a casual worker as a Store Keeper. He has denied
the suggestion that he was never engaged as a Store Keeper and he had worked for 53 days only in between
04.06.1990 to 26.08.1990 and similarly worked for 42 days in between 03.09.1990 to 28.10.1990. He has also denied
the suggestion that he had worked under different contractors during different period and engaged under different
contractors.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5475
9. On the other-hand the Management Witness No. 1 Dr.Pothula Srinivasa has deposed that WTCER, Bhubaneswar
now re-named as ICAR as a National Research Centre under ICAR having research farm at Deras and Mendhasal,
was established during May, 1988 and Farm operation was started in November, 1988. He has also deposed that daily
wagers were engaged as and when required basis in the Farm which continued till 16.12.1990. He has also deposed
that the disputant workman is not covered under the definition of workman as per Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and he
had never worked for 240 days continuous and uninterrupted service. He has also stated that the disputant workman
had worked some-time in the year 1990 on daily wage basis as a casual worker and never worked after 16.12.1990,
so the alleged termination of the disputant as a Store Keeper by the Management on 13.3.1993 and in March, 2003 is
base-less as the disputant-workman hadnever worked under the administrative control of the WTCER. He has also
deposed that at latter stage the contract system was introduced with effect from 16.12.1990 as per instruction of the
Council letter dated 19.09.1990 and the disputant workman while working as a contract worker under the contractor
had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 09.08.2002 as a result the
conciliation proceeding started. He has also deposed that in the conciliation proceeding it was decided that the
disputant workman to approach the labour contractor for his engagement and the Management had never agreed to
re-engage the disputant workman with effect from 24.05.2004. He has also deposed that the payment of contract
workers were made by the contractor in the presence of the Auth. Representative of the Management and the
Management has no role to play regarding the termination/absorption of any contract worker as the same is under the
discretion of the contractor. He has also stated that the Management has not terminated the services of the disputant
workman, so the question of reinstatement does not arise.
In the cross examination he has deposed that as per the circular of Government of India issued in the month
of September, 1990 no daily wager/labourer can be engaged directly by the department and engagement of such
labourer are tobe made through contractor and the disputant workman was never engaged directly by the
Management after 16.12.1990. He has also stated that the disputant workman Sri SankarsanSahoo was working in our
establishment through contractor after 16.12.1990, but I could not say the name of the contractor. He has also deposed
that there were 12 contractors, who were issued with work order in between December, 1990 to January, 1991. He has
also deposed that the Hon’ble High Court has confirmed that the order of this Tribunal by which the Management was
declared as “Industry”. He has also deposed that no documents showing the engagement of Sankarsan Sahoo
through contractor and payment of his wages through the contractor have been filed. He has denied the suggestion
that Sankarsan Sahoo was engaged as a daily wager to discharge the duty of Store Keeper from the year 1990
onwards. He has also denied the suggestion that the disputant workman had never engaged as a contract labourer.
10.
Now after analysing the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, it is quite clear that the disputant
workman Sri Sankarsan Sahoo was engaged as a casual worker under the establishment of the WTCER in the year
1990. Further it is admitted by the 1st Party-Management that the disputant workman had worked under the 1st
Party-Management of WTCER till 16.12.1990 and after that from 16.12.1990 he did not work under the 1st Party-
Management. More-over it is an admission on the part of the 1st Party-Management that the Management of WTCER
was registered under section 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation Act, on 14.12.1990 and since 16.12.1990 the
contract system was introduced in the Management. However, the Management Witness No. 1 in is evidence has
admitted that the disputant workman while working as contract worker under the contractor had approached the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 09.08.2002 and conciliation proceeding started. It
means that the disputant workman had worked under the establishment of the Management till 09.08.2002. At this
stage it is required to mention here that the Management has proved the photocopy of the agreement entered between
the labour contractor Shri Arun Kumar Baral and Management which is marked as Ext.-D but on perusal of the Ext.-
D it appears that this document is of the year 1994 but no document related to engagement of contractor before that
has been filed. Moreover Ext.- E series, which are the attendance register of the workman are also of the period of
1995 but any attendance register before 1995 has not been filed.
It is relevant to mention here that the Management has not produced any documents to show that after
16.12.1990 when the contract system was introduced in the management of WTCER. In absence of any documents
filed by the 1st Party-Management it shall be presumed that the Management have not engaged any contractor for
engagement of any contract worker after 16.12.1990.
11.
In view of the above discussions it is very much clear that the 1st party-Management has failed to establish that
after 16.12.1990 the contract system was introduced for supply of workers and only to absolve with labour liabilities
it had adopted such system, but the contract system is sham and camouflage. Moreover, the 1st Party-Management has
not complied with the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the 2nd party-workman was
working as a casual worker under the Management of WTCER.
12.
It is relevant to mention here that it is an admitted fact that the 2nd party-workman was engaged as a casual
worker in the year 1990 under the establishment of WTCER and on 18.12.2002 disputes were raised before the
Labour authorities for conciliation. It means that the concerned workman had continuously worked from the year
1990 to 2002, so it can be presumed that the 2nd party-workman had worked for more than 240 days work in a
5476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
calendar year. At this stage it is required to mention here that the Management has produced attendance sheet of the
year 1995 only but it has not produced any attendance sheet of the 2nd party workman for the remaining period. In
absence of such documents filed by the 1st Party-Management on the point that the workman had not completed 240
days the statement of the Management cannot be relied upon.
13.
In view of such fact the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the 2nd party-workman had continuously worked
for 240 days in a calendar year as per Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
14.
It is also important tomention here that the 2nd party-workman had been disengaged/retrenched from the
services without any prior notice or any retrenchment compensation. So he is entitled for compensation under section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the
action of the Management of WTCER in terminating the services of Sankarsan Sahoo is not legal and justified.
ISSUE NO. II
15.
It has already been held by this Tribunal that the 2nd Party-workman had worked under the Management of
WTCER since 1990 and after discharging of services for 22 to 24 years he had been terminated/discharged from the
services without any notice or compensation even after completion of 240 days of work in a calendar year.
16.
In view of the above discussion the Tribunal is inclined to grant compensation or retrenchment benefit to the 2nd
party-workman. Hence, the 1st Party-Management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the
2nd party-workman within one month from the date of publication of the award and if the 1st Party-Management fails
to make payment to the concerned workmen within the prescribed period then the concerned workman is entitled to
get simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of passing award.
17. This is the award of the Tribunal.
18. Office is directed to send the copy of the Award to the appropriate government for publishing in the official
gazette notification.
19. Case record be consigned to record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2326.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजड ा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कमडकार श्री सोमेन गोस्ट्वामी ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कोलकाता ds iapkV (04/2020) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. एल – 12011-49-2009-आईआर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank
of India and Sri Soumen Goswami.
[No. L-12011-49-2009-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 04 OF 2020
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5477
Central Bank of India
Vs.
Sri Soumen Goswami
Appearance:
On behalf Central of Bank of India: Mr. Biswambhar Jha, Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of Workman Sri Soumen Goswami: Mr.Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate.
Dated: 18th December, 2024
AWARD
By order No. L-12011/49/2019 –IR(B-II) dated 27-12-2019, 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 the management of Central Bank of India, Regional Office (North), 33, N.S. Road,
Kolkata- 700001 regarding discontinuation of the service of Shri Soumen Goswami, Personal Driver from
2017( in fact from 2007), engaged for more than 10 years and above in the post of Driver for the Executives
in Central Bank of India, Regional Office (North), Kolkata is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
The case of the workman in gist is that he was engaged as a Driver to drive the vehicle that was provided by
the bank to its Executive Officer such as Deputy General Manager sometime in the year 2007. That though he was
designated as a Personal Driver of the Executive Officer of the bank, he was paid wages through vouchers by the
bank. That he was paid uniform allowance, washing allowance etc. by bank.
He had invariably requested the authority of the bank to regularise his services to the post of a permanent
Driver of the bank, but the authorities of the bank refused to do. Then, all on a sudden the bank authorities prevented
him to enter into the premises of the bank w.e.f. 24-04-017. He having put more than 10 years services to the bank as
a Driver of the vehicle owned by the bank and he has been terminated from the service without following any due
procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Therefore, he has prayed that his termination is void ab initio. That bank may be directed to reinstate him in
the service under the bank maintaining continuity of his previous service without any break with full back wages and
consequently benefits.
The bank contested the case by filing Written Statement, where it has alleged that there exists no relationship
of employer and employee between it and the concerned workman and as such the present case is not maintainable. It
has alleged that the case and claim of the concerned workman is speculative and fictitious. That the workman was a
personal driver of an Executive Officer of the bank and who was engaged by the concerned Officer. That the
concerned workman was never under the control and supervision of the bank. That he being engaged by the
Executives as their personal driver is a private driver of the Executive and not that of a bank. Therefore, the question
of termination of the service of said driver by the bank does not arise.
However, it is admitted that bank Executives are provided with bank cars and they are entitled to claim
reimbursement of the payment made by them towards wages to the drivers engaged by them subject to the limit
prescribed by bank. The drivers are engaged by the Executives through their own sources irrespective of their age,
educational qualifications etc. That the pay master of the drivers is the Executive who engaged him and thus drivers
work under the total control and supervision of those Executives. That the concerned workman is not under the
control and supervision of the bank.
That uniform, shoes and rain coats allowances are paid to those personal drivers of those Executives only to
maintain decency. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference.
The workman in its rejoinder has reiterated what he has alleged in his original claim application.
The workman in order to prove his case and claim has examined himself as W.W.1 and who has been
extensively cross examined by the bank.
The workman has produced following documents and exhibited the same:-
1. Copy of union’s letter dt.24-08-2017 addressed to the Regional Labour Commissioner, in four pages as Exb.W-1.
2. Copy of union’s letter dt.22-11-2017 to the bank as Exb.W-2.
3. Copy of bank’s letters dt.18-03-2019 and 28-12-2017 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),
Kolkata as Exb.W-3 and Exb.3/A.
5478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. Copy of union’s letter dt.10-05-2019 addressed to the Asst. Labour Commissioner, as Exb.W-4.
5. Copy of bank’s internal letter dt.09-12-2011 as Exb.W-5.
6. Copy of bank’s letter dt.21-12-2011 addressed to Md. Rafique, Ramgya Pandey and Jagdeo Prasad as Exb.W-6,
W-6/A and W-6/B.
7. Copy of bank’s internal letter dt.08-10-2012 as Exb.W-7.
8. Copy of bank’s circular dt.22-06-1988 as Exb.W-8.
9. Copy of bank’s letter dt.27-03-1998 with regard reimbursement of cost of uniform and revision of salary of
personal drivers in two pages as Exb.W-9.
10. Copy of Log Book of staff car in 54 pages as Exb.W-10.
11. Copy of 13 vouchers as Exb.W-11 (collectively).
12. Copy of insurance claim form of vehicle no. WB-06G-9338 owned by the Central Bank of India, in three pages
as Exb.W-12 and
13. Copy of 5 cheques issued in favour of the concerned workman by bank as Exb.W-13 to Exb. W-13/D.
On the other hand the bank has failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove the defence taken by it.
Ld. Counsel for workman has referred to the following citations in support of his argument:-
1. Mohan Lal –vs – Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., reported in (1981) 3 SCC 225.
2. Gammon India Ltd. –vs- Niranjan Dass, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 509.
3. Tapash Kumar Paul –vs- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anrs, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 313.
4. Armed Forces Ex-Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. –vs- Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 586.
5. Allahabad Bank & Ors. –vs- Avtar Bhusan Bhartiya, reportd in (2022) 13 SCC 202 and
6. Deepali Gundu Surwase –vs- Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC
324.
Gone through both oral and documentary evidence that have come on record.
From the insurance claim form of Exb.-W-12, it appears that the vehicle No. WB-06G-9338, Maruti Swift
was/is owned by Central Bank of India was insured with Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. It further
shows Central Bank of India had made a damage claim from Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Co. Ltd.
towards damage of the glass of the said vehicle and which was parked on the office car parking area.
Exb.W-12 prima facie proves that vehicle No.WB-06G-9338 was and is owned by Central Bank of India
and it was not a personal private vehicle of the Executive.
Such facts makes the case of the bank, that Executive Officer who is provided with an official vehicle by the
bank for official purpose has to engage a driver on his own as contended by Ld. Counsel for the bank to be unfounded
and without any basis.
It is a matter of common knowledge for instance a Govt. official who is provided with an official vehicle
cannot be asked to engage a driver of his own choice and fill up the petrol tank from his own pocket and later submit
reimbursement bills for salary paid to the driver and towards fuel charges. It is the responsibility of the concerned
Govt. Department to provide a vehicle with the driver along with the fuel facility. In case the vehicle happens to be a
hired vehicle by the department, then the owner of the vehicle of such hired vehicle is supposed to provide a driver
with fuel or otherwise the fuel is provided by the concerned Department as per the agreement.
Following the same analogy a bank who owns a vehicle and provide such vehicle for use of its Executive
such as Dy. General Manager, then it is the duty of the bank to provide vehicle with a driver and fuel. That apart, the
bank has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the bank made payment to the concerned Executive
Officer to whom the vehicle in question was provided as official vehicle had filed reimbursement bills towards salary
of the driver and towards the fuel charges. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that the vehicle in question owned by
the bank and provided to Dy. General Manager, Kolkata Region for his official use with a driver and fuel. Such
inference stands corroborated by Exb.W-11 (collectively), the Petty Cash Indent Bill-cum-Voucher of Central Bank
of India and which shows payment made by the bank directly to Sri Soumen Goswami, the concerned workman,
projected as a Personal Driver of Dy. General Manager of Car No.WB-06G-9338, towards pocket expenses for
outstation duty, towards parking charges paid by the said driver from his pocket, for air check of tyres and for
washing of seat covers and towels of the said vehicle.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5479
If the driver is engaged by the concerned Executive Officer of the bank, then, a question may arises why the
bank made direct payment to the driver of vehicle No. WB-06G-9338 used by Dy. General Manager towards parking
charges, air testing of the tyres of the vehicle, washing of seat cover and towels of the vehicle and not to the
concerned Dy. General Manager. If the workman was a personal driver of Dy. General Manager, engaged by Dy.
General Manager himself then it is the duty of the Dy. General Manager to make payment of parking charges, for air
testing of tyres and for washing of seat covers and towels used in the vehicle to the driver directly and not by the
bank.
That apart, Exb.W-10 series Log Book shows that the vehicle in question used to be driven by the concerned
workman Sri Soumen Goswami and entries in the Log Book used to be signed by the Officer who used to use the
same. If the vehicle had been a personal vehicle of Dy. General Manager, then question of maintaining of Log Book
by the Dy. General Manager, signing the Log Book by him and the driver does not arise.
That apart, from Exb.W-5 to Exb.W-9 it is seen that Regional Office of Central Bank of India, Kolkata had
and has vehicles owned by it. The bank used to get those vehicles driven by temporary and casual drivers engaged by
it. That sometime in the year 2011, the bank decided to regularise the services of three casual drivers namely Sri
Ramagya Pandey, Sri Jagdeo Prasad and Md. Rafique having required qualification in the post of ‘Sub Staff cum
Driver’ on a condition that they would be absorbed as permanent driver as and when the permanent vacancy of driver
would arise in Calcutta Region.
That Exb.W-5 further shows, those drivers whom it absorbed as Sub Staff cum Driver were originally
designated as “Executive Personal Car Driver’ like the present workman. Therefore, the concerned workman who also
happens to be an Executive Personal Car Driver fall in the same category whom the bank has absorbed as Sub Staff
cum Driver sometime in the year 2011.
Further, Exb.W-7 & Exb.W-8 lays down the eligibility criteria of those drivers already driving the vehicles
owned by the bank and as personal driver of its Executives for absorption to the post of Sub Staff cum Driver.
From Exb.W-9 it is seen by issuing such circular, the bank has revised the cost of summer and winter
uniform and shoes allowances to the personal driver of its Executives of different regions of India. That those drivers
were asked to submit reimbursement bills for the same.
Another circular dt.14-02-2012 issued by the bank to its Zonal Office further shows that bank revised the
salary of the personal drivers of its Executive Officers, to whom the bank has provided vehicles for official use.
Exb.W-13 series shows payment of different amounts to the concerned driver by the bank through cheques.
The contents of exhibits W-5 to W-9, Exb.W-13 series, Exb.W-11 (collectively) leave no room for doubt that
the concerned workman was indeed engaged by bank as a driver to drive the vehicle owned by the bank and provided
to its Dy. General Manager, Kolkata for his official use.
However, the documents which came on record and discussed above prove that not only the salary but
sundry payments are also made to the driver by the bank for incurring sundry expenses by the driver from his own
pocket and it was not the Dy. General Manager who was provided with the vehicle used to pay from his pocket and
later he used to submit reimbursement bills.
The documents which have come on record prove that the concerned workman was indeed engaged by the
bank though not following the proper procedure or orally with the help of their Security Guards etc. to drive the
official vehicle owned by the bank and place for official use by Dy. General Manager for his official use. The
concerned workman has rendered continuous service to the bank as a Driver since 2010 i.e. for more than 240 days in
a calendar year till his retrenchment in the year 2017. In view of provisions of section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, he is presumed to be in continuous services of the bank as a casual driver to drive a vehicle owned by the bank.
Nothing has come on record to show that before termination of the concerned workman, the bank issued
show cause notice or paid one month wages or compensation to him as provided by section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
In view of the above, the Tribunal holds that the bank has indeed illegally terminated the services of the
concerned workman who had rendered continuous service to the bank as a driver of its official vehicle provided to its
Dy. General Manager sometime in the year 2010 till his retrenchment in the year 2017.
That Exb.W-4,5,6 and 7 further prove that the bank without creating any post of Drivers in the Regional
Office used to get all its official vehicles driven by drivers engaged in casual manner. Such facts prove involvement
of bank in an unfair labour practice by getting its vehicles driven by casual drivers and getting permanent nature of
work done by engaging casual drivers.
In view of above, this Tribunal holds that termination of Sri Soumen Goswami, a casual driver by the bank
without following procedures laid down in section 25-F of the I.D. Act, to be illegal. Therefore, the concerned
workman is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) from the bank.
5480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bank is directed to make payment of such compensation within two months of publication of the award.
So far the claim for back wages as made by workman, this Tribunal is not inclined to pass any order as
nothing has come on record that after retrenchment the workman is still unemployed. He being a professional driver,
it cannot be assumed that he is sitting idle at home without any job. In fact it is a matter of common knowledge with
the coming of Ubber, Olla etc. Cab Services in India, there is high demand for experienced drivers. So, one cannot
expect an experienced driver to remain jobless for more than seven years.
So far the claim of regularisation is concerned, the workman has failed to produce any document showing
that there exists a permanent vacant post of a driver in the Regional Office at Kolkata or he possesses the eligibility
criteria as laid down in Exb. W-7 & W-8. That apart Exb. 4,5, 6 and 7 series shows that casual drivers senior to the
present workman were absorbed by the bank against the post of Sub Staff cum driver in the year 2011 and on the
condition that they would be absorbed in the permanent post of driver as and when same falls vacant.
Accordingly, Reference Case No.04 of 2020 is disposed of in favour of workman holding his retrenchment
to be illegal and he is entitled compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only).
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 2327.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
िेना बैंक (अब बैंक ऑफ बड़ौिा के नाम से िाना िाता िज) ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कमडकार श्री ललता
प्रसाि जतवारी ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
कोलकाता ds iapkV (23/2008) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल – 12012-45-2008-आईआर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2025
S.O. 2327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Dena Bank
(now known as Bank of Baroda) and Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwary.
[No. L-12012-45-2008-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 23 OF 2008
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Dena Bank (now known as Bank of Baroda)
VS
Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwary
Appearance:
On behalf of Dena Bank (now known as Bank of Baroda): Ms. Papiya Dutta and Ms. Manisha Mondal,
Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of the Workman: Mr. Gobinda Das Mitra, Ld. Advocate.
Dated: 17th December, 2024
AWARD
By order No. L-12012/45/2008 –IR(B-II) dated 10-09-2008, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the
following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5481
“Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank in dismissing Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwari, Head Cashier
Category ‘E’ posted in Beck Bagan Branch, Kolkata is justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
However, in view of provision of section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the issue with regard to the legality and
validity of departmental enquiry was decided as a preliminary issue vide order dated 06-09-2024, whereby it has been
held that the departmental enquiry held against the concerned workman to be valid and legal.
Therefore, now the question that need to be decided is, whether the management of Bank is justified in
dismissing the workman from service of Head Cashier, Category-E w.e.f. 02-04-2007?
To decide such issue the background of the case need to be discussed in gist. That the concerned workman
was a permanent Head Cashier Category ‘E’ of the then Dena Bank and posted at Beck Bagan Branch from August,
2005 to 22-11-2022.
That there was internal audit and inspection of the closing cash of the Branch by Sri Anjan Chakraborty,
Sr. Manager, Head Office on 22-11-2005 and at that time it was detected that there was a closing cash balance of
Rs.15,51,904.14 paise on 21-11-2005 and which is supposed to be the opening balance of next day i.e. 22-11-2005.
At the time of inspection only Rs.11,82,904.14 was found in cash instead of Rs.15,51,904.14. So, there was a shortage
of cash amounting to Rs.3,69,000/- from different packets of Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- denomination.
That Sri Tiwary, the Head Cashier in writing took the responsibility for the shortage of the aforesaid amount
in presence of Sri Subhas Chandra Dutta, Sri Manik Bhusan Chatterjee and Sri A. K. Bhan, Sr. Manager of the
Branch and undertook to make good of the loss suffered by the bank within a week and admitted non-involvement of
any of the staff and Officers of the Branch in the shortage of the cash amount.
However, the workman in the present case has alleged that under coercion and duress of the higher authority
he was compelled to take the responsibility for shortage in writing.
That bank has filed an FIR against the concerned workman for the misappropriation of Rs.3,69,000/-. On
such FIR a criminal case has started against the workman being Special Case no. 1 of 2008 and which is still pending
in the 1st Special Court, South 24 Parganas.
That he was placed under suspension on 22-11-2005 pending further investigation. He was served with the
charge sheet on 28-01-2006 and later with corrigendum charge sheet on 20-02-2006. That he submitted explanation to
the charges by admitting the same. However, management decided to hold a domestic enquiry on the charge. That
Mr. Bikash Saha, Manager, Bhawanipur Branch was appointed as an Enquiry Officer.
That the workman fully participated in the enquiry held on 14-07-2006, 19-07-2006 and 24-07-2006 but
declined to take assistance of any defence representative. He was allowed to cross examine the management witnesses
but he declined. The concerned workman examined himself. That on the basis of both oral and documentary evidence
produced by the management during domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the concerned workman guilty of
charge of misconduct and submitted report on 09-08-2006 and on 06-12-2006.
The copy of both the findings of the Enquiry Officer was duly served upon the workman and who made his
submission that he did not defrauded the bank.
The disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and taking into consideration
the gravity of proved misconduct against the workman, proposed to terminate the service of the workman and issued a
notice dt. 06-03-2007 to that effect and called the workman for personal hearing. That disciplinary authority after
hearing the workman and considering the materials that have come against him in the departmental enquiry dismissed
the workman from the service w.e.f. 02-04-2007 and that too with immediate effect.
The workman being aggrieved by the punishment of termination preferred an appeal before the Dy. General
Manager, the Appellate Authority, but who confirmed the order of dismissal and rejected the appeal.
However, it has been alleged by the workman that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the bank in
order to save the Accountant and the Sr. Manager, the other two custodians of the keys of the vault where the cash
collected during the day’s business is kept. That without the combination of those three keys kept in the custody of
Accountant, Sr. Manager and Chief Cashier, it is not possible to open the Vault where the cash collected during the
business hours of the bank is kept in the end of the day’s business. Thus, workman has prayed for setting aside
enquiry report or imposing lesser punishment other than dismissal from service.
On the other hand it is the case of the management since the workman has admitted the misappropriation of
Rs. 3,69,000/- in writing and he cannot escape from such admission. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the
reference.
The concerned workman to substantiate his case and claim has examined himself as W.W. No. 1 and
produced following documents:-
5482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARY 11, 2025/PAUSHA 21, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1) Copy of e-mail dt.22-11-2005 along with confessional statement of the workman dt.22-11-2005 and
which has been marked as Exb.W-1 and W-1/A,
2) Copy of workman’s letter dt.16-01-2007 to AGM/ Disciplinary Authority, Dena Bank has been
marked as Exb.W-2,
3) Copy of report dt.22-11-2005 submitted by Sri Anjan Chakraborty, has been marked as Exb.W-3,
4) Copy of charge sheet dt.28-01-2006 has been marked as Exb.W-4.
5) Copy of suspension letter dt. 22-11-2005 has been marked as Exb.W-5, and
6) Copy of bank’s memorandum dt.02-04-2007 has been marked as Exb.W-6.
On the other the bank has declined to examine any witness and also failed to prove those documents filed by
it as per list.
The workman in his evidence in chief has stated that under duress and threat he was compelled to take the
responsibility for the shortage of cash of Rs.3,69,000/- on 22-11-2005 in presence of other staff of the bank and had to
give in writing about he being responsible for the shortage as he was assured by the bank official that no extreme and
rigorous punishment will be imposed on him.
The confession is considered the best and most conclusive evidence, if the same is made voluntarily and
credible. In the present case nothing has come on record to show challenging the action of the authority of bank for
extortion of confession in writing, by putting him under duress and under coercion, the workman had filed a police
complaint/FIR or lodged complaint against those bank officials who extorted his confession before the appropriate
authorities immediate after the occurrence of the incident of extortion of confessional statement from him or
thereafter. Therefore, it appears the concerned workman has failed to take any step against bank authority for
obtaining written confessional statement from him under duress and coercion or he has been falsely implicated in the
embezzlement of Rs.3,69,000/-by bank. Therefore, there is nothing on record to prove that admission/confession
made by concerned workman was under coercion or under duress rather it can be assumed he had made the same
voluntarily.
Further, he has admitted that bank lodged an FIR against him on the same incident and on the basis of which
a criminal case being no. 1 of 2008 has been started against him. It has been admitted by Ld. Counsel for both sides
such case is still pending for disposal. The concerned workman was granted bail in such criminal case by Hon’ble
High Court on condition he would deposit of Rs.3,69,000/- with the Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court,
Calcutta. That concerned workman has deposited such amount while obtaining bail and such amount is still lying with
the Registrar General of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.
Exb.W-1/A prima facie shows that the day the shortage of cash of Rs.3,69,000/- was detected during
inspection on 22-11-2005, the concerned workman appears to have taken full responsibility for shortage and non-
involvement of any other Clerk or Officer of the branch. He had assured the bank to make good of the loss suffered
within a week in presence of three witnesses.
Exb.W-1, the information through e-mail dt. 22-11-2005 submitted by Sri Anjan Chakraborty, Sr. Manager,
Head Office (Internal Audit & Inspection) shows that he conducted physical inspection of cash at Beck Bagan Branch
of Kolkata Region on 22-11-2005 in the morning and found cash short by Rs.3,69,000/-. That Mr. Lalta Prasad
Tiwary, Head Cashier, Category-E admitted and submitted a written statement that he had physically removed the
cash and taken full responsibility for the shortage.
Exb.W-3, the detailed report of Sri Anjan Chakraborty, shows that on physical verification of the closing
cash of 21-11-2005 i.e. the opening cash balance of 22-11-2005 in the morning, he found shortage of Rs.3,69,000/-.
There were two bundles of (2 x 10 packets) of Rs.500/- denomination notes in the Double Lock Out of which three
packets, 100 pcs. each were found in other 17 packets and there was total shortage of Rs.3,32,000/-. Further, seven
packets of Rs. 500/- denomination notes had few pieces of Rs.500/- on top and in the bottom and in between they
contained Rs. 100/- denomination notes. In those seven packets instead of having 700 pcs. of Rs.500/- denomination
notes had only 18 pcs. of Rs. 500/- notes and remaining 682 pcs. were that of Rs.100/- denomination notes and there
was shortage of Rs. 2,79,000/-. Those seven packets were completed wrapped with printed Dena Bank adhesive
sticker and not visible anything from outside. In the balance 10 packets of Rs.500/- notes there was a shortage of 106
pcs. amounting to Rs.53,000/-. Thus, there was a shortage of Rs.3,32,000/- in the bundle of Rs.500/- notes.
There were three bundles of Rs.100/- denomination notes i.e. 3 x 10 packets i.e. 3000 pcs. but there was less
than 100 pcs. of Rs. 100/- denomination notes in each packet and there was a shortage of Rs.37,000/- i.e. 370 pcs. of
Rs.100/- denomination notes.
That the closing cash balance as per Cashier’s Scroll was Rs.15,51,904.14 but on physical verification there
was only Rs. 11,82,904.14 with shortage of Rs.3,69,000/-. The entire shortage was from Double Lock and not from
Single Lock packet. That Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwary admitted in writing that he removed those and took full
responsibility.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 11, 2025/पौष 21, 1946
5483
Exb.W-5 dt.22-11-2005 shows that on such admission by the concerned workman he was immediately
placed under suspension.
Exb. W-4, dt. 28-01-2006 the charge sheet vividly contains the aforesaid misconduct on the part of the
concerned workman.
Exb.W-6 shows that considering the admission made by the concerned workman, the report of the E.O., the
gravity of admitted misconduct and after hearing the concerned workman the disciplinary authority had dismissed the
workman from the service of Head Cashier.
That apart, the copy of the original proceeding lying in the record but not exhibited by the management for
the reasons best known to it further proves that witnesses examined by the management of the bank had proved the
presence of the concerned workman on duty on 21-11-2005. The signature of Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwary on the
Cashier’s Scroll of closing balance dt. 21-11-2005 and as per such scroll the closing balance of 21-11-2005 and
opening balance in the morning of 22-11-2005 was to be Rs.15,51,904.14 but on physical verification in place of
Rs.15,51,904.14 only Rs.11,82,904.14 was found.
The record of the enquiry proceeding further shows the workman Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwary was given
opportunity of being defended by his representative but he declined to take any help but allowed to produce the
document which was already marked as management Exb.No. M-5 as defence Exb.No.1.
The finding of the Enquiry Officer appears to be based on the inspection report, evidence which have come
during enquiry and the admission/confessional statement made by the concerned workman.
That apart, it is settled proposition of law if the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report is supported by
some evidence, it is not the function of the court to review it and come to its own independent finding. The Enquiring
authority is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding. It is not open
to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of legitimate conclusion arrived at by the
domestic enquiry based on evidence produced on the side of the management and which cannot be discarded by the
Tribunal on the ground on the absence of independent evidence.
So, it appears, the concerned workman who was holding the post of Head Cashier, Category-E and one of the
custodians of the vault key had misused the situation which might have given him the opportunity to remove cash of
Rs. 3,69,000/- from the days collection and which is treated as opening balance of next day. It is a matter of common
knowledge that certain amount of cash as shown as closing balance of the bank is brought out from the vault on the
next day morning to run the business transaction of the bank. Therefore, Bank generally engage a person among its
eligible staff as Head Cashier, one of the custodians of the vault key, on whom it can repose faith as the post demands
high integrity and honesty. But, in the present case, it appears the concerned workman taking advantage of his post
and situation had managed to remove cash of Rs.3,69,000/- from the cash collected on 21-11-2005. That he has
committed criminal breach of trust. So, having regards to the gravity of offence committed by him and confession to
the crime made by him, justify the decision of the disciplinary authority to remove him from the service of Head
Cashier, Category-E.
In view of the above, this Tribunal does not find any need to interfere with the decision taken by the
authorities of the bank to remove the workman from the service.
Accordingly, Reference Case no. 23 of 2008 is dismissed by passing an award in final form. The order of
termination of the service of the workman Sri Lalta Prasad Tiwary, Head Cashier, Category-E Dena Bank (at present
Bank of Baroda) w.e.f. 02-04-2007 is hereby affirmed. Let the preliminary order dt. 06-09-2024 do form a part of this
final award.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Date: 2025.01.20 16:48:28 +05'30'