2989 GI/2026
(4053)
रजजस्ट्री 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. 17]
नई दिल् ली, मई 3—मई 9, 2026, िजनवार/वैिाख 13—वैिाख 19, 1948
No. 17]
NEW DELHI, MAY 3— MAY 9, 2026, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 13––VAISAKHA 19, 1948
इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ् सं् या िी जाती िै जजससे दक यि ृृ क संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी 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 मंत्रालय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 763.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीर्ण उृबंि) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (दिनांक 17.11.2022 की अजिसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजित) के ृैरा 8 (1) के सा ृठ त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजणन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970
की िारा 9 की उृिारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री रजनीि
कनाणटक (जन्म जतज िः 14.7.1970), प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्य कायणकारी अजिकारी, बैंक आफ इंजडया के कायणकाल की
वतणमान अजिसूजचत अवजि, जो दिनांक 28.4.2026 को समाप्त िो रिी िै, को आगे तीन वर्ण की अवजि के जलए अ वा
अगले आिेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िै।
[ई-फा. सं. 4/1(i)/2025-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-25052026-272764
CG-DL-W-25052026-272764
4054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026
S.O. 763.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri Rajneesh Karnatak (DoB: 14.07.1970), Managing Director and
Chief Executive Officer, Bank of India, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending
on 28.04.2026, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[e-F. No. 4/1(i)/2025-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 764.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीर्ण उृबंि) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (दिनांक 17.11.2022 की अजिसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजित) के ृैरा 8 (1) के सा ृठ त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजणन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970
की िारा 9 की उृिारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री िेबित्त
चंि (जन्म जतज िः 31.1.1971), प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्य कायणकारी अजिकारी, बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा के कायणकाल की वतणमान
अजिसूजचत अवजि, जो दिनांक 30.6.2026 को समाप्त िो रिी िै, को आगे तीन वर्ण की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले
आिेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िै।
[ई-फा. सं. 4/1(ii)/2025-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026
S.O. 764.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri Debadatta Chand (DoB: 31.01.1971), Managing Director and
Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Baroda, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is
ending on 30.06.2026, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[e-F. No. 4/1(ii)/2025-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 765.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीर्ण उृबंि) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (दिनांक 17.11.2022 की अजिसूचना के
माध्यम से संिोजित) के ृैरा 8 (1) के सा ृठ त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजणन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 की
िारा 9 की उृिारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री आिुतोर्
च़ौिरी (जन्म जतज िः 4.9.1975), कायणृालक जनिेिक, इंजडयन बैंक के कायणकाल की वतणमान अजिसूजचत अवजि, जो
दिनांक 2.5.2026 को समाप्त िो रिी िै, को आगे तीन वर्ण की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो,
बढाती िै।
[ई-फा. सं. 4/1(iii)/2025-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026
S.O. 765.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4055
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri Ashutosh Choudhury (DoB: 04.09.1975), Executive Director,
Indian Bank, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 02.05.2026, or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[e-F. No. 4/1(iii)/2025-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)
(जिन्िी-2)
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 766.—केन्र सरकार, राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10
के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरर् में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडण के अिीन जनम्नजलजखत
कायाणलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाठरयों एवं कमणचाठरयों ने जिन्िी का कायणसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को
अजिसूजचत करती िैिः
क्रम सं.
कायाणलय का नाम
1.
केन्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, िमणिाला मण्डल, जिमला आयुिालय
2.
केन्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, मंडी मण्डल, जिमला आयुिालय
3.
केन्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, जिमला मण्डल, जिमला आयुिालय
4.
केन्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, ृरवानू मण्डल, जिमला आयुिालय
5.
केन्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर, बद्दी मण्डल, जिमला आयुिालय
6.
मानव संसािन जवकास मिाजनिेिालय, एचआरएम-I, गोल माकेट, नई दिल्ली
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2-अजिसूचना]
प्रीजत सेलारे, उृ जनिेिक (रा.भा.)
(Department of Revenue)
(Hindi-2)
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 766.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 Central Government, hereby, notifies the following offices under Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs, Department of Revenue where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of official
language Hindi:
S.
No.
Name of the Office
1.
Central Goods and Services Tax, Dharamshala Division, Shimla Commissionerate
2.
Central Goods and Services Tax, Mandi Division, Shimla Commissionerate
3.
Central Goods and Services Tax, Shimla Division, Shimla Commissionerate
4.
Central Goods and Services Tax, Parwanoo Division, Shimla Commissionerate
5.
Central Goods and Services Tax, Baddi Division, Shimla Commissionerate
6.
Directorate General of Human Resource Development, HRM-I, Gole Market, New Delhi
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]
PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)
4056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(केन्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोडण)
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 767.—केंर सरकार, राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10
के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरर् में, राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केंरीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोडण के अिीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाणलय, जजसके
80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमणचाठरयों ने हििी का कायणसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै:
प्रिान मु्य आयकर आयुि, कोच्ची
क्रम सं्या.
कायाणलय का नाम
1.
कायाणलय प्रिान मु्य आयकर आयुि, कोच्ची
[फा. सं. ई-30018/1/2024- डीडीओएल]
प्रीजत सेलारे, उृ जनिेिक (राजभार्ा)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 767.—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 office under Central Board Direct
Taxes, Department of revenue where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI
S.No.
Name of the Office
1.
O/o The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi
[F. No. E-30018/1/2024-DDOL]
PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)
कृजर् एवं दकसान कल् यार् मंत्रालय
(कृजर् अनुसंिान एवं जि क्षा जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 768.—केन् रीय सरकार, कृजर् एवं दकसान कल् यार् मंत्रालय, कृजर् अनुसंिान एवं जि क्षा जवभाग,
राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरर् में
भाकृअनुृ- रा् रीय िक ड्सस अनुसंिान केन् र, जडकहलग रोड, ृाक् योंग, जसजक् क म – 737106, भारत को, जजसमें
80 प्रजतित से अजि क कमणचाठरयों ने जिन् िी का कायणसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, एति् द्वारा अजि सूजचत करती िै।
[फा. सं. 13-03/2026-जिन् िी]
प्रेम प्रकाि सुमन, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4057
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE
(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)
New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026
S.O. 768.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agricultural
Research & Education hereby notifies the ICAR - National Research for Orchids, Dikling road, Pakyong,
Sikkim – 737106, India where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. 13-03/2026-Hindi]
PREM PRAKASH SUMAN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 769.—केन् रीय सरकार, कृजर् एवं दकसान कल् यार् मंत्रालय, कृजर् अनुसंिान एवं जि क्षा जवभाग,
राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरर् में
भा.कृ.अनु.ृ. उत् तर ृूववी ृवणतीय क्षेत्र अनुसंिान ृठरसर, भारतीय कृजर् अनुसंिान ृठरर्ि, उमरोई रोड, उजमयम,
मेघालय-793103 को, जजसमें 80 प्रजतित से अजि क कमणचाठरयों ने जिन् िी का कायणसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै,
एति् द्वारा अजि सूजचत करती िै।
[फा. सं. 13-03/2026-जिन् िी]
प्रेम प्रकाि सुमन, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026
S.O. 769.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agricultural
Research & Education hereby notifies the ICAR Research Complex for North Eastern Hill Region, Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, Umroi Road, Umiam, Meghalaya – 793103 where more than 80% of staff have acquired
the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. 13-03/2026-Hindi]
PREM PRAKASH SUMAN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 770.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a09/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y –41011/30/2002-vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.09/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1,Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/30/2002- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference Case No. 09/2003
Parties:
Employer in relation to the management of Divisional Railway
Manager, Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai, Varanasi (U.P.)
4058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri S.K. Sinha, Ld. Advocate
For the workman :- None.
State : Bihar.
Industry:-Railway
Dated 06/02/2026
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),Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No.L-41011/30/2002 -IR(B-I) dated 18/12/2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of D.R.M. Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai Division and their workman through General
Secretary, Gaya Railway Poldar Workers Union, Gaya for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the claim of Gaya Railway Station Poldar Workers Union for issuing identity card and
treating them at par with the licensed porters by railway administration is legal and justified? if so,
what relief the union is entitled to?‖?‖
2. On receiving order no. L-41011/30/2002 -IR(B-I) dated 18/12/2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 09 of 2003 was registered on 01.01.2003 and thereafter
the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant
documents and witnesses in support of their claims.
3. After service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently
rejoinder. It further appears that on 22.09.2025 this case was reserved for award but in course of dictating judgement
it transpired that hearing on behalf of the workman side is necessary and this case put up for argument of workman on
01.12.2025 but workman failed to appear before this Tribunal and all notices returned back with endorsement
―refused‖ as well as re-notice with endorsement ―Addressee Left‖.
4. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that workman/union has lost his interest in this case and
therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
5. Hence,
ORDERED
that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the
above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 771.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय लागत रक्षक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (a3/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-14011/15/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.3/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Cost Guard and their
workmen.
[No. L-14011/15/2018- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4059
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 3/2019
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 17-02-2026
The General Secretary,
Indian Coast Guard Civilian Employees Union,
224/A, 2nd Street, Lakshmi Nagar,
Arricambedu,
Chennai (Tamilnadu)- 600 002.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.The Director General (For PD(HRD)/SCSO(CP),
Coast Guard Head Quarters,
Stadium Complex, New Delhi – 110 001 :
2nd Party / 1stRespondent
2.The Coast Guard Commander (ES),
Headquarters, Maikapuram PO,
Vishakapatnam (AP) – 530 011
:
2nd Party / 2ndRespondent
3.The Commander,
Coast Guard Region (East),
Near Nappier Bridge,
Chennai – 600 009.
:
2nd Party / 3rd Respondent
4.The Officer-In-Charge,
Indian Coast Guard,
Base Maintenance Unit (CHN),
56, Surya Narayan Street,
Chennai (Tamilnadu) – 600 013
:
2nd Party / 4th Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s D. Ravindranathan, Adv
For the Respondent No.1 to 4
:
M/s R. Kumar, Adv
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-14011/15/2018-IR(DU)
dated 27.11.2018 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Con..2
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the action of the management of Indian Coast Guard, Base Maintenance Unit, Chennai, in
transferring Sh. P. Ayan Arul Raj, Radio/Radar Fitter to ICGS Mandapam in an non-existing post at ICGS
Mandapam is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. P.Ayan Arul Raj, Radio/Radar Fitter is entitled
to?”
As per the claim statement the petitioner is an Indian Coast Guard Civilian Employees Union, registered under the
Trade Union Act, 1926 was formed primarily to protect the interest of the workmen and for the welfare of the
employees apart from maintaining harmonious relationship with the Management. It is submitted that there are 60
civilian workmen in the establishment and most of them are members of the Union, this being the only union
4060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
functioning in the establishment to espouse the cause of the workmen. It is submitted that the Union raised an
Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) by letter dated 21.11.2017 under Section 2(K) of
the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 over the issue relating to the unfair labour practices adopted by the respondent
Management. It is submitted that the union was registered on 07.07.2017 vide Regn. No.508/TVR under the Trade
Unions Act, 1947 and thereafter in the General Body Meeting the office bearers were elected. It is submitted that the
fact relating to the registration of the union and the list of elected office bearers was communicated to the respondent
Management by letter No.ICGEU/BMU/01/2017, dated 15.07.2017.
2.
It is submitted that the 1st respondent has framed the ―Transfer Policy-Civilian‖ by letter no.CP/0518 dated
22.11.2006 and circulated to the Regional Commanders for compliance. Para 4(c) deals with Group ‗B‘ ‗C‘ ‗D‘
Non-Gazetted personal, wherein it is clearly stated that postings and transfer of these employees are to be kept at
absolute minimum level keeping in view the administrative requirement and need for manning the posts at various
stations. It has also been clearly mentioned that in case of transfers being inescapable, volunteers for the postings or
transfer will be called. As far as possible only volunteers will be transferred to these vacancies. It has also been
clearly stated that as far as possible the group ‗C‘ and ‗D‘ employee should not be transferred over long distance
and efforts should be made to accommodate them near their choice station to the extent possible.
3. As per the above, Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj was elected as Treasurer of the union. Since the Respondent /
Management was against the formation of the union, the employee Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj was relieved and directed
to report for duty at ICGS, Mandapam by letter No.CP/277/17, dated 31.10.2017
4. The transfer order dated 20.10.2017 was not served on the workman till date. While the petitioner union requested
that Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj be declared a protected workman, but the Management swiftly reacted by transferring
Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj and victimized him by adopting unfair labour practice. Hence requested the following relief.
i)
To declare that the transfer order bearing no.1340 dated 20.10.2017 issued by the 3rd Respondent
transferring Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj, Radio/Radar Fitter from Basic Maintenance Unit, Chennai to Indian Coast
Guard Station, Mandapam is not justified as per the guidelines laid down by the 1st respondent in the Transfer
Policy CP/0518 dated 22.11.2006
ii)
And to pass such other award/order as this Hon‘ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Petitioner submits the affidavit of Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj and filed following documents
Exhibit
No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
07.07.2017
Certificate of Registration under the Trade Unions Act,1926
Ex.W2
31.10.2017
Relieving Order issued to Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj
Ex.W3
22.11.2006
Transfer policy issued by the 1st respondent in
CP/0518
Ex.W4
21.11.2017
Industrial Dispute raised by the Union before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner
Ex.W5
22.01.2018
Clarification points submitted by the 3rd respondent addressed
to the Assistant Labour Commissioner
Ex.W6
29.01.2018
Letter submitted by the Union addressed to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner
Ex.W7
26.02.2018
Letter submitted by the Union addressed to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner
Ex.W8
09.04.2018
Letter submitted by the Union addressed to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner
Ex.W9
10.04.2018
Letter submitted by the 3rd respondent addressed to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner
Ex.W10
10.04.2018
Minutes recorded by Assistant
Labour Commissioner
regarding failure of conciliation
Ex.W11
04.05.2018
Conciliation failure report submitted by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner to the Ministry, New Delhi
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4061
5. The respondent in its reply stated that the Indian Coast Guard Civilian Employees Union has not been recognized
by the Ministry of Defence, as per CGHA letter WE/0302/Welfare dated 09.10.2019.The transfer order of the three
(3) civilian personal was promulgated vide CGRHQ(E) letter 1340 dated 20.10.17. Accordingly, the individual was
relieved from Basic Maintenance Unit, Chennai to report at Indian Coast Guard Station, Madapam as per the
transfer policy and pleaded that the petition be dismissed as devoid of merit.
6. The Respondent filed the following documents in support of their contention
Exhibit No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
18.04.2018
Nature of duties carried out by Indian Coast Guard Base
Maintenance Unit (Chennai)
Ex.M2
09.10.2019
Service Association and Welfare in Indian Coast Guard
Ex.M3
22.11.2006
Transfer Policy - Civilians
7. Heard both learned counsel and perused the records. The point arised for determination is whether the transfer of
Shri P. Ayan Aurl Raj, Radio/Radar Fitter as ICGS, Mandapam is an not existing post at ICGS, Mandapam is legal
and justify? If not, what relief is Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj, Radio/Radar fitter is entitled to?
8. The claimant in its claim statement stated that the following points regarding the transfer policy.
(a)
Posting and transfer are to be kept at the absolute minimum level
(b)
Volunteers for the postings of the transfer called and will be transferred
(c)
Group ‗C‘ and ‗D‘ employees should not be transferred over long distance
9. In petition claim the hardships caused to transferring described as under
(a)
Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj was transferred during October,2017 quite impossible for getting admission for his
school going children at the new station
(b)
The workman unable to shift his family in the midst of the academic year
(c)
The employee kept the family in Chennai for his child to complete the studies in the academic year but the
Estate Office, CPWD directed him to vacate the quarters and threatened to impose a penalty
(d)
The employee Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj fell sick because of the mental agony and remains on leave on medical
ground from 1.11.2017 to 28.6.2018
(e)
When the workman reported for duty on 29.06.2018 at the Mandapam station, the 3rd Respondent directed
him to report for duty in Chennai for four days in a week.
10. On perusal of whole the claim statement, the claimant nowhere stated that Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj was transferred
to a non-existing post at ICGS Mandapam. On perusal of the claim statement, it appears that the Respondent did not
violate the transfer policy, as the Mandapam station is not far away from Chennai station.
11. It is the fundamental duty of transferring employee to seek the permission to overstay at Govt. accommodation by
mentioning the sufficient reasons for occupation of the allotted house. In claim petition this facts nowhere mention
that any application mentioning sufficient reasons for over staying at the allotted house was made or not. In this
situation it can be presumed that no application was made by the transferring employee to the authority.
Transferring employee Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj fails to submit the medical certificates which might have established
the genuine grounds of his absence due to medical reasons.
12. It is stated in the claim petition that the employee was transferred due to his involvement in the union, but the
claimant fails to submit any evidence that may establish this fact that respondent had showed its jealous against the
employee. The only vague reason given is that he was an elected as an office bearer in the union, the transfer of an
employee do not appear as a result of his election to the union.
13. The claimant has stated that no transfer order was provided to the transferred employee and that only a relieving
order was provided to the transferee employee. The relieving order issued to Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj dated
31.10.2017 is available at page no.2 of the paper book in this document, it is mentioned clearly that the Competent
Authority has approved the transfer of Shri P. Ayan Arul Raj with a direction to report at ICGS Mandapam by
10.11.2017. The relieving order was issued by the Section Officer in compliance with the order passed by the
Competent Authority hence, no right of the transfree employee was violated by not providing a separate transfer
order.
14. As per the discussion above, the transfer order was not made by the Respondent in violation of transfer policy or
against the non-existing post, it also not proved that this order was made due to desirous wish of the respondent.
AWARD
The claim petition filed by the Petitioner union is dismissed. The reference is answered accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
4062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Witnesses Examined:
For the First Party / Petitioner
:
WW1 - Shri K. Arunachalam
For the Second Party / Respondent :
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 772.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बड़़ौिा यूृी ग्रामीर् बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (31/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12011/17/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda UP Gramin Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/17/2022- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
I. D. No. 31/2022
Ref. No. L-12011/17/2022-IR(B-I) dated: 02.06.2022
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, All India Ex-Servicemen Bank Employees' Federation Rajaipuram Lucknow-226017
And
The Chairman, Baroda UP Gramin Bank, Hqrs, Shivpuri Colony, Taramandal, GORAKHPUR - 273016
AWARD
By order No. L-12011/17/2022-IR(B-I) dated: 02.06.2022 the present industrial dispute has been referred
for adjudication to this CGIT, Lucknow, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:
"Whether the demand of All India Ex Servicemen Bank Employees' Federation with regard to allowing 2
years weightage to the ex-servicemen while promoting from sub-staff to clerical cadre & Clerical to Officer
is justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 31/2022 has been registered.
On 24.04.2023 claimant filed claim statement has been filed with following relief:
“(i) Modification in 02 Yrs Weightage in Promotion circular in Baroda UP Bank be Expunged from its
circular.
(ii) Govt policy letter no. 02/8/78-SCT (B) dated 28th January, 1983 and further F. No. 10/49/84-SCT (B)
dated 13th Aug 1986 be implemented in letter and spirit in Baroda UP Bank.
(iii) Weightage of all candidates who lost the opportunity of 02 Years be re-stored till they actually avail the
opportunity along with Shri sanjeev Mandal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4063
(iv) Weightage to Ex-Serviceman, who could not succeed in the in promotion exam or could not actually
avails the opportunity due to any reason/exigencies, their chances be retained as unused for future
promotion examination.”
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 08.10.2023 denying claim of the workman; wherein
preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent.
Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder on 04.04.2025 and evidence on affidavit in support of his statement of claim on
26.05.2025.
However, from the perusal of record, it is clearly established that claimant/workman did not turn up for cross-
examination in spite of several opportunities; and it is a case of no evidence from the side of workman/claimant in
support of his case.
Thus, in view of the above said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries
v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the claimant/workman did not turn up for cross-examination, so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of
workman in support of case, liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
09th February, 2026.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 773.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (37/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 41011/66/2017- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.37/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Eastern Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/66/2017- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
I. D. No. 37/2019
Ref. No. L-41011/66/2017-IR(B-I) dated: 24.04.2018
BETWEEN
Shri Shiv Pujan, Zonal Organisation Secretary, through Shri D.P Awasthi, Railway Sewak Sangh, Northern Eastern
Railway, 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow.
And
1. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Eastern Railway, Central Admn. Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow,
2. The Assistant Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
AWARD
By order No. L-41011/66/2017-IR(B-I) dated: 24.04.2018 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this CGIT, Lucknow, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:
"Whether the demand of the Union that the action of NE Railway in not regularizing the service of Shri Ram
Jiawan s/o Late Shri Sahdeo who worked as casual booking clerk from 1.1.93 to 31.10.2015 and non
payment of retirement benefits if legal and justified and what direction are require in the case?”
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 37/2019 has been registered.
On 14.01.2020 claimant filed claim statement has been filed with following relief:
“That, from the facts and circumstances as mentioned above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to answer this reference in favour of workmen and against the
management in the interest of justice.”
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 04.02.2021 denying claim of the workman.
Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder on 21.11.2022 and evidence on affidavit in support of his statement of claim on
18.01.2023.
In the meantime respondent filed application to amend written statement on 10.05.2024, allowed vide order dated
17.02.2025; and workman was given opportunity to file rejonder.
However, from the perusal of record, it is clearly established that claimant/workman neither filed any rejoinder nor
turned up for cross-examination in spite of several opportunities; and it is a case of no evidence from the side of
workman/claimant in support of his case.
Thus, in view of the above said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries
v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4065
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the workman did not file any evidence on affidavit in support of his case, so it is a case of no evidence filed on
behalf of workman in support of case, liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
90th Februaryt, 2026
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 774.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
iwokZapy ग्रामीर् बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (04/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y 12012/15/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Purvanchal Gramin Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/15/2015- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW.
I.D. No. 04/2015
Ref No.L-12012/15/2015 (IR(B-I)) Dated: 17.02.2015
Ravindra Prasad Gupta
S/o Mr. Kewal Prasad Gupta
Village: Anuapar
Post: Dumwalia via Salempur
District: Dewaria, Uttar Pradesh. …………Claimant
4066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1- Mr. President,
Purvanchal Gramin Bank, Gorakhpur.
2- Mr. Bank Manager,
Purvanchal Gramin Bank/Regional Gramin Bank,
Saleempur, Dewaria.
1(A) - Mr. President,
Baroda UP Bank, Gorakhpur.
1(B) - Mr. Bank Manager,
Baroda UP Bank,
Salimpur, Dewaria. ….……Respondents
AWARD
By order No.L-12012/15/2015 (IR(B-I)) Dated: 17.02.2015, the present Industrial Dispute has been referred
for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:
क्या प्रबंधन, ऩूर्ाांचऱ ग्रामीण बैंक (ऩूर्ाांचऱ बैंक), गोरखऩुर द्र्ारा श्री रवर्न्द्र प्रसाद गुप्ता को ददंनाक 30-04-2006 र््
आगे काम करने के उऩरांत नौकरी से ननकऱ ददया जाना न्द्यायोचचत एर्ं बैध है? यदद नहीं तो र्ादी ककस राहत को ऩाने
का हक़दार है?"
Accordingly, the present I.D case no.04/2015, registered before this tribunal.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 06.04.2015, claimant filed written statement stating therein the following facts in brief as under:
Workman/claimant was initially appointed in the month of May 1995, on post of jamadaar cum chaprasi on casual
basis and the said capacity he started working and discharging his duties till 29.04.2006.
On 30.04.2006 his services were terminated/retrenched orally without following the provisions as provided u/s 25F of
the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, and the schedule framed therein here an after referred as Act.
He further pleaded that impugned action on the part of the respondent thereby terminating/retrenchment his services
of the workman, is only to law because retain service of his juniors so the same is clear violation of Section 25G &
25H of the Act.
Workman/claimant since the date of retrenchment is without any job and at the verge of starvation.
Accordingly it is prayed by claimant, that order of termination/retrenchment may be set aside and he may reinstated
back in his services, from the date he was retrenched, with all services benefits should be given to him.
On behalf of respondent written statement was filed on 06.04.2016, in which the following objections/preliminary
objections has been taken:-
1). The present reference is devoid of any merits and bad in the eyes of law and as such not maintainable.
2). The reference order is itself not clear in regard alleged date of termination.
3). No cause of dispute rather an Industrial Dispute existed on the alleged date of termination, i.e. 30.4.2006, between
the Opposite Parties and Ravindra Prasad Gupta.
Further it has been pleaded by the respondent in their written statement as under:-
a). The present case has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 7 years before the Learned Regional Labour
Commissioner, Lucknow and reference is made by the Central Government dated 17.02.2015 i.e. after a lapse of 9
years from the alleged date of termination.
b). The Learned Regional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow, without proper application of mind, contrary to the
settled principles of law acting like a postman send the report to the Central Government for referring the matter for
adjudication.
c). As per the provisions of section 2 A sub section (3), of the Industrial Disputes' Act, 1947, any application for
adjudicating any dispute or difference between a workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4067
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of
three years from the date of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination.
d). A limitation of three years for raising an industrial dispute has been provided in the Industrial Disputes' Act, 1947,
itself and provisions of any extension of limitation period has not been provided in the Industrial Disputes' Act, 1947,
by the legislature.
e). On the basis of the above mentioned averments, it is requested that the present reference dated 17.02.2015, should
be rejected as bad in the eyes of law and as such not maintainable.
On behalf of respondent evidence on affidavit of Shri Ashotosh Anand, Chief Manager, HRM of the bank filed, he
was cross examined on 04.05.2015.
On behalf of workman on 27.06.2016 rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the averments as taken by respondent.
On 05.11.2020, workman/claimant has filed evidence on affidavit (Examination in Chief) and he was cross examined
on 07.01.2021, by respondent.
During the pendency of case as per notification dated 26.11.2019, moved by the Ministry Of Finance (Department of
Financial Services), relevant portion quoted herein below:-
Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank and Purvanchal Bank (hereinafter
referred to as "the transferor Regional Rural Banks") sponsored by the Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India
and State Bank of India in the State of Uttar Pradesh are hereby amalgamated into a single Regional Rural
Bank which shall be called as Baroda U.P. Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the transferee Regional Rural
Bank") with its head office at Gorakhpur under the sponsorship of Bank of Baroda.
Accordingly as per the said notification respondent no.1A & 1B were imp leaded as party, In view of the law laid
down by Hon‘ble Madras High Court in case of Palanisamy R vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2001
LawSuit(Mad) 152, and also in the case of Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust Hospital vs. Industrial
Tribunal & Others, 2004 (100) FLR 1166.
I have heard Shri Parvez Alam legal representative of claimant, and Shri Adarsh Jagdhari learned counsel for
respondent.
After hearing the parties/their legal representative and Advocate, the first point to be considered the point to be
consider in the present case:-
A). whether the reference dated 17.02.2015, is vague and on the basis of the same no cause of action arises on the
part of workman/claimant to file present claim petition.
In order to decide the said dispute it would be appropriate to go through Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
10. Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act reads thus:
"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. (1) [Where the appropriate Government is of
opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time), by order in writing,-
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or
[(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to
any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it
relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:
Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to
affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the
reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):]"
11. Plain reading of aforesaid provision would show that when industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, appropriate
Government can refer dispute to Court for enquiry or if relates to any matter specified in Second Schedule to Labour
Court for adjudication or make Reference to Tribunal, if dispute relates to matters specified in Second Schedule or
Third Schedule. It is, therefore, obvious that Reference can be made only when industrial disputes exists or is
apprehended by Competent Authority.
13. The aforesaid legal position would make explicit that existence of industrial dispute is a paramount and important
consideration while dealing with Reference.
Only existent or apprehended industrial disputes can be referred for consideration of Court or Tribunal. However, at
the time of taking decision whether Reference to be made or not, appropriate Government need not venture into
4068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
merits of dispute, as making Reference is only administrative function. Only because Reference is made under
Section 10(1), Court or Tribunal is not precluded from entering into aspects of delay and laches or to record findings
as to existence or non-existence of dispute.
In case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and "another, 2015 (147) FLR 341 (SC), the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court considered and held the impact of delay and laches in Reference made under Section 10(1) of
Industrial Disputes Act and observed in paragraph No. 14 as under:
"40. An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the
workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are
covered by Section 2-A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the
appropriate Government forms an opinion that 'any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended'. The words
'industrial dispute exists' are of paramount importance unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute
(or the dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), no reference is
to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the
reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the
appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of reference is only an
administrative function. At the same time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of
the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension
of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction
based on material on record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases where
there is apprehended industrial dispute, discussion that follows would confine to existence of an industrial
dispute. Dispute or difference arises when one party make a demand and other party rejects the same. It is
held by this Court in number of cases that before raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a
necessary pre-condition. In such a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he does not
make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within
reasonable time and raises the same after considerable lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial
dispute still exist. Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute
even belatedly. However, if the dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a
dispute still exists? Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by
the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if
considerable period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the
industrial dispute seized to exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these
laches and delays and demonstrate that the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive, delay would not
come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if
because of such delay dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would be non-
existent dispute which cannot be referred."
Thus it can be held on the point in issue that for raising industrial dispute demand is precondition. In case, employee
fails to make demand, dispute cannot be referred.
From the perusal of claim statement filed by claimant on 06.05.2005, undisputed facts which emerged out that he was
initially appointed as casual labour on the post of jamadaar cum chaprasi in the purvanchal gramin bank, Gorakhpur,
now known as Baroda UP bank, in the branch saleempur dewaria, in the said capacity he worked and discharged his
duties up till 29.04.2006, his services were retrenched/terminated, so workman raise a Industrial Dispute and by
reference dated 17.02.2015, the same was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication quoted here an above.
Further in the written statement filed by respondent, a preliminary objections/plea was taken that the reference in
question is vague as alias date of termination as mentioned in the reference dated 30.04.2006, is incorrect and as
matter of fact on record, thereafter workman work with the respondent/bank.
In this regard the workman/Shri Ravindra Prashad Gupta in his evidence on affidavit (examination in chief), and on
27.01.2021 he was cross examined, in which he has stated as under:-
मैंने 2006 से 2012 के बीच में मैंने कम नहीं ककया क्योंकक बैंक ने ननकऱ ददया था 2006 से ऩहऱे मैं बैंक में काम कर रहा
था |
2013 के लऱए काम का ऩैसा लमऱ गया। इस ऩैसे का कोई वर्र्ाद नहीं है। 2006 तक जो काम ककया था उसका भी ऩैसा
लमऱा था। 2013 के बाद से अब तक बैंक में काम नहीं ककया है। 2006 में ननकाऱने के बाद 2013 में बैंक ने खुद बुऱाया
और एक बार 2013 में लमऱाने के बाद बैंक ने नहीं बुऱाया। इसलऱए नहीं गया। 2013 में मुझे बुऱाया गया कोई चचट्ठी
नहीं जारी हुई थी, जबानी कहा गया।
Accordingly from the cross examination of the workman, it is clearly established that he has worked as a casual
employer in the bank in the year 2013, as such in view of the provision of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4069
as quoted here an above as well the facts which is stated u/s of the Section 10(1) of the Act, no dispute was in
existence which is paramount condition for making a reference in question not as per law.
Further in the present case from the language of reference it is clearly established that the appropriate government has
referred to decide the dispute that is the action on the part of respondent thereby retrenching the services of
Shri Ravindra Prasad Gupta/claimant, on 30.06.2006, is as per law and valid, if not then what relief he is granted.
As stated above in the present case the workman/Shri Ravindra Prasad Gupta, has himself admitted the facts that after
retrenchment of his services on 30.06.2006, he did not worked for the period 2006 to 2012, thereafter he had worked
in the bank in 2013 and for the said period he has been worked been paid salary and after 2013 he was not allowed to
work by respondent/bank, so action on the part of respondent thereby retrenching his services is in contravention
Section 25F of the Act, is vague in nature as per settle position of law, further in order to established by a workman
that his services were retrenched not in accordance with provisions of Section 25F of the Act, workman has to prove
that he has worked continuously 240 days in last 12 months in preceding calendar year, from the date of his
retrenchment.(See in the case of Lenin Kumar Ray vs. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd, SLP (C) No.5660
of 2023, decided on 21.10.2024).
In the present case admittedly neither by way of pleading nor by way of evidence the workman has established that he
has worked 240 days continuously in last 12 months in preceding calendar year, from prior to date of retrenchment of
his services as casual employer after 2013 in the year, as such he is not entitled for any relief.
It is relevant to mention herein Shri Parvez Alam after arguing at some length he admitted the said facts and request
that the present claim petition may dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to the claimant to raise his grievance fresh
before appropriate authority, as such if workman is so advice he may raise his grievances in the matter in question as
per law.
AWARD
For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No. L-12012/15/2015 (IR(B-
I)) Dated: 17.02.2015, and the same is answered accordingly.
Award as above.
Lucknow 17th February, 2026
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 775.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mrj iwoZ jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (12/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-84]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-84]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 12/2024
Ref. No. K-10/2/2022-IR dated 21.10.2022
4070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN
Krishan Chandra Diwedi, Bankatia Inguri Bazar Odeoria, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh-274704
AND
GENERAL MANAGER, NER, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh-274704
AWARD
By order No. K-10/2/2022-IR dated 21.10.2022 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:
"Whether the action of the management of North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and Lucknow in terminating
the services of Shri Krishna Chandra Dwivedi, Casual Labour w.e.f. 31.12.1976 is justified and legal? If not
to what relief the workman is entitled to”
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 12/2024 has been registered on 24.04.2024.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has not filed any
statement of claim in spite of repeated opportunity given to him, in order to establish his claim, as per the reference
dated 21.10.2022.
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon‘ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v.
Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38
and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on
behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail
if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
09th February, 2026
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4071
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 776.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mrj jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (65/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 41011/17/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2026
S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 65/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/17/2021- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER
I. D. No. 65/2021
Ref. No. L-41011/17/2021-IR(B-I) dated: 15.04.2021
BETWEEN
Shri Parvez Alam, Mandal Sangthar Mantri, Uttar Railway, Karmchari U 283/63 Kha, Gadhi Konoura (Premwati
Nagar), Post-ivianak Nagar, Lucknow-226011
AND
1. The Sr. DEE, O/o DRM, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
2. The Sr. DPO, O/o DRM, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
AWARD
By order No. L-41011/17/2021-IR(B-I) dated: 15.04.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this CGIT, Lucknow, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:
"1. Whether the claim of Uttar Railway Karmchari union regarding promotion of the workman Shri Ram
Kewal Saurabh w.e.f. 2008 on the post of Tech-III grade of power group is legal and justified in eye of law
or not?
2. Whether action of the management of NR. Lucknow is to delay the process of promotion and grant the
same after 10 years in 2019 to the workman Shri Ram Kewal Saurabh without providing financial benefit
with retrospective effect is illegal and unjustified in the eye of law or not?”
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 65/2021 has been registered.
On 13.12.2021 claimant filed claim statement, with following relief:
“श्रीमान् जी से वर्नम्र ननर्ेदन है कक कममकार राम केर्ऱ सौरभ को 50% ऩदोन्द्ननत कोटे से र्ेतन आदद सभी दहत ऱाभों
सदहत र्र्म 2007 र् 2009 से ऩदोन्द्ननत प्रदान करने हेतु अर्ाडम ऩाररत करने की कृऩा करें। महान कृऩा होगी।”
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 14.02.2023 denying claim of the workman.
Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder & list of documents on 26.04.2023; and evidence on affidavit dated 24.04.2023,
in support of his statement of claim.
4072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
However, from the perusal of record, it is clearly established that claimant/workman did not turn up for cross-
examination in spite of several opportunities; and it is a case of no evidence from the side of workman/claimant in
support of his case.
Thus, in view of the above said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries
v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38
and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on
behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail
if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the workman did not turn up for cross-examination, so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of workman in
support of case, liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
09th February, 2026.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 777.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (130/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-89]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 130/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-89]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4073
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.130/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Rakesh S/o Sh. Mool Chand, R/o 730/5 Bapu Dham colony Sector 26, Chandigarh.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :04.02.2026
1. Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along
with continuity of service and full back wages.
2. It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 04.09.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI
and Rs.300/- as TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree
limit. He was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always
shows his employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3. It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were
dispensed with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also
made fresh appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of
the Act. Thus, there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4. Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5. Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate
as prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-
Cantonment Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering
respondent entered into contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis).
In July 2018, the answering respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and
M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide
conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no. 2
submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed their duties and answering respondent is
only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command Chandigarh to release payment directly to
the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor. Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is
carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent has no responsibility of
disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai karamcharis formed
union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the premises of
Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent asked
respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the
answering respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the
answering respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative
office of the Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union
unauthorizedly and indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor
4074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and therefore, termination is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6. Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum
wages as declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will
without notice. It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7. In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8. Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by
respondent no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by
respondent no.1 on 04.09.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any
reason in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and
junior to him were retained in service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So
far as the agreements between the respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair
labour practice. The work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having
any license. The contractor has left after three months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the
service of the workman, which is mandatory under the Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent
no.2 (contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no
relationship of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the
respondent no.2 to the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the
services of the workman. Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of
the Act, then it is done by respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to
EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not
permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1 being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of
his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the
workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as
per his claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing
his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to
perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of
Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of
employment/ contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are
not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4075
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract
basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be
inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract
basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in
plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a
person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or
contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In
view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein
admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj
Saluja Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find
out whether the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in
the claim petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages,
salary, letter of appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature
for holding the relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally
lacking not in the pleading but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P
Singh in his cross examination has stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the
conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to
the conservancy staff. Contractor is responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who
was required to ensure the payment of wages to the workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4.
Ex.R-2 is the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges
that workman was paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor.
Thus, there does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent
no.1. However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was
supplying contract labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of
contractor. Section 2(c) of the Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or
articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa
1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j)
of the Act, and has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not.
The triple test is where (a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was
doing work i.e. systematic activity for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was
cooperation between the workman and respondent no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for
rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G
and 25H of the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 04.09.2016 and he was paid minimum wages
prescribed by Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any
compensation before terminating his services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated
that his salary used to be credited in his bank account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in
which his salary was credited in order to enable this Court to see who was making payment to the workman.
However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from
4076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis
were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of
respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed above. There does not exist any relationship
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation of
employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as
regards violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the
workman. Hence, workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by
respondent no.1 by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement
executed between respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions
of AR for workman that the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry
was held before terminating the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that
workman was entitled only for compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and
no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not
mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a
department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that regular recruitment procedure is
provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is not employee of
respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not
working with respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary
given to him during the period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act,
this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of
compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 04.09.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years
but less than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the
date of award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai
karamcharis, then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17
of the Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 778.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (132/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-88]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 132/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-88]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4077
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.132/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Biswan Dutt, R/o 182 Block 2, Kalka Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :06.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 16.07.2013 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not accepted.
Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed with w.e.f.
27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh appointments
after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus, there is violation
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
4078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice.
It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by
respondent no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by
respondent no.1 on 16.07.2013 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in
violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him
were retained in service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements
between the respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work
performed by the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has
left after three months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is
mandatory under the Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent
no.2 (contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no
relationship of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the
respondent no.2 to the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of
the workman. Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is
done by respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The
workman and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4.
Respondent no.1 being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent
no.2 and has filed a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract
of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make
any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4079
in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a
person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract
basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain
language of Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed
for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed
wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law
enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of
‗workman‘ under Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj
Saluja Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out
whether the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in
the claim petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter
of appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4.
Ex.R-2 is the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that
workman was paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there
does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there
exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying
contract labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section
2(c) of the Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result
for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment
and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G
and 25H of the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 16.07.2013 and he was paid minimum wages
prescribed by Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any
compensation before terminating his services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated
that his salary used to be credited in his bank account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in
which his salary was credited in order to enable this Court to see who was making payment to the workman.
However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from
the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis
were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of
4080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed above. There does not exist any relationship
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation of
employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as
regards violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the
workman. Hence, workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by
respondent no.1 by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement
executed between respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions
of AR for workman that the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry
was held before terminating the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that
workman was entitled only for compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and
no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not
mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a
department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that regular recruitment procedure is
provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is not employee of
respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not
working with respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary
given to him during the period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act,
this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of
compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 16.07.2013 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years),
so he is entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the
date of award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai
karamcharis, then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17
of the Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 779.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds iapkV
(136/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-87]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 136/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-87]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4081
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.136/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal R/o 126Village RajipurJhanjhra, Near, Malhotra cloth house, Kalka, Panchkula,
Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 01.09.2012 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not accepted.
Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed with w.e.f.
27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh appointments
after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus, there is violation
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
4082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 01.09.2012 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship of
employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to the
workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of workman
as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his claim
petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4083
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 01.09.2012 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no. 2.
4084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between respondent
no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that the work
performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating the services
of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for compensation under
Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely
because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get
employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that
regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is
not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 01.09.2012 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years), so he is
entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 780.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (138/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-86]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 138/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-86]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4085
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.138/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Bheem S/o Sh. Guljari Lal R/o Ram Pur Seuri, Kalka BCW Suraj pur, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :06.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 18.11.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not accepted.
Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed with w.e.f.
27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh appointments
after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus, there is violation
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
4086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 18.11.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship of
employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to the
workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of workman
as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his claim
petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4087
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 18.11.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
4088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between respondent
no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that the work
performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating the services
of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for compensation under
Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely
because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get
employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that
regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is
not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 18.11.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (less than 2 years), so he is
entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.20,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 781.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय
)
नागठरक सुरक्षा
(
, ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (106/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-85]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.106/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-85]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.106/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Setu Ram S/o Sh. Jhuri Ram R/o Beed Ghaghar, Chandi Mandir Panchkula,Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4089
Versus
1.
Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2.
M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 01.09.2012 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
4090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 01.09.2012 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4091
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 01.09.2012 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
4092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 01.09.2012 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years), so he is
entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 782.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (110/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-90]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 110/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-90]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No. 110/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Raju S/o Sh. Om Parkash R/o 142, Ram Pur Seuri, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4093
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte
Award :04.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 14.06.2014 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
4094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 14.06.2014 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4095
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 14.06.2014and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
4096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 14.06.2014 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years but less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2026
का.आ. 783.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (124/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-91]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 30th April, 2026
S.O. 783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 124/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-91]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.124/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Rita W/o Sh. Binder R/o Village Khadak Mangoli Zuggi Gate No.3 old Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4097
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against her termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that she was appointed as sweeper/safai
karamchari on 25.03.2014 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to her. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and
Rs.300/- as TDS from her salary despite of the fact that her total wages comes under the ambit of tax-free limit. She
was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows her
employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently her services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of her services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as she was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform her duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove her case, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered into evidence her affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
4098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 25.03.2014 as sweeper and her services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to her were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of her appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per her
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing her duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring her to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4099
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and she was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in her deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H
of the Act. She also stated that she was appointed on 25.03.2014 and she was paid minimum wages prescribed by
Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. She was not given any compensation before terminating
her services on 27.10.2018. In her cross examination, she has further stated that her salary used to be credited in her
bank account. But she has not placed on record any bank account, in which her salary was credited in order to enable
this Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid
salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to her during the
period of her stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
4100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 25.03.2014 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so she is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 784.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (112/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-92]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 112/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-92]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.112/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Babli W/o Sh. Roopa R/o 201 Rampur Sueri, Surajpur, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4101
Award : 05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against her termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that she was appointed as sweeper/safai
karamchari on 10.07.2014 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to her. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and
Rs.300/- as TDS from her salary despite of the fact that her total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. She
was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows her
employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not accepted.
Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently her services were dispensed with w.e.f.
27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh appointments
after termination of her services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus, there is violation
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as she was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform her duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove her case, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered into evidence her affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
4102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 10.07.2014 as sweeper and her services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to her were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship of
employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to the
workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of her appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of workman
as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per her claim
petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing her duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring her to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4103
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and she was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in her deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. She also stated that she was appointed on 10.07.2014 and she was paid minimum wages prescribed by
Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. She was not given any compensation before terminating
her services on 27.10.2018. In her cross examination, she has further stated that her salary used to be credited in her
bank account. But she has not placed on record any bank account, in which her salary was credited in order to enable
this Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid
salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between respondent
no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that the work
performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating the services
of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for compensation under
Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely
because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get
employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that
regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is
not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to her during the
period of her stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
4104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 10.07.2014 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years but less
than 5 years), so she is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 785.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (126/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-93]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 126/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-93]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.126/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Kamlesh W/o Sh. Rajpal Singh R/o 581 Beer Ghaghar, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against her termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4105
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that she was appointed as sweeper/safai
karamchari on 03.04.2013 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to her. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and
Rs.300/- as TDS from her salary despite of the fact that her total wages comes under the ambit of tax-free limit. She
was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows her
employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently her services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of her services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as she was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform her duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove her case, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered into evidence her affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
4106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 03.04.2013 as sweeper and her services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to her were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of her appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per her
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing her duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring her to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4107
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and she was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in her deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H
of the Act. She also stated that she was appointed on 03.04.2013 and she was paid minimum wages prescribed by
Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. She was not given any compensation before terminating
her services on 27.10.2018. In her cross examination, she has further stated that her salary used to be credited in her
bank account. But she has not placed on record any bank account, in which her salary was credited in order to enable
this Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid
salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to her during the
period of her stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 03.04.2013 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years), so she is
entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
4108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 786.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (128/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-94]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 128/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-94]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No. 128/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Sunita W/o Sh. Shamsher, R/o 1104/1 Rajiv Colony, Valmiki Mandir, Sector 17, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :06.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against her termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that she was appointed as sweeper/safai
karamchari on 16.08.2012 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to her. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and
Rs.300/- as TDS from her salary despite of the fact that her total wages comes under the ambit of tax-free limit. She
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4109
was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows her
employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not accepted.
Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently her services were dispensed with w.e.f.
27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh appointments
after termination of her services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus, there is violation
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as she was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform her duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove her case, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered into evidence her affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 16.08.2012 as sweeper and her services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to her were retained in
4110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship of
employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to the
workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of her appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of workman
as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per her claim
petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing her duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring her to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and she was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4111
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in her deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. She also stated that she was appointed on 16.08.2012 and she was paid minimum wages prescribed by
Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. She was not given any compensation before terminating
her services on 27.10.2018. In her cross examination, she has further stated that her salary used to be credited in her
bank account. But she has not placed on record any bank account, in which her salary was credited in order to enable
this Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid
salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between respondent
no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that the work
performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating the services
of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for compensation under
Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely
because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get
employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that
regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is
not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to her during the
period of her stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 16.08.2012 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years), so she is
entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
4112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 787.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (104/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-95]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 104/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-95]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.104/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Pappi W/o Sh. Mange Ram R/o 84 Gate No.3 Kharak Mangoli Old, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award : 06.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against her termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that she was appointed as sweeper/safai
karamchari on 05.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to her. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and
Rs.300/- as TDS from her salary despite of the fact that her total wages comes under the ambit of tax-free limit. She
was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows her
employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently her services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of her services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4113
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as she was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform her duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove her case, workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered into evidence her affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 05.10.2016 as sweeper and her services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to her were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
4114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of her appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per her
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing her duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring her to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and she was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a
sub-contractor;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4115
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in her deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H
of the Act. She also stated that she was appointed on 05.10.2016 and she was paid minimum wages prescribed by
Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. She was not given any compensation before terminating
her services on 27.10.2018. In her cross examination, she has further stated that her salary used to be credited in her
bank account. But she has not placed on record any bank account, in which her salary was credited in order to enable
this Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid
salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to her during the
period of her stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 05.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years but less
than 5 years), so she is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
4116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 788.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (102/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-96]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 102/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-96]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.102/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Balwan Singh S/o Sh. Heera Lal R/o 282 Village Ram Pur Seuri Kalka Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 18.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4117
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 18.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no. 2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no. 2 to
4118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a
sub-contractor;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4119
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 18.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 18.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
4120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 789.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (160/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-97]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 160/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-97]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No. 160/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, R/o 394 Gate No.3, Kharak Mangak Mangoli, Old Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award : 04.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 05.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from his salary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of tax free limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4121
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no. 2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workmen worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no. 2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his owm will without notice.
It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no. 2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 05.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
4122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman. However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
The Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa
1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the
Act, and has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test
is where (a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and
substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy
human wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic
activity for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4123
respondent no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus,
respondent no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 05.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs. 30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 05.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (less than 2 years), so he is
entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.20,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 790.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (156/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-98]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 156/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-98]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No. 156/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Kanwarpal S/o Sh. Mangat Ram R/o 562 Beer Ghaghar, Chandi mandir, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 21.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from his salary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of tax free limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4125
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 21.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
4126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman. However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 21.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4127
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 21.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years but less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 791.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (154/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-99]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 154/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-99]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No. 154/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Parmal S/o Sh. Lachman R/o Village Mangoli Jattan, Krukshetra, Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :05.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 05.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4129
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 05.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
4130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 05.10.2016and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4131
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i. Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 05.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 792.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdka vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-II ds
iapkV (164/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-100]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 164/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-100]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.164/2019
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Narender Singh S/o Sh. Tajpal, R/o Dharamsala Rampur Seuri Kalka Panchkula,Haryana.
-------- Applicant/Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award : 04.02.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 05.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4133
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 02.02.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 05.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
4134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-
contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4135
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 05.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 05.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 793.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केंर सरकार
एनटीृीसी जलजमटेड, बरि, ृटना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िनबाि ृंचाट (संिभण सं्या-03/2022) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 420114/4/2022-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Management of NTPC limited, Barh, Patna and Their Workman.
[No. L-420114/4/2022-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.2, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947
Ref. Case No.- 03/2022
Parties :
Employer in relation to the management of NTPC
limited, Barh, Patna.
AND
Their Workman
Present : Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For Workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry :- Coal
Dated: 18/03/2026
AWARD.
1.
In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. L-
420114/4/2022- (IR (DU)) dated 15/02/2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the I.D. Act. 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of NTPC Ltd., Barh, in not disclosing the ACRs rating to the
workmen concerned as raised by NTPC Employees Union vide letter dated 19/09/2021 is proper, legal and
justified? If not, whether the action of the management of NTPC Ltd. Barh in not promoting to Sh. Ajay
Kumar Parjapati, General Secretary of NTPC Employees Union, Barh on the basis of the NTPC Promotion
Policy to the next higher grade is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the disputant union are
entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
2.
In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness with this Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite
parties involved in the dispute. Accordingly statement of claim was filed by the workman.
3. On perusal of the order dated 30/08/2025 passed by the Hon‘ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7623 of
2024 it is crystal clear that the Hon‘ble Court have been pleased to set aside the Ref. Order dated 15/02/2022 issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide no. L-42011/4/2022(IR(DU)) and therefore the
present Ref. case stands infructuous. The proceeding of this case is accordingly hereby dropped.
4. Let a ―No Dispute /claim‖ award be passed and sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required
u/s 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4137
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 794.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार मैससण जिव इंटरप्राइजेज, सेवा भवन, गैस प्रोजेक्ट िािरी, एनटीृीसी, जवद्युत नगर, ग़ौतमबुद्ध नगर, उत्तर प्रिेि,
एनटीृीसी, फरीिाबाि, गैस ृावर स्ट्टेिन, गांव-मुजेडी, फरीिाबाि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री िमेन्र िमाण,
कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ ृंचाट (संिभण
सं्या-03/2025) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 42025/07/2026/101-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s Shiv Enterprises, Sewa Bhawan, Gas Project Dadri, NTPC, Vidyut Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh, NTPC, Faridabad, Gas Power Station, Village-Mujedi, Faridabad and Sh. Dharmender Sharma,
workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/101-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present : Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer)
ID No.03/2025
Registered on:–02.04.2025
Sh. Dharmender Sharma, R/o H.No.1066, Bindhuriya Colony, Near BSNL Exchange, Palwal.
….. Workman
Versus
1.
M/s Shiv Enterprises, Sewa Bhawan, Gas Project Dadri, NTPC, Vidyut Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh.
2.
NTPC, Faridabad, Gas Power Station, Village-Mujedi, P.O. Nimka, Faridabad 121004.
…..Respondents
Present:- None for Workman
None for Respondent No.1 & 2.
Award :13.03.2026
Central Government vide Notification No.8(S-57)2024/ALK Dated 29.01.2025, sub-section (5) of Section
12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
―Whether the action of the Management in transferring the workman Sh. Dharmender Sharma and
termination him w.e.f. 31.07.2024 from NTPC Faridabad to NTPC Dadri site and not reinstating the workman
is justifiable as per Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. If not what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
1.
The case is fixed for filing claim statement as well as appearance of both the parties since 08.07.2025.
However, neither workman appeared nor any claim statement has been filed till date. The workman has been given
sufficient opportunities for appearance and to file claim statement but in spite of the opportunities afforded, the claim
statement has not been filed by workman, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
matter on merit.
4138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Since the workman has not filed claim statement as none appeared on behalf of the workman, 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 reference.
3.
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 cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 795.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार भारत संघ, श्रीरंगम डाक प्रभाग, श्रीरंगम के वठरष्ठ डाकघर अिीक्षक द्वारा प्रजतजनजित्व, श्रीरंगम मु्यालय,
श्रीरंगम, जत्रची के ृोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती के. सरिा िेवी, कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में
जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभण सं्या-21/2022) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 42025/07/2026/99-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Union of India, Rep. by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Srirangam Postal Division Srirangam, The
Postmaster, Srirangam Head Office Srirgangam, Trichyand and Smt. K. Saradha Devi, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/99-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date: 23-03-2026
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 21/2022
BETWEEN
Smt. K.Saradha Devi,
W/o. late K.Kalyanasundaram,
# 3/434, South Thaluthalappatti
Valaiyur Village,
Manachanallur Village
Tiruchy-621 005.
:
1st Party/ Petitioner
AND
1.Union of India,
Rep. by the Senior Superintendent
of Post Office ,
Srirangam Postal Division,
Srirangam-620 006.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4139
2.The Post master,
Srirangam Head Office
Srirgangam, Trichy-620 006.
:
2n Party/Respondents
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
:
M/s.R.Malaichamy, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ Respondents
:
M/s.R.Kumar, Advocates
The Petitioner has filed this petition u/s.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly seeking relief of
reinstatement into service of the Respondent with consequential benefits.
2.
As per the claim statement, the case of the Petitioner is that she joined as Data Entry and Scanning Operator
in the O/o. the Postmaster, Srirangam in the year 2008. She was engaged as outsider against a clear vacant post. She
worked continuously in the Head Office and Divisional Office as Data Entry and Scanning Operator for nine years
and she was paid allowance as per rules in force. However, she was disengaged from her work during September, 2007
without any order in writing. She stated that on earlier occasion, the Respondent department has absorbed similarly
placed persons on completion of 240 days of work continuously in the case of Suguna & Others. The action of the
Respondent/Management in removing the Petitioner from service without any order or notice amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice u/s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is prayed that Respondent may
be directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with a direction to absorb her on regular basis with back wages and
other attendant benefits.
3.
In the counter statement, the Respondent stated that Petitioner was engaged only as outsider not
continuously but on intermittent spells. No order of appointment or engagement was issued to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner was paid daily wages for the days she worked through money receipt. As per Circle Office letter dated
23.12.1993 outsiders engaged after 11.02.1988 are not eligible for regularization, even though they have completed
240 days service in any two years. Since the Department of Posts is not an industry, there is no violation of
provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief
and the claim of the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
Witnesses Examined:
For the First Party Petitioner :
WW1 Mrs. K.Saradha Devi
For the 2nd Party/Management :
MW1 Smt. G.P. Josephine Silvia,
Superintendent of Post Offices
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner‘s side:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
03.10.2017
2A petition filed by the Petitioner
Ex.W2
04.01.2018
Letter of the Petitioner
Ex.W3
-
Counter Affidavit by respondent
Ex.W4
22.04.2019
Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner
Ex.W5
13.11.2019
Order of conciliation officer
Ex.W6
24.12.2021
Death certificate of Petitioner‘s husband
Ex.W7
05.02.2022
Legal heir certificate
Ex.W8
10.02.2022
Letter of legal aid centre
Ex.W9
23.12.1993
Letter of SPO Tirunelveli
Ex.W10 18.11.1997
Copy of judgement in A.Srinivasa Rao & Ors
Ex.W11 28.04;2000
Order in SLP Civil Appeal No.3080 of 2000 (Debika Guha‘s
case)
Ex.W12 24.11.2005
Order in W.P 5026 of 2003 (A Suguna‘s case)
4140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W13 19.02.2015
Order in SLP 9406 of 2007 ( A Suguna‘s case)
Ex.W14 23.01.2006
Order in WP 27274 of 2004 UOI Vs. V.Gurusamy
Ex.W15 04.05.2006
Instructions issued by Postal Directorate
Documents Marked:
On behalf of Respondent/Management
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M 1
13.05.2015
Circle Office letter dated 13.05.2015
Ex.M 2
23.12.1993
Circle Office letter dated 23.12.1993
Ex.M3
21.10.2002
GDS letter dated 21.10.2002
Ex.M4
13.11.2019
Certificate of the Conciliation Officer
4.
The Petitioner has submitted proof of affidavit in support of her claim and adduced oral evidence as WW1
and documents filed by her were marked as Ex.W1 to W15. The Respondent has also filed its proof of affidavit and
Smt G.P Josephine, SPO was examined as MW1 and documents on behalf of respondent were marked as Ex.M1 to
Ex.M4.
5.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side and perused the records. The point that arises for
consideration is ―whether the employee of the Respondent is entitled for reinstatement into service along with all
benefits against the Respondent/Management? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖
6.
The Petitioner Mrs. K.Saradha Devi has stated in her claim statement that she had entered into service of the
Respondent in the year 2008. The fact of continuous service is established by the Petitioner by adducing oral
evidence as WW1 and filing proof of affidavit .
7.
The Respondent in its reply admitted this fact that Petitioner was engaged with the Department, but stated
that engagement was on daily wage basis and not against any sanctioned post. The Petitioner was not a permanent
employee and there was no employer-employee relationship exists between the Respondent and the Petitioner. The
Respondent further stated that no appointment or engagement order was issued to the Petitioner and as per circular
dated 01.11.1995 and 08.11.1995, casual labourers in employment upto 01.09.1993 were only eligible to be
conferred with temporary status and the Petitioner was not working on 01.09.1993 with the Department and therefore,
she is not entitled for any absorption.
8.
The learned counsel for the Respondent contended that Petitioner was not engaged through employment
exchange and no appointment letter was issued. He further stated that assumption of the Petitioner that he/she works
against the sanctioned post of Data Entry Operator is incorrect. The learned counsel further stated that there was no
relationship of employer-employee between the Respondent and Petitioner, hence the question of notice or protection
u/s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise.
9. The Petitioner in the claim statement and in the cross examination stated that the work was performed for a period
of more than eight hours per day continuously. The Respondent witness MW1 in her oral evidence nowhere stated
that Petitioner did not perform the work about eight or more than 8 hours per day.
10.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied on the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Dharam Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P & Another in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 dated 31.01.2025 and in the
case of Jaggo Vs. Union of lndia & Another in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024.
11.
In the case of Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
―17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of
those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year,
the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term
extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the
promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that
overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State
Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and
they must explain, with evidence. why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4141
perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional
discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.‖
12.
In the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India in SLP No.5580 of 2024 (2024) SCC online 3826 and Shripal &
Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025) SCC online 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that long-term
―ad hocism‖, is denial of basic parity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court denied the contention of the Respondent that daily
wagers and temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory Rules. The Hon‘ble
Court further stated that the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
status or continued unfair practices.
13.
In the present case, the Petitioner has continuously rendered services over several years. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in the case of Shripal & Another (supra) that Indian Labour Law is strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances, where the work is permanent in nature.
14.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India (supra) has observed as under:-
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic
issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to
an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, workers and
and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid
such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not
only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode
public trust in governmental operations.
23…….
24………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed
employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security. and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Temporary Termination: employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present
case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as Institutions Shield: to increasingly resort outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances."
15. The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that no appointment order was issued to the Petitioner, and thus
no permanent status is allowable to the Petitioner. But the non-issuance of appointment order does not erase the
entitlement of the Petitioner since the Petitioner has worked for several years and not days.
AWARD
16.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be allowed with the
following directions:-
The Petitioner‘s service shall stand regularized with effect from the date of removal/denial from service and the
Petitioner shall be reinstated into service within a period of three months with 50% back wages and consequential
& other attendant benefits.
4142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The reference is answered accordingly.
Record be consigned to the record room.
Place : Chennai
Date : 23.03.2026
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 796.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में,केन्रीय
सरकार प्रबंिन, बीएसएनएल, ृटना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमणचाठरयों के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िनबाि ृंचाट(संिभण सं्या-58/2013) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 40011/41/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Employer in relation to the management of BSNL, Patna and Their Workman.
[No. L-40011/41/2012-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.2 , DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) & (2A) of I.D. Act,1947.
Ref. Case No.-58/2013
Parties :
Employer in relation to the management of BSNL Patna.
AND
Their Workman
Present : Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :-None
For Workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry :- Telephone
Dated: 12/03/2026
AWARD.
1.
In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. L-
40011/41/2012 (IR (DU)) dated 20/03/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of section 10 of
the I.D. Act. 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, in terminating the services
of Shri Dharmendra Kumar w.e.f. 01/02/2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4143
2.
In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness with this Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite
parties involved in the dispute.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management and
accordingly statement of claim and WS was filed by the parties and the case record is running at the stage of filing
documents by the parties but the case record shows that the workman absented himself since 24/25.04.2014, and
never appeared there after which makes it clear that the workman is not interested in this case and the registered
notice sent to the workman/Union was returned back with endorsement ―Address could not be traced‖ whereas the
address mentioned on the envelope is just the same as has been mentioned in the reference order.
4.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Dispute /claim‖ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required u/s 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 797.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार प्रबंिन, बीएसएनएल, ृटना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमणचाठरयों के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िनबाि ृंचाट(संिभण सं्या-59/2013) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 40011/40/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 797.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, Employer in relation to the management of BSNL, Patna.
and Their Workman.
[No. L-40011/40/2012 IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.2 , DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) & (2A) of I.D. Act,1947.
Ref. Case No.-59/2013
Parties :
Employer in relation to the management of BSNL Patna.
AND
Their Workman
Present : Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For Workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry :- Telephone
Dated: 12/03/2026
4144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1. In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. L-40011/40/2012
(IR (DU)) dated 20/03/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of section 10 of the I.D. Act.
1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, in terminating the services of
Shri Niranjan Kumar w.e.f. 01/02/2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to?”
2.
In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness with this Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite
parties involved in the dispute.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management and
accordingly statement of claim and WS was filed by the parties and the case record is running at the stage of filing
documents by the parties but the case record shows that the workman absented himself since 16.09.2013, and never
appeared there after which makes it clear that the workman is not interested in this case and the registered notice sent
to the workman/Union was returned back with endorsement ―Address could not be traced‖ whereas the address
mentioned on the envelope is just the same as has been mentioned in the reference order.
4.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Dispute /claim‖ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required u/s 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 798.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार बीएसएनएल, प्रबंिन, ृटना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमणचाठरयों के संबंि में जनयोिा
कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िनबाि ृंचाट(संिभण
सं्या-61/2013) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 40011/38/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 798.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Employer in relation to the management of BSNL, Patna and Their Workman.
[No. L-40011/38/2012 IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.2 , DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) & (2A) of I.D. Act,1947.
Ref. Case No.-61/2013
Parties :
Employer in relation to the management of BSNL, Patna.
AND
Their Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4145
Present : Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For Workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry :- Telephone
Dated: 12/03/2026
AWARD
1. In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. L-40011/38/2012
(IR (DU)) dated 20/03/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of section 10 of the I.D. Act.
1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, in terminating the services of
Shri Kedar Prasad w.e.f. 01/02/2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?”
2. In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the dispute to
file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness with this Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management and accordingly
statement of claim and WS was filed by the parties and the case record is running at the stage of filing documents
by the parties but the case record shows that the workman absented himself since 16.04.2014, and never appeared
there after which makes it clear that the workman is not interested in this case and the registered notice sent to the
workman/Union was returned back with endorsement ―Address could not be traced‖ whereas the address mentioned
on the envelope is just the same as has been mentioned in the reference order.
4. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Dispute /claim‖ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required u/s 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 799.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, मरास फर्टटलाइजसण जलजमटेड, मनाली, चेन्नई के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मिासजचव,
मरास फर्टटलाइजसण एम्पप्लॉई प्रोग्रेजसव यूजनयन कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्-
सि- श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई ृंचाट (संिभण सं्या-63/2024) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 42025/07/2026/100-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The General Manager, Madras Fertilizers Ltd., Manali, Chennai and The General Secretary, Madras
Fertilizers Employees Progressive Union, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/100-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
4146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date:19-03-2026
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE. No.63/2024
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Madras Fertilizers Employees
Progressive Union,
No.24A, North Mada Street,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai-600 019.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Madras Fertilizers Ltd
Post Bag No.2, Manali,
Chennai-600 068.
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
:
M/s. R.Pandian, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ Respondent
:
None
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, O/o. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), Chennai vide its order No.8(37)/2024/B4/300069814/ADJ/A1 dated 11-09-2024 referred the following
Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
2. The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the demand of the Madras Fertilizers Employees Progressive Union to consider November,
2019 as the date of qualification for Mrs.G.Preethi’s Grade-V promotion is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the Madras Fertilizers Employees Union is entitled to?”
3.
Brief facts are the case are as under:-
The Petitioner Union espouse the cause of one of the members of the Petitioner/Union namely Mrs. G. Preethi (Emp.
No. 3285), who joined the Respondent Organisation on 03.02.2016 as Technical Assistant-Operations (Grade-IV).
While working as such, she obtained prior approval from the management of MFL for pursuing B.Tech Degree -
Chemical Engineering (Part Time) and joined Sathya Bhama University in July 2016 and completed her course of
study in November 2019 (in the Batch -2016-2019) when all the examinations were completed and results were
declared. It is submitted that though the course of study was completed in November 2019, she was declared to have
passed in "First Class With Distinction" in the examination held during November 2019 as per the testimonials issued
to her as 14.02.2020. Thus, the Respondent/Management not considered her for promotion to Grade-V as on
03.02.2020.
4.
It is further submitted that the said University was unable to conduct Convocation in the earlier part of 2020
due to lockdown restrictions imposed by the Government of India and followed up by the State of Tamil Nadu. Due
to the said lockdown restrictions, Mrs.G.Preethi was unable to approach the University and secure the Certificates and
other testimonials at the appropriate time and it resulted in some delay in submitting the Certificates to the
Respondent/Management for making entry in the Personnel Folder of the said employee. It is submitted that the said
employee produced all relevant documents and certificates on 26.08.2020 in the HR Department of the Respondent
Organisation and caused entry to be made in the relevant registers. It is submitted that the said employee completed
four years of service in Grade-IV on 03.02.2020 and has also completed her course of study in B.Tech during
November 2019 and as such, as per the Non-Supervisory Promotion Policy (NSPP) as amended by 18(1) Settlement
dated 20.09.2018 she is entitled for promotion to Grade-V (time bound promotion), since the NSPP stipulates the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4147
eligibility criteria for promotion to Grade-V as "four years in Grade-IV for Professional Qualification and as
mentioned in Annexure -2". However, the said employee was not considered for promotion to Grade-V, despite she
is eligible for the same as she has completed her B.Tech Degree in November 2019 itself, whereas, the selection cut
of date was fixed as 03.02.2020 stating that the date of issue of the certificate was 14.02.2020 which was 11 days later
to the cut of/closing date for consideration for promotion to the post of Grade-V, the said assumption of the
management is legally untenable. Mentioning all the above facts, Mrs.G.Preethi submitted another representation
dated 26.08.2020 enclosing the copies of her consolidated mark sheet and convocation Certificate in order to avail PQ
relaxation for promotion to Grade-V and also for sanction of two increments for acquiring B.Tech (Chemical
Engineering), but was not considered for promotion to Grade-V.
5.
After a delay of more than three years, the HR Department vide letter dated 29.11.2023 informed Mrs.
G.Preethi about her promotion as Senior Technical Assistant-Operations Gr.V on time bound basis w.e.f 03.02.2021
as per Non-Supervisory Promotion Policy applicable to "others having minimum qualification" with 5 years of service
in Grade-IV. Once again Mrs. G.Preethi vide letter dated 22.01.2024 represented her case to HR Department
justifying her entitlement for promotion to Grade-V as per PQ norms (4 years service in Grade-IV as on the date of
consideration for promotion i.e., 03.02.2020), as she has already acquired the Engineering Degree in November 2019
itself. The Petitioner/Union also had taken up the issue of Mrs. G.Preethi's candidature for the post of Senior
Technical Assistant-Operations (Grade-V), vide its letter dated 26.02.2024 as the Management had not complied with
the conditions in the Non-Supervisory Promotion Policy-NSPP [vide 18(1) settlement dated 20.09.2018] and
requested the Management to reconsider her for promotion under PQ on 03.02.2020 as Mrs.G.Preethi attaining the
Qualification of B.Tech Degree during November 2019 itself.
6. The Management replied vide letter dated 29.2.24 that Mrs.G.Preethi comes under "Other Qualification" (OQ) and
that she had not completed 5 years of service in Grade-IV for consideration for promotion to Gr.V. The
Petitioner/Union strongly objected to the interpretation of Management vide another letter dated 07.03.2024 and that
their member Mrs.G.Preethi completed her Degree in November 2019 and the same was mentioned in degree
certificate in Bold font.
7.
But the management reiterated their contention that the employee Mrs.G.Preethi has completed her degree
only on 14.2.2020, wrongly taking in to consideration the date on which the certificate was generated and
misconstruing the same as date of acquiring the Degree. The above contention of the Management is unsustainable.
Hence, the Petitioner/Union raised this dispute to direct the Respondent management to promote Mrs. G.Preethi to
the post of Senior Technical Assistant Grade-V as on 03.02.2020 under PQ norms.
Witnesses Examined:
For the First Party Petitioner :
WW1 R.Valampuri John
For the 2nd Party/Management :
Nil
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner‘s side:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
20.09.2018
Memorandum of Settlement (Non-supervisory Promotion
Policy)
Ex.W2
31.03.2020
Representation of Smt. G.Preethi
Ex.W3
26.08.2020
Representation of Smt. G.Preethi along with B.Tech
certificate 29.11.2023
Ex.W4
29.11.2023
File HR/PF 3285/2023 Time bound promotion from Gr.IV
to Gr.V
Ex.W5
22.01.2024
Representation of Smt. G.Preethi
Ex.W6
06.02.2024
Reply by Respondent to G.Preethi
Ex.W7
19.02.2024
Reply by Respondent to Petitioner union
Ex.W8
30.05.2024
Letter from Petitioner union raised ID before conciliation
officer
Ex.W9
06.08.2024
Reply submitted by Respondent
Ex.W10 30.08.2024
Failure report of ALC(C)-II
Ex.W11 11.09.2024
Order of reference by Ministry
4148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents Marked:
On behalf of Respondent/Management : Nil
8.
On behalf of the Respondent none appeared and they havenot filed any Counter Statement and therefore,
the Respondent was set ex-parte. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Union and perused
the records. The point that arises for determination is whether the demand of the Petitioner union to consider
November, 2019 as date of qualification for Mrs.G.Preethi? If so, to what relief the Petitioner union is entitled?
9.
On behalf of the Petitioner union one Shri R.Valampuri John, General Secretary of the Union has adduced
oral evidence as WW1 and as none appeared on behalf of Respondent, cross examination was closed. On behalf of
the Petitioner Union documents were marked as Ex.W1 to W11. Ex.W1 is the copy of memorandum of settlement
for Non-Supervisory Promotion Policy. Ex.W2 & W3 are representation given by Smt.G.Preeti. Ex.W4 is
promotion letter from Respondent to Smt. G.Preeti from Gr.IV to Gr.V. Ex.W5 is representation given by
Smt.G.Preeti. Ex.W6 is reply given by respondent. Ex.W7 is reply given by Respondent to Petitioner Union. Ex.W8
to W11 are pertaining to conciliation documents.
10.
On perusal of record from Ex.W3 placed at page 16 of the paper book is a B.Tech in Chemical
Engineering (Part Time) Certificate issued to Mrs.Preeti.G, it is a fact evident from the record that for the
examination held in November, 2019, certificate was issued on February,14, 2020. Therefore, Mrs. Preeti.G has
fulfilled the eligibility criteria of B.Tech degree w.e.f. 14.02.2020 and on that date only she becomes qualified.
Therefore, November, 2019 cannot be considered as date of qualification for Mrs.G.Preethi. Therefore, the demand
of the Petitioner/Union to direct the Respondent management to promote Mrs. G.Preethi to the post of Senior
Technical Assistant Grade-V as on 03.02.2020 under PQ norms is not just and fair. Thus, The appeal filed by the
Petitioner Union is liable for dismissal.
11.
Further, the Petitioner had already approached the Hon'ble High Court with a Writ Petition numbered as
W.P.No.20866 of 2019 (WMP 20072 of 2019) & WP 14028 of 2020 for the same cause of action and the same is
not brought to the notice of this Tribunal on record. In this regard, in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs State of
U.P. And Ors. reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Multiplicity of litigation is not in the
interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore,
satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed."
For the above reasons also, the petition filed by the Petitioner Union is not maintainable and thus, same is liable to
be dismissed.
AWARD
The Industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner Union is liable for dismissal. The same is dismissed
accordingly.
Record be consigned to the record room.
Place : Chennai
Date: 19-03-2026
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 800.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार मु्य अजभयंता, संृकण प्रबंिन, ृठरयोजना संृकण कायाणलय, कलुचक, जम्पमू, कमांडर, 13 बीआरटीएफ,
जीआरईएफ, जम्पमू और कश्मीर, अजिकारी कमान, मु्यालय 69 आरसीसी जीआरईएफ, जम्पमू और कश्मीर के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जनयोजकों और और मिासजचव राजकुमार, भवन जनमाणर् कामगार यूजनयन वकणमैन के माध्यम से कमणचारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ ृंचाट (संिभण सं्या-68/2018) को
जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 42011/58/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4149
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Chief Engineer, Management of Sampark, Project Sampark, Kaluchak, Jammu, The Commander, 13
BRTF, GREF, Jammu and Kashmir, The Officer Commanding, HQ 69 RCC GREF Jammu and Kashmir and
General Secretary, Rajkumar, Bhawan Nirman Kamgar Union, Workman.
[No. L-42011/58/2018-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding-cum-Link Officer
ID No. 68/2018
Registered on:–04.09.2018
Bhawan Nirman Kamgar Union, through its General Secretary Rajkumar, age 50 years S/o Sh. Karam Chand R/o
Chadwal, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua.
….. Workmen Union
Versus
1. Management of Sampark, through its, Chief Engineer, Project Sampark C/o 56 APO, Kaluchak, Jammu.
2. The Commander, 13 BRTF, GREF C/O 56 APO, Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The Officer Commanding, HQ 69 RCC GREF, C/o 56 APO, Jammu and Kashmir.
…..Respondents
Present:-
None for Workman
Sh. Arun Gosain, AR for Respondents.
Award :23.03.2026
Central Government vide Notification No.L-42011/58/2018 (IR(DU)) Dated 16.08.2018, under Clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
―Whether the action of the management of the Chief Engineer, Project Sampark, GREF, Kaluchak
C/o 56 APO in not accepting demands of General Secretary, Bhawan Nirman Kamgar Union, Kathua
(J&K) put forth by them in their demand notice at SI. No. 1 & 15 (Copy Enclosed) is justified? If not,
to what relief the union and the workman are entitled and from which date?‖
1.
The case is fixed for filing of affidavit of Workmen Union since long. However, no affidavit on behalf of
Workmen Union has been filed till date. Moreover, no one is turning up on behalf of the union from the last two dates
i.e. 04.08.2025 and 04.11.2025. The Workmen Union has been given sufficient opportunities to file affidavit in
evidence but in spite of the opportunities afforded, the affidavit has not been filed by Workmen Union, which shows
that the Workmen Union is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2.
Since the Workmen Union has not filed evidence by way of affidavit to prove its case against the respondent,
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 reference.
3.
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 cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 801.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय सरकार संृकण
प्रबंिन, अृने मु्य अजभयंता, ृठरयोजना संृकण, कलुचक, जम्पमू, कमांडर, 13 बीआरटीएफ, जीआरईएफ, जम्पमू और
4150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
कश्मीर, अजिकारी कमान, मु्यालय 69 आरसीसी जीआरईएफ, जम्पमू और कश्मीर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों
और मिासजचव राजकुमार, भवन जनमाणर् कामगार यूजनयन वकणमैन के माध्यम से कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ ृंचाट(संिभण सं्या-87/2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 42025/07/2026/102-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Management of Sampark, through its, Chief Engineer, Project Sampark, Kaluchak, Jammu, The
Commander, 13 BRTF, GREF, Jammu and Kashmir, The Officer Commanding, HQ 69 RCC GREF, Jammu
and Kashmir and General Secretary Rajkumar, Bhawan Nirman Kamgar Union, Workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/102-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding-cum-Link Officer
ID No. 87/2019
Registered on:–22.01.2020
Bhawan NirmanKamgar Union, through its General Secretary Rajkumar, age 50 years S/o Sh. Karam Chand
R/o Chadwal, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua.
….. Union
Versus
1. Management of Sampark, through its, Chief Engineer, Project SamparkC/o 56 APO, Kaluchak, Jammu.
2. The Commander, 13 BRTF, GREF C/O 56 APO, Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The Officer Commanding, HQ 69 RCC GREF, C/o 56 APO, Jammu and Kashmir.
…..Respondents
Present:-
None for union.
Sh. Arun Gosain, AR for Respondents.
Award :23.03.2026
1.
The union has filed the present complaint under Section 33-A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter
called as the Act) for taking action against the respondents for illegal termination during of case before the Tribunal.
2.
The case is fixed for filing replication on behalf of Union since long. However, no replication on behalf of
Union has been filed till date. Moreover, no one is turning up on behalf of the Union from the last three dates i.e.
24.03.2025, 04.08.2025 and 04.11.2025. The Union has been given sufficient opportunities to file replication but in
spite of the opportunities afforded, the replication has not been filed by Union, which shows that the Union is not
interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
3.
Since the Union has not filed replication and is not coming in the court to pursue the matter against the
respondents, 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 complaint.
4.
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/Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4151
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 802.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार श्री तजमलन, माजलक, मेससण कोंगू रांसृोटण, चेन्नई, स्ट्टेिन जनिेिक, न्यूजक्लयर ृावर कॉृोरेिन फ इंजडया
जलजमटेड, मरास ृरमार्ु ऊजाण स्ट्टेिन, कल्ृक्कम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री एरुसप्ृन, कमणचारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभण सं्या-95/2017) को
जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 42012/51/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 95/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Sh
Tamilan, Proprietor, M/s Kongu Transport, Chennai, The Station Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of
India Ltd., Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam and Shri Erusappan, workman.
[No. L-42012/51/2017-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 95/2017
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 03-03-2026
Shri Erusappan,
S/o Sh. Dharmalingam,
No.321, Kalaignar Nagar,
Vayaloor Village, Kanchipuram District,
Kalpakkam.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
Sh Tamilan, Proprietor,
M/s Kongu Transport,
No.2, Thiruveethi Amman Kovil Street,
First Floor, Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 042.
: 2nd Party / 1st Respondent
The Station Director,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,
Madras Atomic Power Station,
Kalpakkam-603 102
:
2nd Party / 2nd Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
M/s Rengaramujam, Adv
For the Respondent No.1 :
M/s Gunaraj, Adv
For the Respondent No.2 :
M/s Vijay Shankar, Adv
4152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/51/2017-IR(DU),
dated 24.10.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the termination of the services as Driver of Sh. Erusappan by M/s Kongu Transport, the
contractor of Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., Madras, Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam without any
notice is justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to?‖
On receipt of the above reference dated 24.10.2017 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 95/2017, and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance and file statements.
The claim petition was filed on 03.06.2019, and the counter (by Respondent No.1) was filed on 17.09.2019. No
counter statement has been filed by Respondent No.2 till 19.11.2019 hence Respondent No.2 was set ex parte on
19.11.2019.
The case was listed for filing of the Proof Affidavit by the petitioner up to 19.11.2019 and subsequent dates
till 02.08.2022. No proof affidavit filed was filed by the petitioner thus the petitioner case was closed on 02.08.2022
and listed for filing of Proof Affidavit if any by the Respondent No.1. No Proof Affidavit was filed by the
Respondent No.1 either.
On going through the order sheets as discussed above, it is crystal clear that despite of sufficient
opportunities though made in favour of the Petitioner, there has been no progress in the proceeding was noticed for a
substantial period almost approaching 4 years. Since the Petitioner chose not to file any affidavit evidence for his or
any of the witness and hereby withheld to come to dock to prove his case. This necessarily seeks the Petitioner has
got no interest to proceed with the case. Accordingly, the case was reserved for Final Order as liable for dismissal for
default.
In the fact and circumstance, it is held that that there exists, no dispute for adjudication in consonance to the
reference.
In the result, the case stands dismissed for default.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 803.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार बीएसएनएल, ृटना के प्रबंिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमणचाठरयों के संबंि में जनयोिा
कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िनबाि ृंचाट (संिभण
सं्या-187/2013) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।
[सं. ,y- 40011/23/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 187/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Employer in relation to the management of BSNL, Patna and Their Workman.
[No. L-40011/23/2013-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.2 , DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) & (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Ref. Case No.-187/2013
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4153
Parties :
Employer in relation to the management of BSNL, Patna.
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For Workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry :- Telephone
Dated 09 March, 2026
AWARD.
1.
In the present case, a Reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. L-
40011/23/2013- IR (DU) dated 06/08/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the I.D. Act. 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of whichare as under:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL Patna, in terminating the services of Shri Sudhir Kumar
Workman W.E.F 01/02/2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and witness with this Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claims to the opposite
parties involved in the dispute.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as the management and
accordingly statement of claim and WS was filed by the parties but the case record shows that neither rejoinder by
the workman was filed nor any document was filed by the parties nor any evidence was led from the side of either
party and the case record is running at the stage of filing rejoinder by the workman and documents by the parties and
the workman is also absent since long which makes it clear that the workman is not interested in this case and the
registered notice sent to the workman/Union was received back on 24/02/2026 with endorsement ―Traceless‖.
4.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ―No Dispute /claim‖ Award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required u/s 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 804.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार एचृीसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और हििुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम एम्पप्लाइज यूजनयन; ृेरोजलयम एम्पप्लाइज
यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स
न.- 10/2014) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y- 30011/48/2013-आईआर (एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
4154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relation to HPCL and Hindustan Petroleum Employees Union; Petroleum Employees Union which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-30011/48/2013-IR (M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 10 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
HPCL
V/s.
1. Hindustan Petroleum Employees Union
2. Petroleum Employees Union
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms. Deepika Agarwal(Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 03rd day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-30011/48/2013(IR(M))
dated 19/02/2014 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the dispute raised by Air India Aircraft Engineering Association, Mumbai against the management
of Air India Engineering Services Ltd. over implementation of revised pay structure of Aircraft Maintenance
Engineers, Claiming that it is anomalous and discriminatory justified and legal? If yes, to what relief the
concerned Air India Aircraft Maintenance Engineer are entitled to ?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in
spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in
the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence
to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4155
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Since not field any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, has been filed by the union in support of his case, the
claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 805.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (52/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-101]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-101]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No. 52/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o Village Tikra Post Office Rjera Tehsil Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
4156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 14.10.2015 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 10.03.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4157
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 14.10.2015 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
4158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 14.10.2015 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs. 50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 14.10.2015 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs. 30,000/-.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4159
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 806.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (51/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-102]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-102]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No. 51/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Rohtash S/o Sh. Udaybir, R/o 189 Ram Pur Seuri, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), ChandiMandirCantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1. Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along
with continuity of service and full back wages.
2. It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 17.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI
and Rs.300/- as TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of tax free
4160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
limit. He was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always
shows his employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3. It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were
dispensed with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also
made fresh appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of
the Act. Thus, there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4. Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5. Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate
as prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-
Cantonment Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering
respondent entered into contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis).
In July 2018, the answering respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and
M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide
conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2
submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed their duties and answering respondent is
only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command Chandigarh to release payment directly to
the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor. Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is
carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent has no responsibility of
disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai karamcharis formed
union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the premises of
Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent asked
respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the
answering respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the
answering respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative
office of the Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union
unauthorizedly and indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor
and therefore, termination is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6. Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum
wages as declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will
without notice. It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7. In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8. Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 10.03.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4161
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by
respondent no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by
respondent no.1 on 17.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any
reason in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and
junior to him were retained in service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So
far as the agreements between the respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair
labour practice. The work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having
any license. The contractor has left after three months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the
service of the workman, which is mandatory under the Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent
no.2 (contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no
relationship of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the
respondent no.2 to the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the
services of the workman. Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of
the Act, then it is done by respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to
EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not
permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1 being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of
his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the
workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as
per his claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing
his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to
perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of
Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of
employment/ contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are
not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract
basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be
inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract
basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in
plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a
person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or
contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In
view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein
admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj
Saluja Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find
out whether the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in
the claim petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages,
salary, letter of appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature
for holding the relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally
lacking not in the pleading but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel
K P Singh in his cross examination has stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to
the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate
to the conservancy staff. Contractor is responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who
was required to ensure the payment of wages to the workers engaged by him from time to time.
4162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4.
Ex.R-2 is the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges
that workman was paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor.
Thus, there does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent
no.1. However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was
supplying contract labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of
contractor. Section 2(c) of the Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or
articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa
1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j)
of the Act, and has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not.
The triple test is where (a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was
doing work i.e. systematic activity for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was
cooperation between the workman and respondent no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for
rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G
and 25H of the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 17.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages
prescribed by Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any
compensation before terminating his services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated
that his salary used to be credited in his bank account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in
which his salary was credited in order to enable this Court to see who was making payment to the workman.
However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from
the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis
were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of
respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed above. There does not exist any relationship
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation of
employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as
regards violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the
workman. Hence, workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by
respondent no.1 by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement
executed between respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions
of AR for workman that the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry
was held before terminating the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that
workman was entitled only for compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and
no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not
mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a
department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that regular recruitment procedure is
provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is not employee of
respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not
working with respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary
given to him during the period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act,
this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of
compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4163
ii. Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii. Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 17.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years
and less than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the
date of award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai
karamcharis, then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17
of the Act.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 807.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (50/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-103]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-103]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No. 50/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Mahinder S/o Sh. Jabar Singh R/o Beer Ghaghar, Chandi Mandir, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, PipliWala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service
along with continuity of service and full back wages.
4164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safaikaramchari
on 01.04.2013 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamchari of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamchari). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamchari to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamchari performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamchari formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamchari formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
22.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 29.01.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 07.05.2024.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4165
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 01.04.2013 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamchari formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
4166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 01.04.2013 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamchari were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamchari and agreement executed between respondent
no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that the work
performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating the services
of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for compensation under
Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely
because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get
employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that
regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is
not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 01.04.2013 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years), so he is
entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4167
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamchari,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 808.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (49/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-104]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 49/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-104]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No. 49/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Surja W/o Sh. Rajender Kumar R/o 144 Ram Pur Seuri, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, PipliWala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against her termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that she was appointed as sweeper/safai
karamchari on 01.07.2014 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
minimum wages were never paid to her. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and
Rs.300/- as TDS from his salary despite of the fact that her total wages comes under the ambit of tax free limit. She
4168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his
employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently her services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of her services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as she was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 10.03.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 01.07.2014 as sweeper and her services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4169
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman. However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and she was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
4170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract
labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
The Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa
1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the
Act, and has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test
is where (a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and
substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy
human wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic
activity for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and
respondent no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus,
respondent no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in her deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H
of the Act. She also stated that she was appointed on 01.07.2014 and she was paid minimum wages prescribed by
Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. She was not given any compensation before terminating
his services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, she has further stated that her salary used to be credited in his
bank account. But she has not placed on record any bank account, in which her salary was credited in order to enable
this Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid
salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 01.07.2014 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (More than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so she is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4171
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 809.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (48/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-105]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-105]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No.48/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Niam Singh S/o Sh. Bikhi Ram, R/o 259 Ram Pur Seuri, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), ChandiMandirCantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, PipliWala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 18.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
4172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in ChandiMandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, ChandiMandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 10.03.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 18.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4173
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-
contractor;
4174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 18.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 18.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4175
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 810.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (47/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-106]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 47/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-106]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No.47/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Harikrishan S/o Sh. Gyan Chand R/o Beer Ghaghar, Chandi Mandir, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:- Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 20.10.2016 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said minimum
wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI and Rs.300/- as
TDS from hissalary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of taxfree limit. He was working
under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always shows his employment in
record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were dispensed
with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also made fresh
appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Act. Thus,
there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4.
Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
4176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate as
prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-Cantonment
Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering respondent entered into
contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis). In July 2018, the answering
respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-
tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy services in ChandiMandir Military Station for
the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed
their duties and answering respondent is only responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command
Chandigarh to release payment directly to the contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor.
Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent
has no responsibility of disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai
karamcharis formed union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the
premises of Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent
asked respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the answering
respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the answering
respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative office of the
Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union unauthorizedly and
indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor and therefore, termination
is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6.
Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum wages as
declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will without notice. It
is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7.
In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
30.07.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8.
Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 10.03.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by respondent
no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by respondent no.1
on 20.10.2016 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any reason in violation of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and junior to him were retained in
service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So far as the agreements between the
respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair labour practice. The work performed by
the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having any license. The contractor has left after three
months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, which is mandatory under the
Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent no.2
(contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no relationship
of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the respondent no.2 to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4177
the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the services of the workman.
Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of the Act, then it is done by
respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to EPF and ESI etc. The workman
and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1
being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed
a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as per his
claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing his duties as
labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the
above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find out whether the labours
are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature for holding the
relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally lacking not in the pleading
but also in the evidence submitted by the workman.However, MW1 Colonel K P Singh in his cross examination has
stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to the conservancy staff. Contractor is
responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the
services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who was required to ensure the payment of wages to the
workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. Ex.R-2 is
the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges that workman was
paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor. Thus, there does not exist
any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was supplying contract
labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of contractor. Section 2(c) of the
Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-
contractor;
4178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
TheHon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36)
FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, and
has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where
(a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was doing work i.e. systematic activity
for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was cooperation between the workman and respondent
no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent
no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 20.10.2016 and he was paid minimum wages prescribed by Central
Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any compensation before terminating his
services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his salary used to be credited in his bank
account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in which his salary was credited in order to enable this
Court to see who was making payment to the workman. However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary
by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by
respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with
respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed
above. There does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1.
However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as regards
violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the workman. Hence,
workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by respondent no.1
by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement executed between
respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions of AR for workman that
the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry was held before terminating
the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that workman was entitled only for
compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and no domestic inquiry was required to
be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not mean that any right has accrued in favour of the
workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a department of Civil Defence run by Government of
India and for that regular recruitment procedure is provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service.
Moreover, workman is not employee of respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not working with
respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary given to him during the
period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of compensation is
deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 20.10.2016 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 2 years and less
than 5 years), so he is entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.30,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai karamcharis,
then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
Act.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4179
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 811.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ओठरएंटल बैंक फ कॉमसण ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a29/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y- 12012/70/2015-आईआर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of
Commerce and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/70/2015- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR [M.P.]
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/29/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Abhishek Chourasia,
S/o Shri Anil Chourasia,
Gulab Ward No. 34, Gali No. 1,
Chhindwara (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
The Regional Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Indira Press Complex, Pragati Bhawan,
Mahrana Pratap Nagar, Zone-I,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 10th day of February, 2026)
As per letter dated 18/02/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‟) as per
Notification No.L-12012/70/2015(IR(B-II)) dt. 18/02/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:-
“क्मा आवेदक श्री अभबषेक चौयभसमा आत्भज श्री अननर चौयभसमा ददनाांक 1/9/11 से ददनाांक 15/2/2015 तक
ओरयमण्टर फैंक ऑप काभसस की शाखा न ांदवाडा भें फतौय दैननक वेतन बोगी कभसचायी ननमोजजत थे, मदद हाां तो क्मा
शाखा प्रफांधक द्वाया आवेदक श्री अभबषेक चौयभसमा को बफना ककसी ऩूवस सूचना/कायण के ददनाांक 16/2/15 से सेवा से
हटाना न्मामसांगत है? मदद नहीां तो आवेदक क्मा अनुतोष ऩाने का अधधकायी है?"
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and
filed their respective statement of claim in defense.
4180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The case of the workman is mainly that he was appointed as a ‗Messenger‘ w.e.f. 01.09.2011 on daily rated
basis and worked continuously with the Bank till 15.02.2015, when his services were terminated under an oral order
without notice or compensation. According to the workman union, this action of management is in violation of
Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act, hence unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He raised a dispute in this respect which could
not be conciliated, hence this Reference.
The workman has prayed that, holding termination of his service against the Act, he be held entitled to be
reinstated with back-wages and benefits and also be held entitled to permanent status.
Case of the Management Bank is mainly that they are a Public Sector Undertaking and have defined Rules
for Appointment of staff, Branch Manager is not an Employer to employ any staff. The workman was never appointed
against any permanent vacancy of Messenger following any recruitment process, there is no post of messenger as
such in the Bank. According to the Bank, he was a daily rated worker, engaged by Bank on as and when required
basis, for which he was paid his daily wages. He never completed 240 days in any year; management has requested
that the reference be answered against the workman.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-examined by
management Bank, management Bank has also filed affidavit of its witness who has been cross-examined by
workman side. The workman has also filed and proved Ex-W/1, certificate issued by Branch Manager and Ex-W/2
which are 76 vouchers for the period between 2014-2015 with regard to payment made by the Bank to workman.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Sidharth Verma. Learned Counsel for
management Bank did not appear for argument. Both the parties have filed written submissions which are part of the
record. I have gone through the written submissions and record as well.
On perusal of record in light of written submissions, following Issues came up for determination:-
1)
Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days as
defined under section 25-B of the Act?
2)
Whether the termination of services of workman is in violation of section 25-F & 25-G of the
Act?
3)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
Issue No.1,
Section 25-B of the Act, which defines ‗continuous service‘, is being reproduced as follows:-
―25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1)
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period,
in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of
sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out
or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a
period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under
an employer—
(a)
for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i)
one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below
ground in a mine; and
(ii)
two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b)
for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i)
ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a
mine; and
(ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.”
Pleadings of the parties on this issue have been corroborated earlier. The workman has corroborated his
allegations on this issue in his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination he admits that no
appointment letter was issued to him, and he did not appear in any written or oral examination. He has denied that he
did not complete 240 days in a year.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4181
On the other hand, the management witness admits in his cross-examination that he was not posted during
the period in which the workman has claimed to have been employed by the Bank. He also states that there is no
record with respect to payment of daily wagers in the Bank and that there is a post of Peon in the Branch but it is not
known who was working on the post of Peon in the said period. The evidence of the workman is corroborated by
different vouchers, total 76 in numbers which showed that he was engaged by the Bank for different works for which
he was paid his wages and his expenses with regard to travelling, etc. These vouchers are for the period 2014-2015.
The statement of workman is corroborated by documentary evidence. On the other hand, the statement of
management itself shows that this witness was not posted in the Branch during the period in question. Hence, holding
the evidence from workman side more reliable, he is held to have proved his case that he worked continuously for 240
days and more in every year including the year preceding the date of his termination as defined under section 25-B of
the Act and the Bank is held to be his employer under the Act.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2,
Undisputedly, no notice was issued to the workman before his termination nor was he paid any
compensation. Hence his termination is held in violation of section 25-F and 25-G of the Act.
Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act, is being reproduced as follows:
25F.
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.
No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one
year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a)
the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu
of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b)
the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or
any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c)
notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such
authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.
25G.
Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this
behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3
Undisputedly, the workman was not appointed following recruitment process hence, his engagement cannot
be said to be legal. Thus, he is not entitled to reinstatement. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case
in hand, a lump sum compensation quantified Rs. 1Lac/- in lieu of all his claims including litigation cost will meet the
ends of justice which the workman is held entitled to be paid by the Bank within 60 days from the date of publication
of the Award, failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till payment.
Issue No. 3 stands answered accordingly.
In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-
AWARD
“Holding the action of the management in disengaging the workman Shri Abhishek Chourasia from
16/02/2015, illegal and unjustified, he is held entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1Lac/- to be paid by the Bank
within 60 days from the date of publication Award, failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till
payment, in lieu of all his claims.”
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 10-02-2026
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
4182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 812.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार एचृीसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जेरी टेलेस के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 18/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया
गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y- 30012/23/2017-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 18/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Shri Jerry Teles which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-30012/23/2017-(IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 18 of 2018
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
V/s.
Shri Jerry Teles
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Mr. S.V. Alva, Adv.
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 02nd day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-30012/23/2017-IR(M)
dated 17/05/2018 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its General Manager
(Regional Services)-WR, IOCL, Mumbai in dismissing the workman namely Sh. Jeery Teles, Jr. Operator (F),
Aviation Fuel Station, Nagpur vide order bearing No. WR.IR/1461/JT dated 08/09/2006 is legal & proper? If
not, what relief to the workman is entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in
spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in
the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4183
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38
and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on
behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail
if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Mr. S.V. Alva, Learned Counsel for the Management, appeared and he prayed that the matter be dismissed for want
of prosecution.
Since claimant/workman has not field evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities
given to him, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 813.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससण इंटरनेिनल एयरृोटण अ ॉठरटी जलजमटेड; मेससण मुंबई इंटरनेिनल एयरृोटण अ ॉठरटी जलजमटेड; मेससण
दक्रस्ट्टल एजवएिन सर्ववसेज़ प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमणचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 25/2014) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y- 11011/01/2011-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s International Airport Authority Limited; M/s Mumbai International Airport authority Limited;
M/s Krystal Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-11011/01/2011-(IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
4184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 25 of 2014
Employers in relation to the management of
1. M/s International Airport Authority Limited
2. M/s Mumbai International Airport authority Limited
3.M/s Krystal Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
V/s.
Their Workmen()
Appearances:
For the first party Management
: Ms. Geeta Raju (Adv.)
For the second party workmen
: Absent
Mumbai, dated the 06th day of February, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-11012/05/2014-IR(CM-I)
dated 10.02.2015 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section(1) sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India / Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd.
& M/s Krystal Aviation Servies Pvt. Ltd. in non regularizing the services of 42 employees working as Trolly
Retriever is legal and Justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not filed any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in
spite of opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case
of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he
must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or
produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman
and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees‟ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR
38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or
on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would
fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4185
Since no rejoinder/evidence has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 814.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार यल इंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री नीलमजर् साहू के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 4/2010) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y- 30012/40/2009-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 4/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Oil India Limited and Shri Nilamani Sahoo which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-30012/40/2009-(IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
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. 4/2010
Date of Passing Award – 30th December, 2025
Between:-
The Project In-Charge,
Bay Exploration Project,
Oil India Limited, IDCO Tower,
Unit – IX, Bhubaneswar – 751 007.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
Shri Nilamani Sahoo,
Village- Kaipudia, P.O. – Megha,
Via – Athagarh, Cuttack.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
4186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
Sri Anup Kumar Mohanty,…
For the 1st Party-Management.
Auth. Representative.
Sri N.R. Mallick,
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
Auth. Representative.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment in exercising its power conferred under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
have referred a dispute between the Management of Bay Exploration Project, Oil India Ltd., and their workmen
vide letter No. L-30012/40/2009 – IR(M), dated 26.03.2010 for its adjudication and the schedule of the reference is as
follows:-
―Whether the action of the management of Oil India, Bhubaneswar by terminating the services of Shri
Nilamani Sahoo, Watchman without taking disciplinary action is legal & or justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
The case of the concerned workman as per his statement of claim is as follows:-
That he was appointed as a Chowkidar on the basis of selection through interview against the permanent
vacancy with effect from 01.06.1985 and was posted at Bhubaneswar vide Order dated 31.05.1985 of the
Management. At the time of appointment his basic pay was Rs. 310/- per month with D.A. and other allowances as
applicable to regular employees of the company which was revised from time to time. He was under probation for six
months and after completion of his probation period his service was confirmed. He had rendered 20 years of
continuous service under the 1st Party-Management, but he was illegally dismissed from service on 30.06.2006. He
had been performing his duties sincerely and diligently and he had an unblemished service record, but he came
to know about his dismissal order from daily news Paper ―The Samaj‖ dated 30.06.2006 which was in violation of
principle of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. He had not been served
the order of dismissal and when he approached the Management-company he was given a copy of the said dismissal
order. He had not been served a charge sheet of any misconduct committed by him and no enquiry was conducted
against him. The Management had not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. After about two
years of his dismissal vide letter dated 25.02.2008 he was asked to collect his outstanding dues from the office of the
Management. His dismissal from service by the 1st Party-Management was illegal, arbitrary and void abnitio. The
1st Party-Management has not followed the established principles of law while dismissing him, so he may be
reinstated in his service with full back wages and other service benefits.
There was an illegality in payment of salary to the employees of the 1st Party-Management so the employees
had raised a demand for payment of their salary in time. The employees demanded their regular payment through the
Union but to victimize the workers of the 1st Party-Management filed 1.C.C. case which was registered against him
and other workmen in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in which he was granted bail by the Hon‘ble High Court
of Orissa. In the meantime during the pendency of the 1.C.C. case before the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, the
Management had dismissed him without following the principles of natural justice leaving aside other employees who
were allegedly named in the above case, so the action of the Management was discriminatory and unsustainable in
the eye of law. The Management in its dismissal order had mentioned a concocted story that he had assaulted an
officer in the office of the 1st Party-Management and threatened him with dire consequences if any action was taken
against him. Moreover, the Management had further mentioned in the said order that being afraid of his threat, no
employee was prepared to give evidence against him so no domestic enquiry was conducted against him and his
service was terminated by the order of the competent authority.
It is the settled principle of law that when a workman is terminated from service it would amount to
retrenchment under the I.D. Act and the Management is bound to follow the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.
Act, but the Management had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The facts mentioned in
the order of dismissal that he had physically assaulted the superior officer and threatened him to cause his death and
threatened the other workers not to give evidence against him is false and concocted. The Management has taken false
plea in order to justify its illegal action and to deny the benefits of principle of natural justice to him. After his illegal
termination he had represented time and again to the higher authorities
for his reinstatement but his grievance was not taken into consideration. Hence, he raised the dispute before the
A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar.
A prayer has been made before the Tribunal to declare his dismissal from service as illegal and void with a
direction to the 1st Party-Management for his reinstatement with full back wages and other service benefits with
continuity of service.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4187
3.
On the other-hand the case of the management of Oil India Limited is as follows:-
That, the 1st party-Management is a Government of India company doing its endeavour to search for
Hydrocarbon and/or oil in the North East Coast, Mahanadi Basin Areas so it had set up its base office at
Bhubaneswar, Orissa with branch at Paradeep. The concerned workman was working as a contract labourer under
various contractors in the establishment but he was formally interviewed and was appointed as a watchman on the pay
roll of the 1st Party-Management in the year 1985. After failure of the professional parties engaged by the company
on global tender basis for drilling out, deposit of Hydro Carbon or oil during 1988 and finding future prospects of any
successful exercise were bleach, the drilling operation were gradually reduced. After that the Management proposed
to transfer some of its employees from Bhubaneswar to the field Head Quarter at Duliajan in the state of Assam
from December, 2005. Some of the employee and all unionized employees of the Bhubaneswar Office as a protest on
transfer stopped receiving their salary from June, 2006 onwards even after advising them to receive salary but the
employees did not come forward to receive their salary. After five months, all the employees orally approached the
Management for release their un-received salary but the Management insisted that each employee should give a letter
of undertaking that they had not received their pay at their own sweet- will and would not to repeat such action in
future. In the mean-time on 13.06.2006 at around 11 A.M. Sri A. Mazumdar the then Manager (F & A) under the
1st Party- Management while working in his office room at IDCO Towner, Janpath heard a huge commotion from
outside and he immediately came out of his room. After that he found Sri Snehasis Haldar, Cashier standing
helplessly with open cash office and about fifteen to twenty Unionized staff including the present workman were
shouting at the top of their voice. The said employees were demanding their arrear salary, cheques without complying
the conditions stipulated by the Project in-charge Sri A. Majumdar, Manager (F& A). After that Sri A. Mazumdar
told them that the same could not be paid without compliance of the conditions imposed by the Management.
Thereafter Sri Mazumdar asked the cashier to close the cash office immediately. In the mean-time Shri J.K. Mishra
and J.P. Bothaju, who had come thereto for rescue were threatened and abused by the workman and other employees.
Thereafter the present workman and Sri T. Narayan targeted Sri Majumdar under the leadership of Sri N.R. Mallick,
President of the MPEX Union, Sri D.R. Pattnaik, Sri J.K. Sarangi, Sri T.P. Mohanty and started threatening Sri A.
Mazumdar in a most abusive language. Subsequently, Sri Mazumdar sought help of Shri S.K. Pattnaik. A.O. (SR)
who escorted him to leave the office premises but as he moved towards the gate the concerned workman along with
T. Narayan and other co-employees came there and manhandled him by hitting him with blows on his body and back.
Further the concerned workman and Sri T. Narayan continued to assault Sri Mazumdar with fist and blows and Sri
Majumdar ran back to his office room out of fear. Sri Mazumdar was confined by the workman and another employee
in his room up-to 4.30 P.M. on 13.06.2006 and he was not allowed to go for lunch. Sri Majumdar was on leave
from 14.06.2006 and 15.06.2006 and on 16.06.2006 on the basis of legal advice he had filed 1.C.C. Case Bearing No.
1496 dated 17.06.2006 against the concerned workman and others, which was sent to police station for registration
of FIR. Further on 21.06.2006 the concerned workman came to the office and threatened to Sri Mazumdar, while he
was going home that if the Management would take any action against them then that would the last day of him and
his family members. Moreover, the concerned workman threatened to all the co-employees not to give anything in
writing relating to occurrence to the Management as a witness. The misconduct committed by Sri Nilamani Sahoo and
T. Narayan were of serious in nature putting the life and liberty of a superior officer in jeopardy, so they did not
deserve any lenient view from the Management. On the basis of the past experience, the Management realized that the
workman would be non-cooperative in conducting fact finding enquiry and in view of such situation it was not
practicable to conduct an enquiry. The conduct of the concerned workman and others employee like threatening the
superior officer, shouting derogative slogans on each working day had become a regular routine affairs. Moreover,
Sri Sahu had indulged in violent activities when Sri M.P. Barua Officer of the 1st Party-Management company had
visited to Bhubaneswar office. The Management after considering that there were every possibilities that the
concerned workman would resort to assault the officers of the Management had decided that neither any useful
purpose would be served nor any further evidence would come out if a detailed enquiry would be held with regard to
the charges, so the competent authority keeping in view the larger interest of the company dismissed the concerned
workman namely Sri Nilamani Sahoo and Sri T. Narayan on 30.06.2006 who were involved in such incident on
13.06.2006. The order of dismissal was sent to Sri Sahu through Regd. Post with A.D. enclosing there to cheques
which returned unserved on 21.07.2006. The dismissal order was also sent to the workman Under Certificate of
Posting on 03.07.2006 and the same was also published in the news-paper ―The Sambad‖ Bhubaneswar edition dated
05.07.2006. In the mean-time a notice was published in the news-paper ―The Sambad‖ on 15.11.2006 intimating the
employees to receive their salary and in that response all the employees had received their salary on 16.11.2007 but
the concerned workman gave a letter on 22.11.2006 mentioning false allegation with a prayer to allow him to join in
his duty immediately. The concerned workman had made correspondence to the Management under the RTI Act
for inspection of records and projects files which was considered by the Management. In the mean-time the learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar referred the case bearing No. 1.C.C. 1496/2005 to Police Station and a G.R. Case No.
2487/2006 was registered. Subsequently Police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet.
The concerned workman has been dismissed from service of Management as punishment, so he does not
come under the definition of retrenchment and consequently Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not
applicable in this case.
4188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The 1st Party-Management by way of his reply has made a prayer that the reference may be answered against
the disputant-workman.
4.
The 2nd Party-workman has filed rejoinder denying all the averments made in the written statement by the
Management.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties following issues are framed.
ISSUES
i)
Whether the action of the Management of Oil India, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Nilamani
Sahoo, Watchman without taking disciplinary action is legal and justified?
ii) What relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
The 2nd party-workman has examined altogether five witnesses. They are W.W.-1 Sri Nilamani Sahoo
himself, Sri Nishith Ranjan Mallick as W.W.-2, Sri Krupasindhu Mahalik, as W.W.-3, Sri Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra
as W.W.-4 and
Sri Radhamohan Padhi as W.W.-5. The 2nd Party-workman has proved the following documents which are marked as
hereunder:-
Ext.-1 – Copy of the appointment letter dated 31.05.1985.
Ext.-2 – Copy of the confirmation letter dated 14.12.1985.
Ext.-3 – Copy of the dismissal order dated 30.06.2006.
Ext.-4 – Copy of the paper clippings dated 05.07.2006.
Ext.-5 – Copy of the Management‘s letter dated 25.02.2008.
Ext.-6 – Copy of the delegation of Power.
Ext.-7 – Copy of the letter addressed to General Manager, Oil India Limited by R.L.C.(Central),
dated 27.08.1993.
Ext.-8 – Copy of Allahabad Bank letter dated 27.02.2007.
Ext.-9 – Copy of paper publication dated 15.11.2006 in The Sambad.
Ext.-10 – Copy of the letter dated 22.11.2006 of the workman to the Management, BEP, OIL, Bhubaneswar,
Ext.-11 – Copy of the compliant petition of Mr. Mazumdar before Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C.
Case No. 1496/2006.
Ext.-12 – Copy of notice dated 27.10.2006 issued to Sri J.K. Sarangi.
Ext.-13 – Copy of the status report on the alleged man-handling on Sri Mazumdar prepared by Sri R.K.
Mohanty on 16.06.2006.
Ext.-14 – Copy of the letter dated 27.03.2006 of the Project in-charge, Oil India Limited.
Ext.-15 - Copy of the Index dated 18.04.2006 submitted by the Advocate of the Management before the
Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa in Misc. case No. 5015/2006
Ext.-16 – Copy of the Standing Order for the workman employed in Oil India Limited (Rajastan Project).
Ext.-17 – Copy of the judgement of the Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa dated 06.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C)
No. 883/2018.
7.
On the other-hand the 1st Party-Management has examined four witnesses. They are M.W.-1 Sri Abhijit
Majumdar, Sr. Manager (F&A), Directorate General Hydrocarbon, Noida, M.W.-2 Sri S.K. Senapati, Head (Legal),
Corporate Office, Oil India Limited, M.W.-3 Sri Sujit Kumar Patnaik, Addl. Senior Officer (Materials), Oil India
Limited, Noida& M.W.-4 Sri Anup Kumar Mohanty, Senior Administrative Officer.
8.
In course of their evidence the Management have proved the following documents which are marked as :-
Ext.-A – Copy of the notice dated 02.05.2006.
Ext.-B – Copy of notice dated 03.06.2006.
Ext.-C – Copy of the postal envelop.
Ext.-C/1 – Copy of the postal remarks on envelop.
Ext.-D – Copy of notice published in the News Paper ―The Sambad‖, dated 05.07.2006.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4189
Ext.-E – Copy of the order of dismissal of the workman.
Ext.-F – Copy of service of cheque regarding payment of salaries to the 2nd party-workman.
Ext.-G – Copy of the letter dated 27.03.2006 addressed to IIC, Sahidnagar P.S., Bhubaneswar.
Ext.-H – Copy of the letter dated 03.04.2006 addressed to OIC, Sahidnagar P.S., Bhubaneswar by Project
In-charge, BEP.
Ext.-J – Copy of the notice dated 02.05.2006 of OIL written by Sri S.N. Singh.
FINDINGS
9.
The most important issue in this case is Issue No. II, so the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss this issue
first of all.
ISSUE NO. II
10.
At the outset of discussions, it is relevant to mention here that it is an admitted fact that the concerned
workman namely Sri Nilamani Sahu had been appointed as Chowkidar after selection through interview against the
permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.1985 at Bhubaneswar and after completion of probation his service was
confirmed.
11.
It is also the admitted fact that the concerned workman namely Sri Nilamani Sahoo had been
dismissed/removed from the services with effect from 30.06.2006 without holding any domestic enquiry against
him for the alleged misconduct.
13.
At this stage it is required to mention here that in the dismissal order of Sri Nilamani Sahoo which is at
Ext.-3, it has been mentioned that the misconduct committed by him is grave and serious in nature putting the life
and liberty of a superior officer in jeopardy and as such deserves no lenient view from the Management. It has also
been mentioned that he had taken extreme step of using abusive language and assaulting Sri Mazumdar inside the
office premises in presence of other employees and such act in itself speaks of his high handed and recalcitrant
attitude. It has been further noted that the Management is of view that it would be difficult to hold a proper enquiry
since the witness might not come forward to give frank and true evidence.
14.
It is relevant to mention herewith that there is a Standing Order for the workmen employed in the
establishment of Oil India Limited which is marked as Ext.-16. The Management had not raised any objection at
the time of its marking as exhibit by the W.W.-2 (Sri N.R. Mallick). Since no objection had been raised by the
Management on the copy of the Standing Order for the workman employed in the establishment of Oil India Limited
(Ext.-16), so it amounts to admission on the part of the Management.
15.
In the Standing Order the provisions of termination of employment/service has been mentioned under
Section 19 which reads as follows:-
19.0.
Termination of Employment/Service :-
19.1.
Reasons :-
19.1.1
A workman‘s termination of service will generally fall under one of the following categories:-
(a) Discharge owing to staff redundancy.
(b) Discharge on completion of temporary work.
(c) Discharge on completion of probationary period in respect of new recruits (if work is found
unsatisfactory during the probationary period.
(d) Discharge on receipt of adverse report about the workman‘s efficiency, work, acts or expression
prejudicial to the company, its management, its business or acts or expression prejudicial to the company,
its management, its business or its reputation or any adverse official report.
(e) Discharge for absence from work, without authorized leave or permission for more than fourteen
consecutive days.
(f) Any discharge for any misstatement or suppression of facts or furnishing to the Company any false or
incorrect particulars about himself/herself/family, his/her qualifications or experience or past antecedents or
conduct at the time of the appointment.
(g) Discharge or conviction by any Court of Law for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude.
(h) Discharge on attainment of age of superannuation.
(i) Discharge on resignation after due notice.
(j) Discharge for unsatisfactory service.
4190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(k) Dismissal for any act of misconduct as specified under Section 21.
Clause (a) to (k)
Further, Section-9.2 of the Standing Order mentions the procedure for termination of employment/service
and under Section-9.2.(d) it has been specifically mentioned that the services of the workman shall not be terminated
(dismissed) for an act of misconduct specified under section 21 of the Standing Orders unless he/she has been given
an opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him/her and a departmental enquiry is held. Further, under
section 21 of the Standing Order disciplinary action of misconduct has been mentioned.
16.
Now in the Standing Order of the Management of Oil India Limited there is categorical provision that a
workman shall not be terminated (dismissed) for an act of misconduct unless he has been given an opportunity to
explain and after holding a departmental enquiry. But in this case the Management had not issued any
explanation/show cause to the concern workman with regard to his misconduct as mentioned in the dismissal order
and no disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him for proving the charges of misconduct.
17.
However, at this stage the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss the oral and documentary evidence of both the
parties even though no departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman.
18.
The most competent witness in this case on behalf of the workman is the W.W.-1 Sri Nilamani Sahoo. He
has categorically deposed that he was appointed as a Chowkidar after he was selected through interview against a
permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.1985 and was posted at Bhubaneswar. He has also deposed that his
services were made permanent after completion of probation period, but his service was terminated without holding
any departmental enquiry. He has proved certain documents which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-7.
In the cross examination he has deposed that on 13.06.2006 he was present in the office and he was called by
Sri Mazumdar for receiving salary/payment after giving in writing, but he refused the same. He has denied the
suggestion that he had misbehaved with Sri Mazumdar and kept him in confinement in a room till 4.30 P.M. He has
also denied the suggestion that he along with N.R. Mallick, D.R. Patnaik, J.K. Sarangi and T.P. Mohanty had
assaulted and abused Sri Mazumdar.
The W.W.-2 Sri N.R. Mallick who is the President of the Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Employees
Union has fully corroborated the evidence of the W.W.-1 in his examination in chief and he has proved certain
documents which are marked as Ext.-8 to Ext.-17.
In the cross examination he has stated that he was dismissed from service in the year 2004. He has stated that
he had collected information from the applicant that there was no incident in the office on 13.06.2006.
The W.W.-3, Krupasindhu Mallick has also supported the evidence adduced by the W.W.-1 in his
examination in chief. In the cross examination he has deposed that he was not an employee of the Management on
13.06.2006 and he was driving a tourist vehicle, but he was working as a Driver of a tourist vehicle engaged for Oil
India Limited. He has also deposed that he was a Driver of Sri Mazumdar and he left him in his office in between
9.30 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. and there after 3 P.M. to 3.30 P.M.
The W.W.-4 and W.W.-5 were the employees of the Management of Oil India Limited and they have fully
supported the case of the concerned workman in their evidence.
19.
On the other-hand the most competent witness on behalf of the 1st Party-Management is the M.W.-1 Sri A.
Mazumdar. He has deposed that on account of transfer of employees by the Management, the other Unionized
employees stopped receiving their salary from January, 2006 onwards and the Management had not stopped
paying their salary to them rather advised them to receive their salary for which a letter was also issued. He has
further deposed that on 13.06.2006 at around 11 A.M. he heard loud sound and disturbing slogans by the
Unionized workmen resulting in violent commotion in front of the cash office and he informed the agitating
workers that cheque could not be handed-over to them without submitting undertaking. He has further stated
that on his advice the Cashier closed the cash box and handed over the keys to him. He has also stated the workman
and others abused him and the Cashier in presence of Shri J.K. Mishra and Shri H.P. Bothaju. He has also stated
that the concerned workman and T. Narayan targeted him under the leadership of Sri N.R. Mallick, Sri D.R.
Pattnaik and Sri T.P. Mohanty who gheraoed and abused him as he was moving towards gate. He has also stated
that the concerned workman and others repeatedly gave him blows and went on abusing. He has further stated that he
was on leave from 14.06.2006 to 15.06.2006 and on 16.06.2006 after consultation with the legal officer filed an I.C.C.
Case No. 1496/2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. He has also deposed that on 21.06.2006 the
concerned workman and Sri T. Narayan again assaulted him while he was going towards his personal vehicle from his
office and he was also telephonically threatened by the concerned workman. He has further deposed that the conduct
of the concerned workman and others were grave in nature and considering that no purpose would be served for
holding departmental enquiry, the concerned workman Sri Nilamani Sahoo was dismissed from service on
30.06.2006. He has proved certain documents which are in Ext.- A to Ext.- J.
In the cross examination he has deposed that he had given in writing against the disputant workman for his
unlawful and rudely behaviour as well as manhandling. He has also deposed that he could not say that if any
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4191
departmental proceeding was initiated against him or not for such alleged misconduct. He has further deposed that he
was the Project, In-charge on 13.06.2006. He has also deposed that he cannot say about the procedure to be adopted
as per the Certified Standing Order of the 1st Party-Management. He has denied the suggestions that the dismissal
of the concerned workman was totally illegal and unjustified and the action of non-holding of departmental
proceedings.
The Management Witness No. 2 Sri S.K. Senapati, M.W.-3 Sri S.K. Pattnaik and Sri Anup Kumar
Mohanty M.W.-4 have fully supported the case of the Management in their examination in chief and there is
nothing in their cross examination for discussion here.
20.
It is pertinent to mention here that much has been said about the institution of 1.C.C. Case No. 1406/2006
which was subsequently converted into P.S. Case No. 183/2006 and Police had submitted chare-sheet in this case.
But the Management has not produced the copy of the registration of P.S. Case No. 183/2006 and the charge-sheet.
21.
In absence of the copy of the registration of Police Case and copy of the charge-sheet submitted by Police on
the I.C.C. case filed by Sri Mazumdar the case of the Management regarding incident on 13.06.2006 does not seem to
be probable and trust-worthy.
22.
After analysing the evidence of both the parties it is crystal clear that the concerned workman namely Sri
Nilamani Sahoo had been dismissed from service of the Management without holding any departmental enquiry
which is in violation of the Standing Order of the management of Oil India Limited (Ext.-16).
23.
In view of such, the action of the management in dismissing/terminating the services of concerned workman
w.e.f. 30.06.2010 is not legal and justified. Hence the concerned workman is entitled for relief.
Accordingly, the Issue No. I is answered in favour of the 2nd Party- Workman.
ISSUE NO. II
24.
The Tribunal has already held (supra) that the action of the Management in dismissing/terminating the
service of the 2nd party-workman namely Sri Nilamani Sahoo is not legal and justified and the concerned workman is
definitely entitled for relief sought in his Claim Petition.
- 16 -
25.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal passes following:-
ORDER
The management of Bay Exploration Project, Oil India Limited, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar is directed to
reinstate the 2nd party-workman Sri Nilamani Sahoo in his services if he is not attained at the age of superannuation
and also directed to pay all the back wages and consequential service benefits with continuity of service from the date
of his dismissal and if the concerned workman Sri Nilamani Sahoo has already attained the age of supernation, then
the Management is directed to pay all the back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of
dismissal/discharge till his retirement along with all retiral benefits.
26.
This is the Award of the Tribunal. The reference is answered accordingly.
27.
Office is directed to send the copy of the Award to the Ministry of Labour for publishing the Award in the
official gazette.
28.
Case record be consigned to record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 815.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार यल इंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री टी. नाराय के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 5/2010) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y- 30012/41/2009-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 5/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Oil India Limited and Sri T. Narayan which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-30012/41/2009-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
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. 5/2010
Date of Passing Award – 30th December, 2025
Between:-
The Project In-Charge,
Bay Exploration Project,
Oil India Limited, IDCO Tower,
Unit – IX, Bhubaneswar – 751 007.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
Sri T. Narayan,
Plot No. 23, Amrapalli,
Patia, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
Sri Anup Kumar Mohanty,…
For the 1st Party-
Auth. Representative.
Management.
Sri N.R. Mallick,
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
Auth. Representative.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment in exercising its power conferred under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
have referred a dispute between the Management of Bay Exploration Project, Oil India Ltd., and their workmen vide
letter No. L-30012/41/2009 – IR(M), dated 26.03.2010 for its adjudication and the schedule of the reference is as
follows:-
―Whether the action of the management of Oil India, Bhubaneswar by terminating the services of Shri T.
Narayan, Photocopier Operator without taking disciplinary action is legal & or justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?
2.
The case of the concerned workman as per his statement of claim is as follows:-
That he was appointed as a Photocopier Operator on the basis of selection through interview against the
permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.1985 and was posted at Bhubaneswar vide Order dated 31.05.1985 of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4193
1st Party-Management. At the time of appointment his basic pay was Rs. 310/- per month with D.A. and other
allowances as applicable to regular employees of the company which was revised from time to time. He was
kept under probation for six months and after completion of his probation period, his service was confirmed. He
had rendered 20 years of continuous service under the 1st Party-Management, but he was illegally dismissed from
service on 30.06.2006. He had been performing his duties sincerely and diligently and he had an unblemished service
record, but he came to know about his dismissal order from daily news Paper ―The Samaj‖ dated 30.06.2006 which
was in violation of principle of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. He
had not been served the order of dismissal and when he approached the Management-company he was given a copy
of the said dismissal order. He had not been served a charge sheet of any misconduct committed by him and no
enquiry was conducted against him. The Management had not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the
I.D. Act. After about two years of his dismissal vide letter dated 25.02.2008 he was asked to collect his
outstanding dues from the office of the Management. His dismissal from service by the 1st Party-Management was
illegal, arbitrary and void ab-initio. The 1st Party-Management has not followed the established principles of law
while dismissing him, so he may be reinstated in his service with full back wage and other service benefits.
The 1st Party-Management had committed an illegality in payment of salary to its employees so the
employees had raised a demand for payment of their salary in time. The employees demanded their regular
payment through the Union but to victimize the workers, the 1st Party-Management filed 1.C.C. case which was
registered against him and other workmen in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in which he was granted bail
by the Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa. In the meantime during the pendency of the 1.C.C. case before the Court of
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, the Management had dismissed him without following the principles of natural justice
leaving aside other employees who were allegedly named in the above case, so the action of the Management was
discriminatory and unsustainable in the eye of law. The Management in its dismissal order had mentioned a concocted
story that he had assaulted an officer in the office of the 1st Party- Management and threatened him with dire
consequences if any action was taken against him. Moreover, the Management had further mentioned in the said
order that being afraid of his threat, no employee was prepared to give evidence against him so no domestic enquiry
was conducted against him and his service was terminated by the order of the competent authority. It is the
established principle of law that when a workman is terminated from service it would amount to retrenchment
under the I.D. Act and the Management is bound to follow the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act,
but the Management had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The facts mentioned in the
order of dismissal that he had physically assaulted the superior officer and threatened him to cause his death and
threatened the other workers not to give evidence against him is false and concocted. The Management has taken
false plea in order to justify its illegal action and to deny the benefits of principle of natural justice to him. After
his illegal termination he had represented time and again to the higher authorities for his reinstatement but his
grievance was not taken into consideration. Hence, he raised the dispute before the A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar.
A prayer has been made before the Tribunal to declare his dismissal from service as illegal and void with a
direction to the 1st Party- Management for his reinstatement with full back wages and other service benefits with
continuity of service.
3.
On the other-hand the case of the management of Oil India Limited is as follows:-
That, the 1st party-Management is a Government of India company doing its endeavour to search for
Hydrocarbon and/or oil in the North East Coast, Mahanadi Basin Areas so it had set up its base office at
Bhubaneswar, Orissa with branch at Paradeep. The concerned workman was working as a contract labourer (Peon)
under various contractors in the establishment but he was formally interviewed and was appointed as a Photocopy
Machine Operator on the pay roll of the 1st Party-Management in the year 1985. After failure of the professional
parties engaged by the company on global tender basis for drilling out, deposit of Hydro Carbon or oil during 1988
and finding future prospects of any successful exercise were bleach, the drilling operation were gradually reduced.
After that the Management proposed to transfer some of its employees from Bhubaneswar to the field Head Quarter
at Duliajan in the state of Assam from December, 2005. Some of the employee and all unionized employees of the
Bhubaneswar Office as a protest on transfer stopped receiving their salary from June, 2006 onwards even after
advising them to receive salary but the employees did not come forward to receive their salary. After five months, all
the employees orally approached the Management for release their un-received salary but the Management
insisted that each employee should give a letter of undertaking that they had not received their pay at their own
sweet- will and would not to repeat such action in future. In the mean-time on 13.06.2006 at around 11 A.M. Sri A.
Mazumdar the then Manager (F & A) under the 1st Party-Management while working in his office room at IDCO
Towner, Janpath heard a huge commotion from outside and he immediately came out of his room. After that he
found Sri Snehasis Haldar, Cashier standing helplessly with open cash office and about fifteen to twenty
Unionized staff including the present workman were shouting at the top of their voice. The said employees were
demanding their arrear salary, cheques without complying the conditions stipulated by the Project in-charge Sri A.
Majumdar, Manager (F& A). After that Sri A. Mazumdar told them that the same could not be paid without
compliance of the conditions imposed by the Management. Thereafter Sri Mazumdar asked the cashier to close
the cash office immediately. In the mean-time Shri J.K. Mishra and J.P. Bothaju, who had come thereto for rescue
were threatened and abused by the workman and other employees. Thereafter the present workman and Sri
4194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nilamani Sahoo targeted Sri Majumdar under the leadership of Sri N.R. Mallick, President of the MPEX Union,
Sri D.R. Pattnaik, Sri J.K. Sarangi, Sri T.P. Mohanty and started threatening Sri A. Mazumdar in the most abusive
language. Subsequently, Sri Mazumdar sought help of Shri S.K. Pattnaik. A.O. (SR) who escorted him to leave
the office premises but as he moved towards the gate the concerned workman along with Nilamani Sahoo and other
co-employees came there and manhandled him by hitting him with blows on his body. Further the concerned
workman and Sri Nilamani Sahoo continued to assault Sri Mazumdar with fist and blows and Sri Majumdar ran
back to his office room out of fear. Sri Mazumdar was confined by the workman and another employee in his room
up-to 4.30 P.M. on 13.06.2006 and he was not allowed to go for lunch. Sri Majumdar was on leave from 14.06.2006
and 15.06.2006 and on 16.06.2006 on the basis of legal advice he had filed 1.C.C. Case Bearing No. 1496/2006
dated 17.06.2006 against the concerned workman and others, which was sent to police station for registration of
FIR. Further on 21.06.2006 the concerned workman came to the office and threatened Sri Mazumdar, while he was
going home that if the Management would take any action against them then that would his last day and his
family members. Moreover, the concerned workman threatened to all the co-employees not to give anything in
writing relating to occurrence to the Management as a witness. The misconduct committed by Sri T. Narayan
and Sri Nilamani Sahoo were of serious in nature putting the life and liberty of a superior officer in jeopardy, so
they did not deserve any lenient view from the Management. On the basis of the past experience, the
Management realized that the workman would be non-cooperative in conducting fact finding enquiry and in view of
such situation it was not practicable to conduct an enquiry. The conduct of the concerned workman and others
employee like threatening the superior officer, shouting derogative slogans on each working day had become a
regular routine affairs. Moreover, Sri Narayan had indulged in violent activities when Sri M.P. Barua Officer
of the 1st Party-Management company had visited to Bhubaneswar office. The Management after considering that
there were every possibilities that the concerned workman would resort to assault the officers of the Management had
decided that neither any useful purpose would be served nor any further evidence would come out if a detailed
enquiry would be held with regard to the charges, so the competent authority keeping in view the larger interest
of the company dismissed the concerned workman namely Sri T. Narayan and Sri Nilamani Sahoo on 30.06.2006
who were involved in such incident on 13.06.2006. The order of dismissal was sent to Sri Narayan through Regd.
Post with A.D. enclosing there to cheques of his unpaid salary which returned unserved on 21.07.2006. The
dismissal order was also sent to the workman Under Certificate of Posting on 03.07.2006 and the same was also
published in the news-paper ―The Sambad‖ Bhubaneswar edition dated 05.07.2006. In the mean-time a notice was
published in the news-paper ―The Sambad‖ on 15.11.2006 intimating the employees to receive their salary and in that
response all the employees had received their salary on 16.11.2007 but the concerned workman gave a letter on
22.11.2006 mentioning false allegation with a prayer to allow him to join in his duty immediately. The concerned
workman had made correspondence to the Management under the RTI Act for inspection of records and project
files which was considered by the Management. In the mean-time the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar referred the
case bearing No. 1.C.C. 1496/2006 to Police Station and a G.R. Case No. 2487/2006 was registered. Subsequently
Police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet.
The concerned workman has been dismissed from service of Management as punishment, so he does not
come under the definition of retrenchment and consequently Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not
applicable in this case.
The 1st Party-Management by way of his reply has made a prayer that the reference may be answered
against the disputant-workman.
4.
The 2nd Party-workman has filed rejoinder denying all the averments made in the written statement by the
Management.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties following issues are framed.
ISSUES
i)
Whether the action of the Management of Oil India, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri T.
Narayan, Photocopier without taking disciplinary action is legal and justified?
ii) Whether the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not followed by the 1st
Party-Management while dismissing the service with effect from 30.06.2006. If so, whether he is
entitled to the benefits of this provision?
iii) What relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
The 2nd party-workman has examined altogether five witnesses. They are W.W.-1 Sri T. Narayan himself,
Sri Nishith Ranjan Mallick as W.W.-2, Sri Krupasindhu Mahalik, as W.W.-3, Sri Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra as
W.W.-4 and Sri Radhamohan Padhi as W.W.-5. The 2nd Party-workman has proved the following documents
which are marked as hereunder:-
Ext.-1 – Copy of the appointment letter dated 31.05.1985.
Ext.-2 – Copy of the confirmation letter dated 14.12.1985.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4195
Ext.-3 – Copy of the dismissal order dated 30.06.2006.
Ext.-4 – Copy of the paper clippings dated 05.07.2006.
Ext.-5 – Copy of the Management‘s letter dated 25.02.2008.
Ext.-6 – Copy of the revised delegation of Power.
Ext.-7 – Copy of the letter addressed to General Manager, Oil India Limited by R.L.C.(Central), dated
27.08.1993.
Ext.-8 – Copy of Allahabad Bank letter dated 27.02.2007.
Ext.-9 – Copy of paper publication dated 15.11.2006 in The Sambad.
Ext.-10 – Copy of the letter dated 22.11.2006 of the workman to the Management, BEP, OIL, Bhubaneswar,
Ext.-11 – Copy of the compliant petition of Mr. Mazumdar before Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C.
Case No. 1496/2006.
Ext.-12 – Copy of notice dated 27.10.2006 issued to Sri J.K. Sarangi.
Ext.-13 – Copy of the status report on the alleged man-handling on Sri Mazumdar prepared by Sri R.K.
Mohanty on 16.06.2006.
Ext.-14 – Copy of the letter dated 27.03.2006 of the Project in- charge, Oil India Limited.
Ext.-15 - Copy of the Index dated 18.04.2006 submitted by the Advocate of the Management before the
Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa in Misc. case No. 5015/2006
Ext.-16 – Copy of the Standing Order for the workman employed in Oil India Limited (Rajastan
Project).
Ext.-17 – Copy of the judgement of the Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa dated 06.04.2018 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 883/2018.
7.
On the other-hand the 1st Party-Management has examined two witnesses. They are M.W.-1 Sri Abhijit
Majumdar, Sr. Manager (F&A), Directorate General Hydrocarbon, Noida, M.W.-2 Sri S.K. Senapati, Head
(Legal), Corporate Office, Oil India Limited.
8.
In course of their evidence the Management have proved the following documents which are marked as :-
Ext.-A – Copy of the notice dated 02.05.2006.
Ext.-B – Copy of notice dated 03.06.2006.
Ext.-C – Copy of the postal envelope.
Ext.-C/1 – Copy of the postal remarks on envelope.
Ext.-D – Copy of notice published in the News Paper ―The Sambad‖, dated 05.07.2006.
Ext.-E – Copy of the order of dismissal of the workman.
Ext.-F-Series – Copy of service of cheque regarding payment of salaries to the 2nd party-workman.
Ext.-G – Copy of the letter dated 27.03.2006 addressed to IIC, Sahidnagar P.S., Bhubaneswar.
Ext.-H – Copy of the letter dated 03.04.2006 addressed to OIC, Sahidnagar P.S., Bhubaneswar by Project In-
charge, BEP.
Ext.-J – Copy of the notice dated 02.05.2006 of OIL written by Sri S.N Singh.
FINDINGS
9.
The most important issue in this case is Issue No. II, so the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss this issue first
of all.
ISSUE NO. II
10.
At the outset of discussions, it is relevant to mention here that it is an admitted fact that the concerned
workman namely Sri T. Narayan had been appointed as Photocopier Operator after selection through interview
against the permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.1985 at Bhubaneswar and after completion of probation his
service was confirmed.
4196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
It is also the admitted fact that the concerned workman namely Sri T. Narayan had been dismissed/removed
from the services with effect from 30.06.2006 without holding any domestic enquiry against him for the alleged
misconduct.
12.
At this stage it is required to mention here that in the dismissal order of Sri T. Narayan which is at Ext.-3, it
has been mentioned that the misconduct committed by him is grave and serious in nature putting the life and liberty of
a superior officer in jeopardy and as such deserves no lenient view from the Management. It has also been mentioned
that he had taken extreme step of using abusive language and assaulting Sri Mazumdar inside the office premises
in presence of other employees and such act in itself speaks of his high handed and recalcitrant attitude. It has been
further noted that the Management is of view that it would be difficult to hold a proper enquiry since the witness
might not come forward to give frank and true evidence.
13.
It is relevant to mention herewith that there is a Standing Order for the workmen employed in the
establishment of Oil India Limited which is marked as Ext.-16. The Management had not raised any objection at the
time of its marking as exhibit by the W.W.-2 (Sri N.R. Mallick). Since no objection had been raised by the
Management on the copy of the Standing Order for the workman employed in the establishment of Oil India Limited
(Ext.-16), so it amounts to admission on the part of the Management.
14.
In the Standing Order the provisions of termination of employment/service has been mentioned under
Section 19 which reads as follows:-
19.0.
Termination of Employment/Service :-
19.1.
Reasons :-
19.1.1
A workman‘s termination of service will generally fall under one of the following categories:-
(a) Discharge owing to staff redundancy.
(b) Discharge on completion of temporary work.
(c) Discharge on completion of probationary period in respect of new recruits (if work is found
unsatisfactory during the probationary period.
(d) Discharge on receipt of adverse report about the workman‘s efficiency, work, acts or expression
prejudicial to the company, its management, its business or acts or expression prejudicial to the company, its
management, its business or its reputation or any adverse official report.
(e) Discharge for absence from work, without authorized leave or permission for more than fourteen
consecutive days.
(f) Any discharge for any misstatement or suppression of facts or furnishing to the Company any false or
incorrect particulars about himself/herself/family, his/her qualifications or experience or past antecedents or
conduct at the time of the appointment.
(g) Discharge or conviction by any Court of Law for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude.
(h) Discharge on attainment of age of superannuation.
(i) Discharge on resignation after due notice.
(j) Discharge for unsatisfactory service.
(k) Dismissal for any act of misconduct as specified under Section 21.
Clause (a) to (k)
Further, Section-19.2 of the Standing Order mentions the procedure for termination of
employment/service and under Section-19.2.(d) it has been specifically mentioned that the services of the
workman shall not be terminated (dismissed) for an act of misconduct specified under section 21 of the Standing
Orders unless he/she has been given an opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him/her and a
departmental enquiry is held. Further, under section 21 of the Standing Order disciplinary action of misconduct has
been mentioned.
15.
Now in the Standing Order of the Management of Oil India Limited there is categorical provision that a
workman shall not be terminated (dismissed) for an act of misconduct unless he has been given an opportunity to
explain and after holding a departmental enquiry. But in this case the Management had not issued any
explanation/show cause to the concern workman with regard to his misconduct as mentioned in the dismissal
order and no disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him for proving the charges of misconduct.
16.
However, at this stage the Tribunal thinks it proper to discuss the oral and documentary evidence of both the
parties even though no departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4197
17.
The most competent witness in this case on behalf of the workman is the W.W.-1 Sri T. Narayan. He has
categorically deposed that he was appointed as a Photocopier Operator after he was selected through interview
against a permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.1985 and was posted at Bhubaneswar. He has also deposed that
his services were made permanent after completion of probation period, but his service was terminated without
holding any departmental enquiry. He has proved certain documents which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-7.
In the cross examination he has deposed that on 13.06.2006 he was present in the office and he was called by
Sri Mazumdar for receiving salary/payment after giving in writing, but he refused the same. He has denied the
suggestion that he had misbehaved with Sri Mazumdar and kept him in confinement in a room till 4.30 P.M. He has
also denied the suggestion that he along with N.R. Mallick, D.R. Patnaik, J.K. Sarangi and T.P. Mohanty had
assaulted and abused Sri Mazumdar.
The W.W.-2 Sri N.R. Mallick who is the President of the Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Employees
Union has fully corroborated the evidence of the W.W.-1 in his examination in chief and he has proved certain
documents which are marked as Ext.-8 to Ext.-17.
In the cross examination he has stated that he was dismissed from service in the year 2004. He has stated that
he had collected information from the applicant that there was no incident in the office on 13.06.2006.
The W.W.-3, Krupasindhu Mallick has also supported the evidence adduced by the W.W.-1 in his
examination in chief. In the cross examination he has deposed that he was not an employee of the Management on
13.06.2006 and he was driving a tourist vehicle, but he was working as a Driver of a tourist vehicle engaged for Oil
India Limited. He has also stated that on 13.06.2006 the concerned workman and others had neither gharoed
nor assaulted Mr. Mazumdar, who used to attend of his office in between 9.30 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. and there after 3
P.M. to 3.30 P.M.
The W.W.-4 and W.W.-5 were the employees of the Management of Oil India Limited and they have
fully supported the case of the concerned workman in their evidence. There is nothing in the cross examination to
which requires discussion here.
18.
On the other-hand the most competent witness on behalf of the 1st Party-Management is the M.W.-1 Sri A.
Mazumdar. He has deposed that on account of transfer of employees by the Management, the other Unionized
employees stopped receiving their salary from January, 2006 onwards and the Management had not stopped
paying their salary to them rather advised them to receive their salary for which a letter was also issued. He
has further deposed that on 13.06.2006 at around 11 A.M. he heard loud sound and disturbing slogans by the
Unionized workmen resulting in violent commotion in front of the cash office and he informed the agitating workers
that cheque could not be handed-over to them without submitting undertaking. He has further stated that on his advice
the Cashier closed the cash box and handed over the keys to him. He has also stated the workman and others
abused him and the Cashier in presence of Shri J.K. Mishra and Shri H.P. Bothaju. He has also stated that the
concerned workman and Nilamani Sahoo targeted him under the leadership of Sri N.R. Mallick,
Sri D.R. Pattnaik and Sri T.P. Mohanty who gheraoed and abused him as he was moving towards gate. He has also
stated that the concerned workman and others repeatedly gave him blows and went on abusing. He has further
stated that he was on leave from 14.06.2006 to 15.06.2006 and on 16.06.2006 after consultation with the legal
officer filed an I.C.C. Case No. 1496/2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. He has also deposed that on
21.06.2006 the concerned workman and Sri Nilamani Sahoo again assaulted him while he was going towards his
personal vehicle from his office and he was also telephonically threatened by the concerned workman. He has
further deposed that the conduct of the concerned workman and others were grave in nature and considering that no
purpose would be served for holding departmental enquiry, the concerned workman Sri T. Narayan was
dismissed from service on 30.06.2006. He has proved certain documents which are in Ext.- A to Ext.- J.
In the cross examination he has deposed that he had given in writing against the disputant workman for his
unlawful and rudely behaviour as well as manhandling. He has also deposed that he could not say that if any
departmental proceeding was initiated against him or not for such alleged misconduct. He has further deposed that he
was the Project, In-charge on 13.06.2006. He has also deposed that he cannot say about the procedure to be
adopted as per the Certified Standing Order of the 1st Party- Management. He has denied the suggestions that the
dismissal of the concerned workman was totally illegal and unjustified and the action of non-holding of
departmental proceedings.
The Management Witness No. 2 Sri S.K. Senapati has fully supported the case of the Management in their
examination in chief and there is nothing in their cross examination which requires discussion here.
19.
It is pertinent to mention here that much has been said about the institution of 1.C.C. Case No. 1496/2006
which was subsequently converted into P.S. Case No. 183/2006 and Police had submitted chare-sheet in this case.
But the Management has not produced the copy of the registration of P.S. Case No. 183/2006 and the charge-sheet.
20.
In absence of the copy of the registration of Police Case and copy of the charge-sheet submitted by Police
on the I.C.C. case filed by Sri Mazumdar the case of the Management regarding incident on 13.06.2006 does not
seem to be probable and trust-worthy.
4198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21.
After analysing the evidence of both the parties it is crystal clear that the concerned workman namely Sri
T. Narayan had been dismissed from service of the Management without holding any departmental enquiry which
is in violation of the Standing Order of the management of Oil India Limited (Ext.-16).
22.
In view of such, the action of the management in dismissing/terminating the services of concerned workman
w.e.f. 30.06.2006 is not legal and justified. Hence the concerned workman is entitled for relief.
Accordingly, the Issue No. I is answered in favour of the 2nd Party-Workman.
ISSUE NO. I & III
23.
The Tribunal has already held (supra) that the action of the Management in dismissing/terminating the
service of the 2nd party- workman namely Sri T. Narayan is not legal and justified so the concerned workman is
entitled for relief sought in his Claim Petition.
24.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal passes following:-
ORDER
The management of Bay Exploration Project, Oil India Limited, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar is directed to
reinstate the 2nd party-workman Sri T. Narayan in his services if he is not attained at the age of superannuation
and also directed to pay all the back wages and consequential service benefits with continuity of service from the
date of his dismissal and if the concerned workman Sri T. Narayan has already attained the age of supernation, then
the Management is directed to pay all the back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of
dismissal/discharge till his retirement along with all retiral benefits.
25.
This is the Award of the Tribunal. The reference is answered accordingly.
26.
Office is directed to send the copy of the Award to the Ministry of Labour for publishing the Award in the
official gazette.
27.
Case record be consigned to record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 816.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार सीआईएमएफआर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राजेि मितो एवं 167 अन्य के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, िनबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 02/2022 ठरफरेन्स केस न.
89/2006) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/03/2026-आईआर(एम)-77]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 02/2022 (REF Case No. 89/2006) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to CIMFR and Shri Rajesh Mahato & Ors. 167 which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/03/2026-(IR(M)-77]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4199
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
Comp. Case No. 02/2022
Arising out of REF Case No. 89/2006
Sri Rajesh Mahato & Ors. 167
Bhelatand, PO-Nag Nagar (ISM),
Dhanbad-826004………………………………………… Complainants
Vs.
The Director of CIMFR,
Barwa Road Campus, PO & Dist-Dhanbad-826001.…………………………Opposite Parties
Appearances:
For Complainant :- Sri Manas Kumar Chatterjee, Representative
For Opp. Party
:- None.
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
State : Jharkhand
Dated 06/02/2026
ORDER
2.
This case is taken through Special Campaign organized by Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of
India for disposal of pending cases.
3.
Case is called out.
4.
On call none is present from Opp. Party.
5.
Perused the record. After perusal of record it appears that Sri Rajesh Kumar Mahato appeared on
16.02.2022 and filed a complaint petition under section 33A of I.D. Act,1947 and thereafter regd. notice was issued
to Opp. Party and both parties appeared on certain dates and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently rejoinder.
Today Sri Manas Kumar Chatterjee, Representative on behalf of the complainant appeared and submitted that as the
main case is in advance stage and contested by the workman this case may be closed.
In view of the fact that Complainant is not interested to contest this case, this case deserves to be dismissed on
the ground of non-interest of the complainant.
Hence, this case is dismissed accordingly.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 817.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार दकरीबुप आयरन ओरे माइंस (सेल) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, िनबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 92/2014) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-26011/3/2014-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 92/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines (SAIL) and Their Workman which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-26011/3/2014-(IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference Case No. 92/2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines
(SAIL), Singhbhum (EW)
AND
Their Workman
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Dy. Manager (HR)
For the workman :- Sri P.K. Panda, President
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Steel & Iron
Dated 06/02/2026
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),Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-26011/3/2014- IR(M) dated 27/10/2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer
i.e. management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines (SAIL), Singhbhum (EW) and their workman through Secretary, NMDC
Mines Workers Union, Kiriburu, Singhbhum (W) for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines or SAIL (RMD) is justified for
non-payment of honorarium to the dumper operator? Then what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?‖
2. This case is taken through Special Campaign organized by Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India for
disposal of pending cases.
3. On receiving order no. L-26011/3/2014- IR(M) dated 27/10/2014 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 92 of 2014 was registered on 11.11.2014 and thereafter the
notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant
documents and witnesses in support of their claims.
4. After receipt of the reference on 11.11.2014, this case was put up after a long gap on 17.01.2022 and regd.
notices were issued to both the parties and the management appeared on certain dates thereafter but workman/union
failed to appear before this Tribunal. However Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the management appeared and on
11.07.2022 second regd. notice was also issued to workman/union but he still failed to appear. Thereafter on
06.02.2026 Sri P.K. Panda, President on behalf of the union appeared and filed a memorandum of settlement between
management and union stating therein that this settlement may be taken on record for passing appropriate orders
dismissing the reference as withdrawn/not pressed.
5. On perusal of the entire case record it transpires that the union who is the aggrieved party, has himself filed a
petition dated 30.01.2026 with a prayer to close his case. As now he is not interested to contest this case, his prayer is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4201
allowed and accordingly this case is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and it is further ordered that ―No Dispute Award‖
be drawn up in respect of the above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of
Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 818.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a04/2023-24) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-II)-42]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2023-24) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-42]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/Appln.04/2023-24
Date:05.02.2026
Party No.1:
1. The Assistant General Manager of Canara Bank,
Regional Office, Nagpur -440001
2. The Manager of Canara Bank,
Branch – Mankapur (5149),
Nagpur -440030
V/s.
Party No.2:
Nivesh S/o Ishwar Dhongle,
R/o. 47, Natraj Nagar Society Gorewada,
Nagpur - 440030
AWARD
(Dated:5th February, 2026)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of South Eastern Central Railways & Others and the applicant, Shri. Vijay Anandrao Lingayat for
adjudication vide Case No. CGIT/NGP/Appln.05/2021-22, with the following issues framed: -
1. ―Whether Shri. Nivesh S/o Ishwar Dhongleis a workman?
2. Whether there is any relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
3. Whether the action of the management/ Canera Bank in termination of the workman is legal, fair
and Justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖
4202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Case is called out.Both parties are absent on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent
that petitioner is not responding and and attending the court since 11.11.2024. Accidently, on 20.11.2025 counsels
for both the parties were present. Although, from perusal of record, it is also apparent that statement of claim and
written statements have been filed by the parties respectively but no rejoinder/affidavit has been filed by the petitioner
till today. After providing last opportunity to file him his rejoinder/affidavit even then he has not filed the
rejoinder/affidavit as well as no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Claim of the
petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
1. ―Shri. Nivesh S/o Ishwar Dhongleis a workman – Not Proved
2. There is any relationship of employer and employee between the parties – Not Proved
3. The action of the management/ Canera Bank in termination of the workman is legal, fair and
justified.‖
The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 819.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार एयरृोटण अ ॉठरटी फ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मोिम्पमि ग़ौस के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 30/2014) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-11011/10/2012-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 30/2014) 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 Airports Authority of India and Mohd Ghouse which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-11011/10/2012-(IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of December 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30/2014
Between:
Mohd Ghouse
Supervisor &:Br Secretary AAWU
….. Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4203
AND
Airport Director,
Airports Authority of India,
Hyderabad. Airport Begumpet.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Sri , Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao , Advocate
For the Respondent II: Sri M. Govind , Advocate
For the Respondent III: Sri Venkatesh dixit , Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-11011/10/2012-IR(M) dated 13th February
2014 has referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the
question.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Airports Authority of India Hyderabad in connection with the
transfer of workman Shri Mohd. Ghouse, Sr. Assistant (Lifts) & Branch Secretary of Airports Authority of
India Worker‘s Union, Hyderabad from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?‖
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as 30 of 2014, and notices were issued to both the Workman
and Management.
2.
The factual matrix of the Industrial Disputes as per claim statement of the Petitioner are that the Respondent
Management transferred Petitioner from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry Airport and action of Respondent Management
is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violative of section 2 (r)(a) of item No. 7 of the Fifth Schedule R/w section 25
T, section 33(1) (a) of I.D. Act, 1947. Further, Petitioner averred that he was posted on non-transferable post, but
Respondent transferred him from Hyderabad Airport Begumpet to Rajahmundry Airport, in contravention of the
terms and conditions of the transfer policy dated 24.11.1999 and 27.02.2014. Further, petition submitted that he was
working at Hyderabad Airport, and he has been abruptly transferred to Civil Aerodrome, unpopular urban Turner
Station Rajahmundry against the AAI Transfer Policy which is nothing but change of condition service and
victimization of the Petitioner workman by Respondent Management by order dated 10.05.2010. Further, Petitioner
was working as a workman Supervisor (Lift, technical block, lift) since 1980 at Begumpet, Hyderabad, and was
authorized to operate and maintenance of four (4) lifts and three (3) escalators in the Airport Authority of India, which
is a profit-making public enterprise 23.03.2008 at 00.00 hours the commercial operation of the International Airport
were shifted to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Shamshabad without notice, without informing to the workman
and without following provision of Section 9 A of the I.D Act. Which not only resulted lot of hardship to the
workman but also adversely affected the service conditions of the workman.
Further, it is submitted that Airport Authority Employee‘s Union (AAEU) filed writ petition for protection of
service conditions of the workmen and W.P. No. 18000/2012 for domestic commercial operation from Begumpet
Airport. Hon‘ble High Court at Andhra Pradesh in WP No.4950; 7147; and 7611 of 2008 vide judgment dated
06.07.2009 held ―even otherwise the service condition at the employes of the Petitioner union sufficiently protected
under the law with all the other alternative amid efficacious remedies for appropriate action ―which means and
includes the conciliation under the Act UINION has to file before the conciliation officer then Approached to high
court further remedy.
Airport Authority Kamgar Union. (AAKU) and Petitioner unions filed the petition for protection of service
conditions of the workman before A.LC as per the terms of the settlement u/s. 12(3) of ID Act, 1947 The
management agreed to arrange round the shift duties as per the previous practices for the workman of the Engg and
operational category. Further, it is contended that the Employer changed the duties weekly off, and place of duties,
timing, starting the shift withdrawal Three shifts, and then two shifts and then one shift. Finally it has decided general
shift from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM 6 days week instead of 5 days which is violation of his own order Vide No
AAI/SR/M/2-1(11)EH dated 09.03.29 The action of Respondent in respect of withdrawal of over time, without
intimation is contrary to sec 9 A of I.D. Act, Sec.33 A and also direction of Genl. Manager (Electrical),
dated: 26.03.2009
4204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
When the duty of Petitioner was changed on 22.12.2008 during conciliation proceedings Senior Law
Manager, has given an undertaking that the applicant shall be posted in shift duty if he agrees hereto. The applicant
agreed and was posted on shift duty at the ATM on 08.02.2009 with 64 hours over time, weekly off on Monday, and
double duty on Sunday. One day morning M=6 AM to 1.PM and next day Evening duty 2PM to 10 PM. All of a
sudden on 25.07.2010 while he was on duty Terminal Management asked him to get out from the duty and was not
given the roaster and not a reliving letter with a direction where to report and did not furnished the Leave entitlement
and compensatory off. On both Terminal R.G.T and NTR there were 12L lift operator for three escalators and five
lifts but now there is only one General shift have been working without O.T and night wages.
The workman belonging to the other two unions are not treated at par with reference to the members of the
recognized union. Their timely upgradations were not given. Further, Petitioner averred that his duty has been
changed without information or notice. The Petitioner has suffered at the behest of recognized Union since 1981.
Petitioner is covered under the Central Government Health Scheme till 1994. and CGHS subscription was deducted
from his Salary by the Respondent till 2004 but that was not credited to the CGHS Account for five years and
consequently CGHS facility of Applicant was stopped in 2005. The matter was moved with RLC Central and Central
Government Union Secretary issued directions vide Reference No.1/11011/2/2005-IR (M) Dated 30-05-2005_IR (M)
Dated 30.05.2005 replied that it is under the consideration of Hqrs, The Respondent has issued the card for inpatient
card, and it is not allowed for outpatient. Outpatient medical facility is not available to the applicant. The medical bills
submitted by Petitioner for reimbursement for Rs 40,000/- is state lying unsettled with the Respondent.
Petitioner primary duty Vide letter no AAI/HY/AM (E) IN/LIFTS Dated 7.7.1999 was operation of lifts and
Escalator at Hyderabad Airport. And lift operator was responsible for operation and maintenance of lifts and escalator
available at N.T.R. Domestic Terminal, R.G.T. and about technical block of Hyd Airport Petitioner was required to
attend to Emergency calls and V.VIP moments. Further, it is averred that Srinivas D. has been deployed at ATM duty
in place of the Petitioner because he was the local branch president of recognized union vide direction of Jt.G.M Engg
Electrical. Vide ref No AAI/HY/ENGG/E STAFF dated 26.03.2009 to report to terminal manager and to carry out
duties as assign by Terminal manager. Petitioner performed his duty from 08.02.2009 to 24.07.2010. Thereafter
Petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to an unpopular station at Rajahmundry though he was singly operating
Lifts at the Airport, Hyderabad. Petitioner averred that he has been transferred from Hyderabad and by way of
victimization and discrimination and his transfer is illegal malafide, contrary to the policy and un-reasonable.
Petitioner prayed to set aside his transfer order dated 24th August 2012 passed by Respondent Management from
Hyderabad to Rajahmundry.
3.
Per contra Respondent has filed counter and therein it is Contended that the workman whose dispute has
been referred has attained the age of superannuation on 30th June 2014, and has settled all his claims. Therefore, the
reference has become infructuous for the reason that no cause of action survived on account of his retirement, and no
relief can be granted to the Petitioner. Further, it is contended that the Respondent totally denies the averment made
by the Petitioner as baseless and misconceived, and the Petitioner is put to the strict proof of the same. Further, it is
contended that Begumpet Airport of Hyderabad was closed for commercial aircraft operations, which is shifted to
Shamshabad Airport, vide Central Government notification dated 30th March 2008. Further, it is contended that
terminal buildings NTR terminal building and Rajiv Gandhi terminal building are not operated, as there are no
commercial passenger movements from Begumpet Airport. Therefore, escalators and lifts in those terminal buildings
are not functioning for passenger facilities, and Petitioner workman was transferred from Hyderabad to Rajmundry
Airport by order dated 23rd August 2012 due to administrative grounds. Further, it is contended that the Regional
Labour Commissioner has no power or authority to pass any order with regard to the transfer of an employee. The
pleas of Petitioner pertaining to other cases which are pending before the Hon‘ble Court, are not relevant to present
reference and Respondent will give proper reply for filing the counter in respective cases. Further, Respondent
contended that the Begumpet Airport of Hyderabad was closed for commercial aircraft operation, because it got
which are shifted to Shamshabad Airport, vide Central Government notification dated 10th March 2008. Since both
the terminal building i.e., NTR terminal building and Rajiv Gandhi terminal building, are not being operated as there
is no commercial passenger movement from Begumpet Airport. Therefore, the escalators and lifts in those terminal
buildings are not functioning for passenger facilities. Hence, Petitioner who was on duty to operate was transferred
from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry via order dated 23rd August 2012, and he was relieved from his duty. But Petitioner
failed to report for duty at the transferred place in compliance of his transferred order. Further, it is contended that the
Petitioner had filed Writ petition number 27455 of 2012 before the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
questioning transfer order issued by the Respondent, transferring him from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry and Hon‘ble
High Court decline to grant any interim relief, Writ Petition, was withdrawn and High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition as withdrawn. Therefore, Respondent prayed to dismiss the claim statement of the Petitioner.
4.
In support of averment made in the claim statement, Petitioner has filed chief statement affidavit of WW1,
Respondent has also filed chief statement affidavit of MW1. Petitioner has also filed certain photocopies of the
documents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4205
on the basis of pleadings of either parties following issues arise for determination in this case:-
I. Whether the action of Management of Airport Authority of India, Hyderabad, in connection with the transfer of
workman Sri Mohd Ghouse, Senior Assistant, Lift and Bench Secretary of Airport Authority of India Workers Union,
Hyderabad, from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry, is legal and justified?
II. To what relief, if any, Petitioner is entitled to?
Findings:-
ISSUE No. I:-
Petitioner in his claim statement has challenged transfer order dated 23.08.2012, from Hyderabad to
Rajahmundry Airport, on the ground of unfair labour practices, victimization and change in service condition in
violation of provision contained u/s 9 A of the I.D. Act.
At the outset, learned counsel for Respondent has contended that Petitioner-workman, whose dispute has
been referred has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014, and has settled all his claims. Therefore, present
reference has become infructuous for the reason as no cause of action survives on account of his retirement, and no
relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The contention of Respondent that Petitioner-workman has got retired after the
age of superannuation on 30.06.2014, is not controverted and denied by the Petitioner in his oral testimony.
Therefore, it is undisputed that Petitioner got retired from service at the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014 and has
settled all his claims. It is not the case of the Petitioner that due to his transfer from Airport Hyderabad he has suffered
financial disadvantages. It is settled law that where an employee challenging his transfer order in a labor Court
subsequently retires during the pendency of the case, the relief sought specifically the cancellation of the transfer
order and related service benefits during the contested period, may become infructuous or difficult to grant due to the
cessation of the employment relationship. The primary remedy, reinstatement to the original post, is generally not
possible after a valid retirement. Therefore, upon retirement of an employee, the employer-employee relationship
ceases and main remedies of service law, like setting aside a transfer, preventing termination, are generally
prospective and tied to active service. Therefore, this court cannot typically order the employee to be placed in a
specific active-duty post or reverse the effect of the past transfer order as if the employee was still in service. The
claim for the primary relief becomes obsolete. Therefore, in view of the above, in the present matter Petitioner has
already retired from his post after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. Thus, the relief claimed by the
Petitioner for conciliation of his transfer order has become infructuous and same is not maintainable.
Now, let us examine legality of impugned transfer order of Petitioner from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry. In
this context, Petitioner has filed a chief affidavit of statement of WW1, wherein he has reiterated the averment made
in claim petition. But in cross-examination WW1 has stated that it is true that he has not marked any exhibit in
support of his claim in his chief examination affidavit. It is true that he was relieved on 31.08.2012, by a transfer
order issued by the Respondent. Further, WW1 states that it is true that he has filed writ petition number 27455 of
2012, and same was dismissed as withdrawn. Further, WW1 states that it is true that he has not filed any document to
show that his transfer from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry was to accommodate one Mr. Srinivas, office assistant. It is
true that he has not filed any documents to show that he cannot be transferred from Begumpet, Hyderabad, to any
other place. Thus, from the above statement of witness WW1, it manifests that Petitioner has utterly failed to prove
the averment made in his claim statement that he was posted on a non-transferable post and he has been transfers from
Hyderabad to Rajahmundry on the ground victimization and unfair labour practice and also in violation of Section 9
A of Industrial Dispute Act. Further, Petitioner has failed to prove the fact the due to impugned transfer order how his
service condition has been changed.
Whereas, Respondent has filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief statement of MW1 in oral evidence and
therein MW1 has stated that, according to Ministry of Civil Aviation Airport Authority of India order number 2002,
liability for service is transferable anywhere in India or abroad. Further, MW1 has deposed that the employees of the
Begumpet airport had been redeployed by transferring them to other places so that their services could be gainfully
utilized at some other places without altering their service conditions, and this is not in violation of section 9A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Further, MW1 states that the Begumpet airport of Hyderabad was closed for commercial
aircraft operation, and it was shifted to Shamshabad airport, as per a Central Government notification dated
10.03.2008. Further, MW1 stated that both the terminal buildings, i.e., NTR terminal building and Rajiv Gandhi
terminal building, were not operated as there were no commercial passenger movements from Begumpet airport.
Therefore, the escalator and lift in those terminal buildings were not functioning for passenger facilities. Hence, the
workman-Petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry airport by order dated 23.08.2012, and other
workmen were also transferred to other places, and Petitioner was relieved from his duty. Further, MW1 stated that
the other employees reported for duty at the transferred places, but the workman-Petitioner failed to report for duty at
the transferred place.
Thus, witness MW1 in his chief statement has proved that Petitioner was transferred from Begumpet airport
to Shamshabad airport due to close of Commercial Aircraft operation at airport Begumpet. Further, MW1 has proved
that terminal buildings of the Begumpet airport were not in operation as there was no commercial passenger
4206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
movement at Begumpet airport and due to non-availability of work at Begumpet airport, the employees including
Petitioner deputed at Begumpet Airport were transferred to other places by the Respondent Management. Thus, it
reflects from the testimony of MW1 that the Petitioner was transferred to Rajahmundry Airport by the Respondent
Management due to administrative reasons. Moreover, Petitioner failed to produce any document to prove his
averment that his service was non-transferable, and he was transferred from Begumpet Airport due to victimization.
Moreover, despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner failed to cross-examine witness MW1. Therefore, statement of
witness MW1 in the chief statement affidavit remained uncontroverted.
In this context, reference of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and
Others Vs State of Bihar, A.I.R., 1991 Supreme Court, page 532, is relevant wherein Hon‘ble Supreme Court: -
“In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and
for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the
ground of malafide. A Government Servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one
place or the other, he is hable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent
authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of exceptive instructions
or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher
authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the
Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be
conducive to public interest. The High court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.”
Further, Hon‘ble Supreme Court ion the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Kaurav 1995A.I.R., page 1056,
have held: -
―It is contended for the respondent that the respondent had already worked at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989
and when he was transferred to Bhopal, there was no justification to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. We cannot
appreciate these grounds/The courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on
administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals
are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It
is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by
malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that
on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of
posting an officer at a particular place"
Thus, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court as discussed above and ongoing evidence material on
record in the matter at hand the Petitioner was transferred by Respondent Management from Begumpet Airport to
Rajahmundry Airport due to stoppage of operation of commercial passenger flight and there was no work available
for the employees posted at Begumpet Airport. Since Petitioner was posted at Begumpet Airport as escalator and lift
operator which were closed due to shift of commercial passenger flight from Begumpet to Shamshabad. Therefore,
the Petitioner and other employees were transferred from Begumpet Airport purely on the administrative ground.
Therefore, the impugned order of transfer of Petitioner under challenge in this Petition warrants no interference by the
tribunal and Petition filed by the Petitioner sans merit hence liable to dismissed.
Further, as regard other pleas of the Petitioner taken in the claim statement regarding withdrawal of overtime
and other benefits it would be pertinent to mention here that the said pleas raised by Petitioner in his claim statement
are outside the scope of reference in this case and need not to be discussed and answered here. It is settled law that the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Tribunal is limited to the points specifically referred and matter incidental thereto.
Since the scope of its jurisdiction and power of the tribunal is circumscribed by the order of reference, it is not
permissible for it to go beyond the term of the reference. Therefore, the issue is decided against the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. II: -
In view of discussion and finding given at ISSUE No. I, Petitioner claim statement sans merit and liable to be
dismissed. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
AWARD
The action of management of Airport Authority of India, Hyderabad, in connection with the transfer of workman,
Shri Mohd Gouse Senior, Senior Assistant Lift and Branch Secretary Airport Authority of India Worker Union,
Hyderabad, from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry is held legal and justified. Petitioners claim statement sans merit hence
dismissed. The reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
9th day of December 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4207
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, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 820.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय सरकार
इंजडयन यल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, गुजरात ठरफाइनरी; मेघा इंजीजनयररग एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सुल्तान रार्ा और 9 कायणकताण, सी/फ़ ृठरवतणन मजिूर संग न के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 55/2025) को जैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-21]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 55/2025) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery; Megha Engineering & Infrastructure
Ltd. and Shri Sultan Rana & 9 workers C/o Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-21]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 09th March, 2026
Reference (CGITA) No. - 55/2025
1. The Executive Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery,
Koyali, Vadodara – 390019
2. The Director,
Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.,
S-2, Technocrats Industrial Estate, Balanagar,
Hyderabad - 500034
.......... First Party
4208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Shri Sultan Rana & 9 workers,
C/o Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan,
Ff – 12, Divya Plaza, Opp. Kamala Nagar Talav,
Ajwa Road, Vadodara - 390019
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri Gulab Pargi
AWARD
The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, O/o Dy. CLC (C), Ahmedabad, have in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the
Central Government and delegated to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the notifications of the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 1262 (E) and 1263 (E) dated 17.03.2023, referred the below mentioned dispute
vide reference adjudication Order No. BRC/RLC/8(28)/2025 dated 28.11.2025 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the employer M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited, (a contractor of M/s
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara) in terminating and not re-instating workmen
namely Shri Kukreshi Abbasbhai, Ikbal Rathod, Moin Rana, Patel Sunil Kumar, Sultan Rana, Ajaybhai
Parmar, Jagadishbhai Chauhan, Kureshi Sirajuddin, Kureshi Mahmad Mubin and Kuresh Nashirnbhai in
service is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled for?‖
1. The reference was received on Samadhan Portal and downloaded on 16.12.2025. The case is listed for filing of
statement of claim by the second party union / workman.
2. The matter is taken up today. Shri Gulab Pargi, President, Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan, submitted a withdrawal
application Ex. 3 along with authorisation of 1 workman and list of all 10 workmen to withdraw the case mentioning
that there is no dispute or conflict is pending between the parties.
3. The application Ex. 3 is allowed. As the second party has withdrawn his case / claim, it is established that there is no
dispute pending from the second party against first party management.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering ―no dispute‖ between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 821.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार इंजडयन यल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, गुजरात ठरफाइनरी; मेघा इंजीजनयररग एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र
के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री नरेंर जेिभाई च़ौिान और 11 कायणकताण, सी/फ़ ृठरवतणन मजिूर संग न के बीच अनुबंि में
जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 52/2025) को जैसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-22]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 52/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery; Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4209
Shri Narendra Jeshbhai Chauhan & 11 workers, C/o Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-22]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 09th March, 2026
Reference (CGITA) No. - 52/2025
1. The Executive Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery,
Koyali, Vadodara – 390019
2. The Director,
Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.,
S-2, Technocrats Industrial Estate, Balanagar,
Hyderabad - 500034
.......... First Party
V/s
Shri Narendra Jeshbhai Chauhan & 11 workers,
C/o Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan,
Ff – 12, Divya Plaza, Opp. Kamala Nagar Talav,
Ajwa Road, Vadodara - 390019
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri Gulab Pargi
AWARD
The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, O/o Dy. CLC (C), Ahmedabad, have in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the
Central Government and delegated to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the notifications of the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 1262 (E) and 1263 (E) dated 17.03.2023, referred the below mentioned dispute
vide reference adjudication Order No. BRC/RLC/8(17)/2025 dated 28.11.2025 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the employer M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited, (a contractor of M/s
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara) in terminating and not re-instating workman Shri
Narendra Jashubhai Chauhan in service is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned
workman is entitled for?‖
1.
The reference was received on Samadhan Portal and downloaded on 16.12.2025. The case is listed for filing
of statement of claim by the second party union / workman.
2.
The matter is taken up today. Shri Gulab Pargi, President, Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan, submitted a
withdrawal application Ex. 3 along with authorisation of 5 workmen and list of all 12 workmen to withdraw
the case mentioning that there is no dispute or conflict is pending between the parties.
4210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The application Ex. 3 is allowed. As the second party has withdrawn his case / claim, it is established that
there is no dispute pending from the second party against first party management.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering ―no dispute‖ between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 822.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार इंजडयन यल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, गुजरात ठरफाइनरी; मेघा इंजीजनयररग एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र
के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जप्रतेि रार्ा और अन्य िस कायणकताण, सी/फ़ ृठरवतणन मजिूर संग न के बीच अनुबंि में
जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 54/2025) को जैसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-23]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 54/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery; Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and Shri
Pritesh Rana and Other Ten Workers C/o Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-23]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 09th March, 2026
Reference (CGITA) No. -54/2025
1. The Executive Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Gujarat Refinery Vadodara, Koyali-391320
2. The Director, M/s. Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.
S-2, Technocrats Industrial Estate,
Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037
.......... First Party
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4211
V/s
Shri (s) Pritesh Rana and Other Ten Workers
C/O Parivartan Mazdooor Sangathan,
Ff-12, Divya Plaza, Opp. Kamala Nagar Talav,
Ajwa Road, Vadodara - 390019
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri Gulab Pargi
AWARD
The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, O/o Dy. CLC (C), Ahmedabad, have in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of
the Central Government and delegated to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the notifications of
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 1262 (E) and 1263 (E) dated 17.03.2023, referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No.BRC/RLC/8(21)/2025 dated 28.11.2025 for adjudication
to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of employer M/s. Megha Engineering & Infrastucture Limited, (a contractor of M/s
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara) in terminating and not re-instating workmen Shri(s)
Priteshkumar Rana, Ronak Parmar, Sahil Parmar, Jadav Jigar, Parmar Dharmesh, Narasinhbai, Kanubhai
Jadav, Dineshbhai Chandel, Rajeshkumar Ravat, Vinodkumar Makwana and Ranjitbhai Makwana in service
is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman are entitled for?‖
1. The reference was received on Samadhan Portal and downloaded on 16.12.2025. The case is listed for filing
of statement of claim by the second party union / workman.
2. The matter is taken up today. Shri Gulab Pargi, President, Parivartan Mazdoor Sangathan, submitted a
withdrawal application Ex. 3 along with authorisation of 11 workmen to withdraw the case mentioning that
there is no dispute or conflict is pending between the parties.
3. The application Ex. 3 is allowed. As the second party has withdrawn his case / claim,it is established that
there is no dispute pending from the second party against first party management.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering ―no dispute‖ between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI , Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 823.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय सरकार
चीफ ृरेिन मैनेजर एंड लेबर कांरेक्टर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और नेिनल लेबर यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में
जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 27/2025) को जैसा
दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को प्राप्त
हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-24]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 27/2025) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Chief operation manager and labour contractor and National Labour union which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-24]
SALONI, Dy. Director
4212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 09th March, 2026
Reference (CGITA) No. - 27/2025
Chief operation manager and labour contractor,
Ahmedabad
.......... First Party
V/s
National Labour union,
Sarathi Comp nd Floor N H No Jashida Cross Rd Ahmedabad,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, O/o Dy. CLC (C), Ahmedabad, have in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of
the Central Government and delegated to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the notifications of
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 1262 (E) and 1263 (E) dated 17.03.2023, referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. ALC/ADI/8(25)/2024 dated 12.09.2025 for adjudication
to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the demand of National Labour Union, Ahmedabad for reinstatement of services with all
consequential benefits to Shri Parmar Pravinkumar Govindbhai, Security Guard and 5 other Security Guards
(Annexure D) engaged by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bareja Terminal, Ahmedabad through Contractor
M/s. Manish Pandey Security Services through is fair, legal and justified? If so, what relief workmen are
entitled to?
1. The reference was received on Samadhan Portal and downloaded on 12.11.2025. The case is listed for filing
of statement of claim by the second party union.
2. As the reference was received on Samadhan Portal, it is pre-assumed that the reference has also been
received by the respective parties through Samadhan Portal.
3. A period of more than three months has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim
as directed and expected by the Government.
4. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
5. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering ―no claim‖ filed by the second party.
6. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4213
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 824.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार चीफ ृरेिन मैनेजर एंड लेबर कांरेक्टर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और नेिनल लेबर यूजनयन के बीच
अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स
न.- 28/2025) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-25]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Chief operation manager and labour contractor and National Labour union which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-25]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 09th March, 2026
Reference (CGITA) No. - 28/2025
Chief operation manager and labour contractor,
Ahmedabad
.......... First Party
V/s
National Labour union,
Sarathi Comp nd Floor N H No Jashida Cross Rd Ahmedabad,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, O/o Dy. CLC (C), Ahmedabad, have in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of
the Central Government and delegated to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner in pursuance of the notifications of
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 1262 (E) and 1263 (E) dated 17.03.2023, referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No .ALC/ADI/8(28)/2024 dated 12.09.2025 for adjudication
to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the demand of National Labour Union, Ahmedabad for reinstatement of services with all
consequential benefits to Shri Patel Pinakin Vitthalbhai, Security Guard and 4 other Security Guards
(Annexure D) engaged by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bareja Terminal, Ahmedabad through Contractor
M/s. Manish Pandey Security Services through is fair, legal and justified? If so, what relief workmen are
entitled to?
4214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The reference was received on Samadhan Portal and downloaded on 12.11.2025. The case is listed for filing
of statement of claim by the second party union.
2. As the reference was received on Samadhan Portal, it is pre-assumed that the reference has also been
received by the respective parties through Samadhan Portal.
3. A period of more than three months has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim
as directed and expected by the Government.
4. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
5. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering ―no claim‖ filed by the second party.
6. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 825.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार इंजडयन यल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और असम ृेरोजलयम मज़िूर संघ के बीच
अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, गुवािाटी, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 13/2011) को
जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 04.05.2026 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-30011/12/2011-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Assam Petroleum Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. L-30011/12/2011-(IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
PRESENT:
Smt. Indira Barman, M.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 13 of 2011.
PARTIES:
The Secretary, Assam Petroleum Mazdoor Union, GNB Road, Abiram House, Narangi, Guwahati-
781003. …….Workmen/Union.
-vs-
The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., NEISO, East Point Tower, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-781021 and
Sri B. Thosam
Chaliha, Guwahati POL Transport Contractor & other contractors, dealers, Distributors of IOCL, NEISO, 88 Pub
Sarania Road, Chandmari, PO- Silpukhuri, Guwahati-781003.
…….. Management/Contractor/Employer.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4215
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Workmen/Union
: Mr. A. Dasgupta, Sr. Advocate
For the Management of IOCL.
: Mr. Dilip Dey, Ld. Advocate.
For the Contractors
: Mr. Ranjan Sarma, Ld. Advocate.
: Ms. M. Paul, Ld. Advocate
For the Contractor M/s Nanesh Trading Pvt. : Ms. Krishna Devi, Ld. Advocate
For the Contractor M/S Chandmal Serawgi & Co.
: Mr. Amit Jain, Ld. Advocate
INDUSTRY
:
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
STATE
:
Assam.
Date of Award
:
05-02-2026.
AWARD
Case is fixed up today during special campaign for disposal of old cases. As per last order dated 18-12-2025,
fresh notice was issued to the workmen/Union as per recorded address under Speed post informing them that the case
is fixed up today i.e. 05-02-2026 and as per the postal track consignment, notice was delivered to the workman/union
on 01-01-2026 but today also the workmen/Union is remained absent till 2.20 p.m. Mr. Dilip Dey, learned Advocate
for the Management of IOCL, Guwahati is present. The Suppliers/Contractors viz. M/S B. Thomas Chaliha & other
contractors, dealers, Distributors of IOCL, NEISO, Guwahati are appeared through Ms. M. Paul, Ld. Advocate. The
Contractor viz. M/S Nanesh Trading Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Chandmal Serawgi & Co. are absent without any step.
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, Ministry of Labour and Employment has
referred the schedule dispute to this Tribunal through the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati,
by Order No. L-30011/12/2011-IR (M) dated 21-07-2011 for adjudication.
On receiving Order No. L-30011/12/2011-IR (M) dated 21-07-2011 from the Under Secretary, IR(M),
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi Reference case No. 13 of 2011 was registered
on 10-08-2011 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties, directing them to appear and submit their written
statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the notice of Strike of APMU dated 15/6/2010 on the General Manager, IOCL, NEISO, Guwahati
is proper? If so, whether the 6 points demands contained in APMU letter No.APMU/HO/151/2009 dated 25-
05-2010 is justified? If so what relief the contract labour are entitled to?‖
The workmen represented by the Secretary, Assam Petroleum Mazdoor Union, Guwahati Sri Ramen Das
submitted the Written Statement on behalf of the Union stating that the workmen were engaged by the
agents/transporters of Indian Oil Corporation Oil India Ltd., Numuligarh Refineries, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and as such they are the contract labourers of the Principal
Employer i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Oil India Ltd., Bharat Petroleum etc. The present workmen were engaged in
different petrol pumps owned by Indian Oil Corporation and the employees of transporters carrying petroleum
products including Gas cylinders of Indian Oil Corporation. It is stated that the petrol pumps of IOC, engaging
different employees, are of two groups one A side group petrol pump being operated by direct supervision of Indian
Oil Corporation and the another group of petrol pump is B side petrol pump where the dealers have absolute control
over their employees. All those employees of A and B side group are engaged for supply of different petroleum
products manufactured by Indian Oil Corporation. It is stated that the present workmen are the employees of the
Contractor/dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and as such they are contractual labour, the Oil companies are the
principal employer and dealers or transports so engaged by the Indian Oil Corporation is contractor. It is submitted
that the concerned workers are not secured by Provident Fund, Employees State Insurance benefit etc and the wages
paid to them by the dealers of different Oil companies are far below the prescribed rate of wages as availed by other
contract labourers of Oil India Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited etc. It is
submitted that in course of carrying of petroleum products including Gases, the workers have to face different
situation such as high jack of vehicle and killing of drivers or handyman and in such situation the legal heirs of those
employees do not even get financial help to maintain their liveli hood. It is further stated that when petroleum
products are loaded at the concerned loading centre, the tanker remains locked and the concerned key is kept in the
loading centre itself and the transporter carries petroleum products from the loading centre and delivers the same at
the concerned petrol pump, in which process, the employees have no control over the quality or quantity of the
petroleum products carried through the tankers. It is stated that when a tanker reached the petrol pump, it is unlocked
through a master key kept in the petrol pump. But if it is found that there is shortage in the quantity of the Petroleum
4216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Products or deficiency in its quality, the transporter is made responsible for the same by the authorities of the
concerned petrol pump. In that case due deduction is made by the Pump authorities from the bill amount payable to
the transporter for carrying petroleum products from the loading centre to petrol pump and in turn the transporter used
to deduct the said amount from its employees engaged in the Oil tanker causing harassment to those employees.
Though the Union tried to resolve the problems but failed. Hence, the Union submitted six points charter of demands
on 16-12-2008 i.e. (i) to enhance monthly wages to minimum ₹ 10,000/- to the workers, (ii) for payment of bonus and
other benefits like provident fund, gratuity, ESI (iii) testing of marker to be done at the time of loading and delivery of
products and certificates should be given immediately (iv) that tanker drivers will not be made responsible for any
shortage of products, (v) payment of compensation for accident or attack by antisocial elements in course of duty and
(vi) that Oil companies should take responsibility for payment of wages and other benefits to the workers.
It is further stated by the Union in the written statement that in regard to the aforesaid demands, the
Management of different Oil companies did not pay any hid to it and hence the Union had to issue strike notice on 15-
06-2010 to the various oil companies supplying petrol and Gas to the petrol pump and Gas distribution centres for not
settling the six points demands charter on the issue of revision of wages and other benefits for the workers engaged in
Gas/Oil tankers, Petrol pumps, Gas agencies and cylinder carrying trucks. Rather the management adopted a policy of
victimization to the members of the Union. It is submitted in the written statement that the dealers of North
Lakhimpur and Dhemaji restored to harassment on tanker drivers, but Management instead of taking step black listed
the Tankers whimsically. Hence the members of the Union issued strike notice that they would boycott loading and
unloading of IOCL‘s products from 5 a.m. on 1st July,2010 to 9 a.m. of 5th July,2010 demanding settlement of their
demand charter. It is stated that on issuance of strike notice, notice of conciliation was issued on 30-06-2010 but
inspite of conciliation proceeding, the dispute was not settled and accordingly submitted failure report u/s 12 (4) of
the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 and sent the same before this Court for adjudication as to whether the notice of strike
dated 15-06-20210 is proper and if so, whether the six points demands dated 25-05-2010 is justified. Therefore,
prayed to pass award directing the Management to take steps for implementation of the six points demands.
Lateron, Union also filed additional written statement stating that the employees employed by the agents of
I.O.C., called as dealers, contractors agents of IOC should be considered as the contract labour of I.O.C. Limited; they
should be given the minimum wages of ₹ 10,000/- ; provisions of Provident Fund, benefits of ESI for the workmen
are to be ensured; some measures should be taken that the truck drivers will not be responsible for any shortage of
products and testing markers should be done at the time of loading and delivery of products and certificate should be
issued immediately. It is stated that the strike was intervened by the authorities of Assam State Labour Commissioner
and as the matter pertains to Govt. of India, it was sent to Central Labour Commissioner. It is averred that as the
business of different Oil sectors were affected, the Management of I.O.C. participated in conciliation proceeding
before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) . As such it can be presumed that Indian Oil Corporation Limited
represented their dealers i.e. petrol pump owners, tanker owners, LPG Gas Agencies etc. So, the present dispute is
between different agents of IOCL and their workers is an Industrial Dispute but the conciliation failed. It is submitted
that the present Industrial Dispute between the workers of different agents of IOC Limited and their employers
represented by IOC is maintainable. It is further submitted by the Union in the additional written statement that the
relation between IOC Limited and the workers employed by their agents is in existence in as much as the IOC
Limited can direct its agent not to engage any particular workman who, in their opinion, does not fulfill the requisite
standard of work. It is stated that on different occasions the wages payable to the employees of the dealers and agents
were fixed through conciliation agreement where IOC (AOD) Limited was a party to the conciliation. The strike
notice, in dispute here, was also served on the IOC Limited, the copies of which were sent to the respective dealers
and contractors, and as such present dispute is maintainable.
The Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (here in after called as IOC) submitted written statement
stating inter alia that since there is no relationship of employer and employee between IOC and the claimants, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of reference. They denied that A Site outlets are operated on direct
supervision of IOC or that the dealers selling therefrom are to perform their duties according to the day-to-day
direction of IOC. The answering Management denied that the relationship between IOC and dealers is that of
principal employer and contractor and also denied that the employees of the dealers are contract labour in relation to
IOC. It is stated that IOC does not involve in any way in negotiations or settlements relating to wages of the
employees of Dealers or Carriers and IOC is not a party to settlement of wages of contract labour. The answering
opposite party submitted that IOC is not responsible for the quantum of wages paid by the Dealers to their employees
or for their benefit, however the agreement in standard form between IOC and the carriers requires the carriers to
observe all health and safety measures in force from time to time. It is stated that I.O.C. never received letter dated
16-12-2008 and I.O.C. not being employer of the claimants did not respond to their claims, and not having any
relationship either of employer and employee or of principal employer and contract labour between IOC and the
persons engaged by the dealers and carriers, the claims of the Union cannot be granted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
case of the claimants.
The transport contractor M/S Nanesh Trading Private Limited submitted its written statement stating interalia
that he is a transport contractor for the works of Management (IOC) on contract basis. It is stated by the answering
opposite party that as the workers were engaged to do the work of IOC, hence IOC is the authority to fix the wages,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4217
bonus, provident fund, and all other benefits for workmen and as such the answering contractor has no liability upon
the workmen who engaged for IOC. It is stated that the IOC is management authority of the workers who worked for
it and as such the workers under Contractor are said to be employees of I.O.C. and the present Contractor is not a
necessary party in the present case.
The transport contractor M/s Chandmall Sarawgi & Co submitted written statement submitting that the
present reference case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. all the dealers and contractors of I.O.C. working in
Assam. The answering opposite party submitted that the claim of the workmen is highly exorbitant as the only source
of income of the contractors is the commission payable by the I.O.C. to the contractors and in respect of other claims
of the workmen regarding payment of bonus and other benefits, the answering opposite party is complying also
statutory provisions. It is stated that employees are responsible for all losses during transit except force majors as the
employee‘s taking delivery from the depot are responsible to deliver the same to the destination and it is the
transporter who suffers the loss for no fault of their own.
The opposite parties suppliers/contractors Bidhan Kumar Das, Tarani Kanta Dutta, M/s Radheshyam
Dhunaka, Jyoti Service Station, N.K. Hazarika, M/s Agarwala Barua and Co., Iada Refill Centre Mawryngkheng,
Dey‘s Service Station, opposite party M/s Anu Chakrabarty, opposite party B. T. Chaliha, Rama Kant Giri,
Samarendra Nath Das, Bhagwan Adinath Bulk Carriers, Janusa Auto Service, Manoj Jain, Sudhir Carrier, Sumit
Kumar Sogani, Danmal Sogani & Sons, Jaintia Oil Agency, Jaintia Auto Agency, Nongtdu Service Station, Dhar
Service Station, Lumshnong Service Station, Raj Filing Centre, Shallam Syngkon, Rabin Deka, Thakuria Brother,
G.S. & Co., Perfect Service Station, Eastern Commerce, Urvasi Auto Service, Ashim Hazarika, Ashim Chakravorty,
Somen Maitra, Subir Maitra, Nawab Lal Yadav, United Hills Super Service Station, Arun Barpatra Gogoin, Ashok
Auto Trader, Upendra kumar Dutta, Jyoti Prasad Lama, Dharmeswar Bailong, Tilak Dutta, Baby Chaudhury,
M/s Bhattacharjee Brothers, M/s Ali Brothers, M/s Tarun Ch Baruah, Dipu Service Station, Bajrang Lal Ray,
M/s. Mamang Borang, Opposite parties Rakhal Ch Das, Bhadreswar Talukadar, Shiv Shakti Carries, Suresh Kumar
Dutta, and opposite parties Manoj Carrier, M/s Kargil Martyrs Service Station filed their written statement
respectively in the same tune that there is no cause of action against the answering opposite parties, the reference is
bad on account of mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties for not making party the dealers, distributors and
transport contractors who‘s right and interest are likely to be affected by the outcome of this case and that the
reference is not maintainable in Law as well as in fact. It is stated that the answering contractors/suppliers are
providing all the benefits to the workers according to their entitlement. It is stated that in this case the answering
contractors/suppliers are not involved in the dispute as the Union never raised any demands against them and as such,
they are not necessary party to this dispute. As regards to the schedule of dispute, the answering contractors/suppliers,
submitted that the demand of the Union for minimum wages of ₹ 10,000/- is unreasonable. They submitted that some
of the contractors/suppliers/tanker owners had not been able to pay/clear the wages to their workers due to their poor
earning for minimum and irregular utilization of their oil tankers by the Oil company. As regards to demand for
payments of bonus and other benefits, it is answered that they have been paying all the benefits duly in time except
the workers who are engaged considering the volume of their business operation as they were not entitled to receive
the same as per rules. With regards to testing of marker on loading and delivery of product, the answering
contractors/suppliers submitted that the issue relates to decision of the Management of the Oil company for ensuring
correct quality of their products, but it should be carried out in due time and due manner so that no harassment is
caused to innocent workers. Regarding responsibilities of drivers and cleaners with regard to product shortage, the
answering opposite parties categorically stated that though the petroleum products are transshipped through oil
tankers under Lock and key, product shortage, if any, found in delivery of the petroleum product are always deducted
by the Oil Company from the transportation bills payable to the contractor/suppliers, who, in turn, recover the same
from the guilty drivers and cleaners and as such calling for strike by the Union on unjustified demand without
correcting their own mistakes i.e. acknowledging false shortage by putting their signatures on invoice cum challan,
was not proper. The abovementioned answering opposite parties further submitted that as regards the demand for
payment of compensation for accident or attack by anti-social elements in course of duty, the transport contractor
have comprehensive/liability insurance for their vehicle as well as for the crew members and they are always ready to
give the legitimate due to the workers, following due procedure of law. As regards the demand that Oil company
should take the responsibility for payment of wages and other benefits to the workers, the answering opposite parties
replied that in the instant case, not having requisite member of workers in their establishment and because of the
nature of job performed by them, payment being made by the contractors to their workers, demand for paying wages
and benefits by the Oil company does not arise. It is further submitted by the answering Opposite party that notice of
strike dated 15-06-2020 issued by APMU was uncalled and demands made thereunder was not tenable in law. In this
premise the answering opposite parties prayed to dismiss the case.
Sri Ramen Das, the General Secretary, Assam Petroleum Mazdoor Union, Guwahati filed his evidence on
affidavit as workmen witness-1 reiterating the same facts as narrated in their written statement.
Workmen witness-2 Sri Nipen Das working as the petrol pump operator in Nava Service Station, Zoo Road,
Guwahati, a Group-A side petrol pump, as well as one of the members of Assam Petroleum Mazdoor Union also filed
his evidence in chief on affidavit alleging depriving basis amenities as ensured by different labour legislations, not
providing Provident Fund, Employees State Insurance benefits etc. and paying less than the minimum wage at
4218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
prescribed rate and prayed to direct I.O.C. to ensure the implementations of different labour welfare legislations and
to ensure that the wages paid to the employees employed in different petrol pumps, oil tankers, gas tankers etc. at par
with other contract labourers of Indian Oil Corporation, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. etc.
Evidence of workmen witness-2 is fully corroborated by workmen witness No.3 Sri Sujit Kumar one of the
pump operators in New Energy Station, Jorabat, Meghalaya.
Workmen witness No.4 Sri Arjun Kumar Katel and workmen witness-5 Sri Narayan Chetry the drivers of
Oil Tankers for carrying petroleum products to different petrol pumps owned by the Indian Oil Corporation who are
also members of Assam Petroleum Mazdoor Union in their evidence-in-chief on affidavit stated categorically that
they were engaged through transporter so engaged by I.O.C. and as such the workmen of this Industrial Dispute may
be called as contract labour, consequently the I.O.C. is principal employer and dealer or transporter so engaged by the
Indian Oil Corporation are contractors. They further stated in their evidence on affidavit that they are engaged in
dangerous occupation and have to face different situation but those workers are not compulsorily ensured by the
Principal Employer or by the Contractor and are deprived of their basis amenities as per labour legislations for which
the Union submitted six points charter of demands on 16-02-2009 to the concerned authority.
In this case, the workmen/Union submitted evidence on affidavit of five witnesses in support of their claim
statement but lateron they failed to appear for cross examination. Record reveals that the case is pending for cross
examination of workmen witnesses since 25-09-2019, and since 20-10-2022 the workmen remained absent without
any step. Even on receipt of fresh notice on 01-01-2026, the workmen did not appear today i.e. on 05-02-2026 when
the case is taken in special campaign. Thus it appears that inspite on giving several opportunities, the workmen
witnesses did not turn up for cross examination. Hence their evidence, can not be considered in deciding the dispute
in issue.
Thus, it is abundantly clear that the workmen/Union are not interested to proceed with the case. I find that
the Union/workmen failed to establish their case. The Industrial Dispute is therefore disposed of without any relief.
Let a no relief award be drawn up.
ORDERED
The Industrial dispute is dismissed. Let a no relief Award be drawn up. Copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the appropriate Government, as per procedure.
INDIRA BARMAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2026
का.आ. 826.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्रीय
सरकार इंजडयन यल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससण च़ौिरी एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री भारत
भूर्र् के बीच अनुबंि में जनििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ठरफरेन्स
न.- 246/2015) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
04.05.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-26]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2026
S.O. 826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 246/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; M/s Chaudhary Enterprises and Shri Bharat Bhushan which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 04.05.2026.
[No. Z-16025/04/2026-(IR(M)-26]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4219
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 246/2024
Shri Bharat Bhushan S/o Late Shri Balwant Singh through General Secretary, Delhi Karamchari Sangh (Regd.) W-4,
Opposite Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govind Puri, New Delhi-110019.
…Claimant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Bijwasan, Delhi-110061.
2. The Proprietor, M/s Chaudhary Enterprises, 2A/3 Chandrapuri Colony, Dhooli Pyau, Mathura, Uttar
Pradesh-281001.
…Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/I-
56/2024-IR dated 23.08.2024 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:
The Schedule
„Whether the services of workman Shri Bharat Bhushan S/o Late Shri Balwant Singh have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably w.e.f. 01.10.2023 by the management of M/s Chaudhary
Enterprises contractor of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi? If so, then what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this regard?‟
Shri Bharat Bhushan Vs. The General Manager, Indian Oil Coporation Ltd. & anr.
2.
In the endorsement made in 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 fifteen 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 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. In pursuance
to the notices sent, none appeared on behalf of the claimant. No claim statement was filed on behalf of workman
despite repeated adjournments. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on
merits.
4.
In these circumstances, 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.
Date: 02.03.2026
AJAY KUMAR JAIN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 827.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
यूजनयन बैंक फ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (77/2023)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-II)-43]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 77/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
4220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-43]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR [M.P.]
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/77/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Madhya Pradesh Bank Karmchari Sangh Indore,
6/a Vaishali Nagar Indore,
Indore (M.P.)-452009
Workman
V/s
Union Bank Bhawan,
Zalariya
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 12th day of February, 2026)
As per letter dated 03/11/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‟) as per
Notification No. RLC-7(11)/2023 dt. 03/11/2023. The dispute under reference relates to:-
“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, to terminate the services of the workman
Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan is justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled for?"
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. The Union appeared
and filed its statement of claim through its representatives. The Learned Counsel for the management Bank also
appeared and filed Vakalatnama on his behalf, Application from the Union side u/s 36(4) of the Act was filed and
allowed after hearing thereafter, none appeared from the Bank. No written statement was filed vide order dated
08.07.2025, the Reference proceeded ex-parte against the Bank.
In evidence, the workman union filed affidavit and enquiry documents as per list. I have heard argument of
Union Representative Mr. Shrikant Sahastrabuddhey and have gone through the record. The Union Representative has
filed written submission also which is on record.
The case of the workman is mainly that while he was in employment of Bank, he was issued a memo of
charges on 16.10.2019 leveling certain allegations of misconduct against him. He submitted his reply to the charges
on 30.10.2019. The Bank conducted enquiry with respect to the charges on 07.12.2020. The charges could not be
proved. The Bank again issued a letter, it was received by the workman on 12.03.2021 stating that the enquiry
conducted against him was canceled due administrative reasons and new enquiry will be conducted. Thereafter, the
management conducted an enquiry and terminated the workman on the basis of enquiry report which is against the
Bipartite Settlement and Shastri Award applicable to the parties in this respect because no second enquiry can be
conducted on the basis of same charges. The Union has prayed that holding the second enquiry and enquiry report as
well punishment order on the basis of enquiry report is vitiated in law, the workman be reinstated with back-wages
and benefits.
In evidence, the workman union filed his affidavit of the workman which is uncontroverted and also the
documents with respect to enquiry which are charge-sheet, enquiry proceedings, brief submitted by Presenting
Officer, Reply of the workman, Letter from the Bank that the enquiry is cancelled due to administrative reasons,
Reply of the workman, proceedings of the second enquiry and Termination letter.
The written submission have also been filed in addition which are part of record. I have gone through the
written submission as well the record.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4221
Perusal of record and affidavit reveals, that the charge which was leveled against the workman vide
charge sheet dated 26.06.2020 was that he had two PAN cards in his name, also that his class 10th mark-sheet for the
year 2011 was false and forged, he had four driving licenses with different date of births, he had more than one Voter
Card and Adhar Cards with different date of births, as this action is misconduct by way of willfully furnishing false
information with respect to his qualification at the time of his appointment.
Case of the workman is that the first enquiry was conducted, but before the Enquiry Officer submitted
enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority cancelled the enquiry and ordered a fresh enquiry. According to the
workman union fresh enquiry could not be conducted hence, the second enquiry which was conducted afresh is
vitiated in law. Consequently, the punishment is also vitiated in law.
The relevant provisions of Bipartite Settlement, applicable in the case in hand in this respect are being
reproduced as follows:-
―DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND PROCEDURE THEREFOR—
19.1. In supersession of paragraphs 18.20. 18.24 and 18.28 of the Desai Award, a person against whom
disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall in the first instance, be informed of the particulars of
the charge against him and he shall have a proper opportunity to give his explanation as to such particulars.
Final orders shall be passed after due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. With this
object in view, the following shall apply.
19.2. By the expression “offence” shall be meant any offence involving moral turpitude for which an
employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of Law.
19.3. (a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be
otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he
may also be suspended.
(b) If he be convicted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any
lesser form of punishment as mentioned in Clause 19.6 below.
(c) If he be acquitted, it shall be open to the management to proceed against him under the provisions
set out below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharges. However, in the event of the
management deciding after enquiry not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination
of service with three months‟ pay and allowances in lieu of notice. And he shall be deemed to have been
on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances minus
such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and to all other privileges for the period of suspension
provided that if he be acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of such
pay and allowances as the management may deem proper, and the period of his absence shall not be
treated as a period spent on duty unless the management so direct.
(d) If he prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and is acquitted, in case he
had already been dealt with as above and he applies to the management for reconsideration of his case,
the management shall review his case and may either reinstate him or proceed against him under the
provisions set below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharge, and the provision set out
above as to pay, allowances and the period of suspension will apply, the period up-to-date for which full
pay and allowances have not been drawn being treated as one of suspension. In the event of the
management deciding, after enquiry not to continue him in service, the employee shall be liable only for
termination with three months‟ pay and allowances in lieu of notice, as directed above.
19.4. If after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee or to get him prosecuted, for an offence, he
is not put on trial within a year of the commission of the offence. the management may then deal with him as
if he had committed an act of “gross misconduct” or of “minor misconduct”, as defined below; provided that if
the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuses to do so or come to the conclusion that there
is no case for prosecution it shall be open to the management to proceed against the employee under the
provisions set out below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharge, but he shall be deemed to have
been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances
and to all other privileges for such periodn the event of the management deciding, after enquiry, not to
continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination with three months‟ pay and allowances in lieu
of notice as provided in Clause 19.3 supra. If within the pendency of the proceedings thus instituted he is put
on trial such proceedings shall be stayed pending the completion of the trial, after which the provisions
mentioned in Clause 19.3 above shall apply.
19.5.By the expression “gross misconduct” shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the
part of an employee:
(a) engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his duties except with the written
permission of the bank;
4222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(b) unauthorised disclosure of information regarding the affairs of the bank or any of its customers
or any other person connected with the business of the bank which is confidential or the disclosure of
which is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the bank;
(c) drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank;
(d) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers;
(e) willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or
of a superior;
(f) habitual doing of any act which amounts to “minor misconduct” as defined below, „‟habitual”
meaning a course of action taken or persisted in notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions
censure or warnings have been administered or an adverse remark has been entered against him;
(g) willful slowing down in performance of work;
(h) gambling or betting on the premises of the bank;
(i) speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any commodity whether on his account or that of any
other persons;
(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or
likely to involve the bank in serious loss;
(k) giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from a customer or an employee of the bank;
(l) abetment or instigation of any of the acts or omissions above-mentioned.
19.6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may :
(a) be dismissed without notice; or
(b) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark entered against him; or
(c) be fined; or
(d) have his increment stopped; or
(e) have his misconduct condoned and be merely discharged.
19.7.By the expression “minor misconduct” shall be meant any of the following acts and omissions on the
part of an employee:
(a) absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds;
(b) unpunctual or irregular attendance;
(c) neglect of work, negligence in performing duties;
(d) breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running of any department;
(e) committing nuisance on the premises of the bank;
(f) entering or leaving the premises of the bank except by an entrance provided for the purpose:
(g) attempt to collect or collecting moneys within the premises of the bank without the previous
permission of the management or except as allowed by any rule or law for the time being in force;
(h) holding or attempting to hold or attending any meeting on the premises of the bank without the
previous permission of the management or except in accordance with the provisions of any rule or law for
the time being in force;
(i) canvassing for union membership or collection of union dues or subscriptions within the premises
of the bank without the previous permission of the management or except in accordance with the
provisions of any rule or law for the time being in force;
(j) failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or attention towards officers, customers or other
employees of the bank, unseemly or unsatisfactory behaviour while on “duty;
(k) marked disregard of ordinary requirements of decency and cleanliness in person or dress;
(l) incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive.
19.8. An employee found guilty of minor misconduct may :
(a) be warned or censured; or
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4223
(b) have an adverse remark entered against him; or
(c) have his increment stopped for a period not longer than six months.
19.9. A workman found guilty of misconduct, whether gross or minor, shall not be given more than one
punishment in respect of any one charge.
19.10. In all cases in which action under Clauses 19.4, 19.6 or 19.8 may be taken, the proceedings held
shall be entered in a book kept specially for the purpose, in which the date on which the proceedings are held,
the name of the employee proceeded against, the charge or charges, the evidence on which they are based, the
explanation and the evidence, if any, tendered, by the said employee, the finding or findings, with the grounds
on which they are based and the order passed shall be recorded with sufficient fullness, as clearly as possible
and such record of the proceedings shall be signed by the officer who holds them, after which a copy of such
record shall be furnished to the employee concerned if so requested by him in writing.
19.11. When it is decided to take any disciplinary action against an employee such decision shall be
communicated to him within three days thereof.
19.12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows :—
(a) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a
charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for
enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation so also to
produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defence. He shall be permitted to appear before the
Officer conducting the enquiry, to cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and to
examine witness and produce other evidence in his defence. He shall also be permitted to be defended—
(i)
(x) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a
member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry.
(y) where the employee is not a member of any trade union of bank employees on the
aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank
in which he is employed:
OR
(ii)
at the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or all India
Organisation to which such union is affiliated;
OR
(iii)
with the Bank‟s permission, by a lawyer.
He shall also be given a hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge
is established against him.
(b) Pending such inquiry he may be suspended, but if on the conclusion of the enquiry it is decided to
take no action against him he shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitled to the full wages
and allowances and to all other privileges for the period of suspension; and if some punishment other
than dismissal is inflicted the whole or a part of the period of suspension, may, at the discretion of the
management, be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the wages, allowance, etc.
(c) In awarding punishment by way of disciplinary action the authority concerned shall take into
account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the employee and any other
aggravating or extenuating circumstances, that may exist. Where sufficiently extenuating circumstances
exist the misconduct may be condoned and in case such misconduct is of the “gross” type he may be
merely discharged, with or without notice or on payment of a month‟s pay and allowances, in lieu of
notice. Such discharge may also be given where the evidence is found to be insufficient to sustain the
charge and where the bank does not, for some reason or other, think it expedient to retain the employee in
question any longer in service. Discharge in such cases shall not be deemed to amount to disciplinary
action.
(d) If the representative defending the employee is an employee of the same bank at an outstation
branch within the same State, he shall be relieved on special leave (on full pay and allowances) to
represent the employee and be paid one return fare. The class of fare to which he will be entitled would be
the same as while travelling on duty. In case of any adjournment at the instance of the bank, he may be
asked to resume duty and if so, will be paid fare for the consequential journey. He shall also be paid 50%
of the halting allowance forthe period he stays at the place of the enquiry defending the employee as also
for the days of the journeys which are undertaken at the bank‟s cost
(e) enquiry need not be held if—
4224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
the misconduct is such that even if proved the bank does not intend to award the
punishment of discharge or dismissal; and
(ii)
the bank has issued a show cause notice to the employee advising him of the
misconduct and the punishment for which he may be liable for such
misconduct; and
(iii)
the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the
aforesaid show cause notice. However, if the employee concerned requests a
hearing regarding the nature of punishment, such a hearing shall be given,
19.13. Where the provisions of this Chapter conflict with the procedures or rules in force in any bank
regarding disciplinary action, they shall prevail over the latter. There may, in such procedures or rules, exist
certain provisions outside the scope of the provisions contained in this Chapter enabling the bank to dismiss,
warn, censure, fine an employee or have his increment stopped or have an adverse remark entered against
him. In all such cases also the provisions set out in Clauses 19.10 and 19.11 above shall apply.
19.14. The Chief Executive Officer or the principal officer in India, of a bank, or an alternate officer at
the Head Office or principal office appointed by him for the purpose, shall decide which officer (s) shall be
empowered to hold enquiry and take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment. He shall
also decide which officer or a body higher in status than the Officer authorised to take disciplinary action
shall be empowered to deal with and dispose of any appeals against orders passed in disciplinary matters. The
names of such officers or the body who are empowered to pass the original orders or hear and dispose of the
appeal shall, from time to time, be published on the bank‟s notice board. Such appellate authority shall, if the
employee concerned is so desirous, in a case of dismissal, hear him or his representatives before disposing of
the appeal. In cases where hearings are not required, and appeal shall be disposed of within two months from
the date of receipt thereof. In cases where hearings are required to be given and are requested for, such
hearings shall commence within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal and shall be disposed of
within one month from the date of conclusion of such hearings. The period within which an appeal can be
preferred shall be 45 days from the date on which the original order has been communicated in writing to the
employee concerned.
19.15. Every employee who is dismissed or discharged shall be given a service certificate, without
avoidable delay.
19.16. Any notice, order, charge-sheet, communication or intimation which is meant for an individual
employee, shall be in a language understood by the employee concerned. In the case of an absent employee
notice shall be sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due. If an employee refuses to accept any
notice, order, charge-sheet, written communication or written intimation in connection with disciplinary
proceedings when it is sought to be served upon him, such refusal shall be deemed to be a good service upon
him, provided such refusal takes place in the presence of at least two persons including the person who goes to
effect service upon him. Where such notice, order, charge-sheet, communication or intimation is sent by
registered post with acknowledgement due, the same shall, at the discretion of the officer of the bank
concerned, be deemed to have been duly served upon the employee, if the same has been refused by the
employee.”
There is nothing in the provisions mentioned as above to show that a fresh enquiry or second enquiry cannot
be ordered even when the enquiry was earlier conducted. The workman side could not refer any judgment laying a
proposition of law that a second enquiry or a fresh enquiry cannot be ordered even during pendency of first enquiry.
Hence, the argument from the workman side that the second enquiry itself is against law and malafide cannot be
accepted. The workman side could not point any defect with respect to substance or procedure in form of any
illegality or material irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The charges are acts of moral turpitude hence, major
punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charges proved.
In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-
AWARD
“Holding the action of the management of Union Bank of India, to terminate the services of the workman
Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan, justified, the workman is held entitled to no relief.”
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 12-02-2026
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4225
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 828.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
iatkc uS”kuy बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (10/2017)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-II)-44]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.10/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-44]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR (M.P.)
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/10/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S. (Retd.)
Kashinath Chadar S/o Shri Jalam Singh Chadar,
R/o – Shivnagar, Hinotia, H.No. 21, 80 Ft. Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Workman
Vs.
Branch Manager,
Branch – Malik Market,
Punjab National Bank,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
(AWARD)
(Passed on this 05th day of February - 2026)
The workman has filed petition under Section 10 (2-A (2&3)) of Industrial Disputes Act, as amended vide
Amendment Act of 2010 (in short the ‗Act‘) with the case that he was employed as a daily rated employee with
Punjab National Bank Malik Market Branch and worked their continuously from 09.02.2010 to 25.08.2016 when his
services were terminated without any notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the Act and is illegal. He
raised a dispute in this respect which could not be conciliated within 45 days. Hence, after obtaining a certificate in
this respect, he filed a petition seeking his reinstatement with back wages and benefits.
Case of the Management Bank is that, he was engaged on as and when required basis for the work of
cleaning as a daily wager and was paid for it. He never worked for 240 days in any year. The Bank issued directions
for initiating recruitment process of persons who were or had been working or had worked in the Bank as a casual
labour. He also participated in the recruitment test but could not succeed. The Management has requested that the
petition be dismissed.
No evidence has been filed by the petitioner workman. Management also not proposed any evidence.
At the stage of argument also, none appeared for petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Kewat Learned Counsel for
petitioner appeared and submitted his arguments.
4226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The initial burden to prove his case is on the petitioner in which he has failed. Hence, holding his case not
proved, the petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Petition dismissed.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 05.02.2026
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2026
का.आ. 829.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
प्रिासजनक कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन मु्यालय (नागठरक सुरक्षा), ृंचकुला ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds
iapkV (46/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-107]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2026
S.O. 829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Admn. Commander
Station Head Quarter ( Civil Defence), Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026-(IR(B-I)-107]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer).
ID No.46/2024
Registered on:-16.10.2019
Jaspal S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh R/o 391 Beer Ghaghar, Chandi Mandir, Panchkula, Haryana.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. Admn. Commander Station Head Quarter (Civil Defence), Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana.
2. M/s Sun Rise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd., 2253/1 2nd Floor, Pipli Wala Town, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR for workman.
Sh. Satinder Singh, AR for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 already ex parte.
Award :10.03.2026
1. Workman has filed the present claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act) against his termination w.e.f. 27.10.2018 claiming reinstatement into service along
with continuity of service and full back wages.
2. It is maintained by the workman in the claim petition that that he was appointed as sweeper/safai karamchari
on 01.06.2013 by respondent no.1 at minimum wages prescribed by the Central Government. But the said
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4227
minimum wages were never paid to him. Management has unlawfully deducted 12% EPF share, 1.75% ESI
and Rs.300/- as TDS from his salary despite of the fact that his total wages comes under the ambit of tax free
limit. He was working under respondent no.1 directly, but respondent no.1 in order to avoid its liability always
shows his employment in record under different contractors, which tantamount to unfair labour practice.
3. It is further maintained that workman including 200 other safai karamcharis of respondent no.1 raised the
demand for non-deduction of TDS from the wages paid by respondent no.1. However, their demand was not
accepted. Other workers working under respondent no.1 formed union and subsequently his services were
dispensed with w.e.f. 27.10.2018. It is also maintained that respondent no.1 retained juniors in service and also
made fresh appointments after termination of his services and no compensation was paid under Section 25F of
the Act. Thus, there is violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Hence this petition.
4. Notice of the petition was given to respondents.
5. Respondent no.1 filed reply to the claim petition maintaining therein that the workman has not come to the
Court with clean hands as he was appointed as sweeper by respondent no.2 (contractor) at minimum wage rate
as prescribed by the Central Government. As per Government Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Ex.R-1), Non-
Cantonment Military Stations have been authorized to outsource conservancy safaiwala. The answering
respondent entered into contract with various private agencies for outsourcing of sweepers (safai karamcharis).
In July 2018, the answering respondent entered into contract with M/s AA Foundation for safety and M/s
Sunrise Facilitator Pvt. Ltd. through e-tendering for outsourcing of safai karamcharis to provide conservancy
services in Chandi Mandir Military Station for the financial year 2018-19. Respondent no.2 submits bill for
payment for the days the safai karamcharis performed their duties and answering respondent is only
responsible to forward these bills to PCDA Western Command Chandigarh to release payment directly to the
contractor‘s account. Salary is paid to the workman by the contractor. Compliance of PF, ESI Rules etc. is
carried out by the contractor as per contract agreement. Answering respondent has no responsibility of
disbursement of wages and deduction of EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai karamcharis formed
union in the headquarter, which is not permitted and also carried out demonstration inside the premises of
Station Headquarter on 27.10.2018 and failed to perform his duties. Thereafter, answering respondent asked
respondent no.2 to ask the workers to perform their duties. Answering respondent has no role or responsibility
for termination services of the workman. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the
answering respondent and the workman. In view of Army Headquarter Letter, the civilian employees of the
answering respondent cannot organize themselves into trade unions as station headquarter is an administrative
office of the Government of India. In spite of that, workman along with other safai karamcharis formed union
unauthorizedly and indulge in unlawful activities. It is maintained that workman is the employee of contractor
and therefore, termination is the prerogative of the contractor. It is prayed that the claim be dismissed.
6. Respondent no.2 also filed reply maintaining therein that workman worked with it w.e.f. 05.07.2018 to
27.10.2018. Respondent no.2 has not terminated the services of workman. Workman was paid minimum
wages as declared by the Centre Government from time to time. Workman himself left the job at his own will
without notice. It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
Evidence of workman:-
7. In order to prove his case, workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit
WW1/A and has been cross examined by the AR for respondent no.1. AR for workman closed the evidence on
08.10.2024.
Evidence of respondent no.1:-
8. Respondent no.1 examined Colonel K P Singh S/o Late Colonel P. P. Singh, OIC, Civic Cell, Station Head
Quarter, Chandi Mandir Panchkula as MW1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. AR for respondent no.1 closed the evidence on 29.01.2026.
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Exhibit
1.
Policy
18.03.2011
Ex.R-1
2.
Agreement with respondent no.2
05.07.2018
Ex.R-2
3.
Copy of ECR of EPFO
Ex.R-3
4.
Letter of Head Quarter
22.04.1980
Ex.R-4
9. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2023.
4228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Submissions of workman:-
10.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed by
respondent no.1 under a camouflage agreement with respondent no.2. The workman was appointed directly by
respondent no.1 on 01.06.2013 as sweeper and his services were dispensed with on 27.10.2018 without any
reason in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act as no compensation was paid to the workman and
junior to him were retained in service and fresh appointment were made after termination of the workman. So
far as the agreements between the respondent no.1 & 2 are concerned, they are totally not tenable and is unfair
labour practice. The work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature. The contractor was not having
any license. The contractor has left after three months. No domestic inquiry was held before terminating the
service of the workman, which is mandatory under the Act.
Submissions of respondent no.1:-
11.
On the other hand, AR for respondent no.1 contended that the workman was engaged by respondent
no.2 (contractor) as per agreement executed between respondent no.1 & 2 on outsource basis and there is no
relationship of employer and employee between respondent no.1 and the workman. Wages were paid by the
respondent no.2 to the workman and there was no role of respondent no.1 in appointing or terminating the
services of the workman. Workman is employee of respondent no.2. If there is any violation of provision of
the Act, then it is done by respondent no.2. As per Ex.R3, all dues were paid by the contractor with regard to
EPF and ESI etc. The workman and other safai karamcharis formed union in the Headquarter, which is not
permitted as per Ex.R4. Respondent no.1 being the Government Agency, workman is trying to take benefit of
his appointment by respondent no.2 and has filed a false claim after concealing material facts and claim of the
workman is not maintainable.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
Findings:-
13.
The first contention regarding the applicant is that whether applicant comes within the definition of
workman as is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. I may mention that applicant was appointed as sweeper as
per his claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the applicant was performing
his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to
perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(s) Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of
Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532,has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of
employment/ contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are
not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract
basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be
inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract
basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman.”
14.
Thus Hon‘ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in
plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a
person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or
contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In
view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion the applicant herein
admittedly falls within the definition of ‗workman‘ under Section 2(s) of the Act.
15.
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj
Saluja Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognized tests to find
out whether the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
16.
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been stated in
the claim petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages,
salary, letter of appointment by respondent no.1 or by contractor or anything likewise. Thus, this basic feature
for holding the relationship of employer and employee i.e. between respondent no.1 and workman totally
lacking not in the pleading but also in the evidence submitted by the workman. However, MW1 Colonel K P
Singh in his cross examination has stated that it is responsibility of the contractor to pay monthly wages to the
conservancy staff provided by him. Respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the minimum wages, DC rate to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : मई 9, 2026/वैिाख 19, 1948
4229
the conservancy staff. Contractor is responsible to give notice to the conservancy staff provided by him.
Respondent no.1 has no roll in terminating the services of the workman. Thus, it was the respondent no.2 who
was required to ensure the payment of wages to the workers engaged by him from time to time.
17.
It is also added here that respondent no.1 has also placed on record documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4.
Ex.R-2 is the contract agreement between respondent no.1 & 2. Thus, from the adduced evidence, it emerges
that workman was paid salary by the contractor and he was being controlled and supervised by the contractor.
Thus, there does not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent
no.1. However, there exists relation of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
18.
It is also added here that as per definition of contractor as given in the Section 2(c) of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as Contract Act), respondent no.2 was
supplying contract labour to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.2 would fall under the definition of
contractor. Section 2(c) of the Contract Act is reproduced as under:
“Contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or
articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
19.
The Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa
1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression ―industry‖ as defined in Section 2(j)
of the Act, and has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not.
The triple test is where (a) systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes prima facie is an ―Industry‖ in that enterprise. The workman was
doing work i.e. systematic activity for respondent no.1 at the asking of respondent no.2 and there was
cooperation between the workman and respondent no.2, which involve substantial commercial element for
rendering service to satisfy human wants. Thus, respondent no.2 would be termed as industry.
20.
Workman in his deposition has clearly stated that there was non-compliance of Section 25F, 25G
and 25H of the Act. He also stated that he was appointed on 01.06.2013 and he was paid minimum wages
prescribed by Central Government and was working with respondent no.1. He was not given any
compensation before terminating his services on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination, he has further stated
that his salary used to be credited in his bank account. But he has not placed on record any bank account, in
which his salary was credited in order to enable this Court to see who was making payment to the workman.
However, there is no denial that the workman was paid salary by respondent no.2 (contractor). However, from
the agreement dated 05.07.2018 (Ex.R-2) placed on file by respondent no.1, it emerges that safai karamcharis
were provided by respondent no.2 (contractor) to work with respondent no.1. Thus, workman was employee of
respondent no.2 and not of respondent no.1 as has been discussed above. There does not exist any relationship
of employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.1. However, there exists relation of
employee and employer between the workman and respondent no.2.
21.
Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2. However, as
regards violation of other provisions i.e. Section 25G and 25H of the Act, there is no evidence lead by the
workman. Hence, workman is entitled for compensation from respondent no.2.
22.
It is also added here that there is no iota of evidence that any unfair labour practice used by
respondent no.1 by entering into contract with contractors for supply of safai karamcharis and agreement
executed between respondent no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be any unfair labour practice. So far as contentions
of AR for workman that the work performed by the workman is of perennial in nature and no domestic inquiry
was held before terminating the services of workman are concerned, in this regard, it is pointed out that
workman was entitled only for compensation under Section 25F of the Act by respondent no.2 (contractor) and
no domestic inquiry was required to be conducted. Merely because work is of perennial in nature does not
mean that any right has accrued in favour of the workman to get employment with respondent no.1, which is a
department of Civil Defence run by Government of India and for that regular recruitment procedure is
provided. Workman cannot seek backdoor entry into service. Moreover, workman is not employee of
respondent no.1 being employee of respondent no.2 (contractor).
23.
In view of above discussion, it is held that since respondent no.2 (contractor) is currently not
working with respondent no.1, so keeping in view the tenure of service rendered by the workman and salary
given to him during the period of his stay with the contractor and non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act,
this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman is entitled for compensation.
24.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, the following scheme of
compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:
4230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 9, 2026/VAISAKHA 19, 1948
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
i.
Workman who worked for less than 2 years with contractor shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-.
ii.
Workman who worked for more than 2 years but less than 5 years with contractor shall be entitled
Rs.30,000/-.
iii.
Workman who worked for more than 5 years with contractors shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
25.
Present workman employed on 01.06.2013 and was terminated on 27.10.2018 (more than 5 years),
so he is entitled for Rs.50,000/-.
26.
Respondent no.2 is directed to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the
notification of the award failing which the respondent no.2 shall further pay interest @6% per annum from the
date of award till the date of making payment. It is also added here that in case respondent no.1 requires safai
karamcharis, then workman may be engaged through any contractor on sympathetic ground.
27.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17
of the Act.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer/Link 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.
KUMER
CHAND
MEENA
Digitally signed by
KUMER CHAND MEENA
Date: 2026.05.25
14:02:53 +05'30'